The Solution to the 'Son of Man' Problem

The Solution to the 'Son o f Man' Problem

This page inrenrioi!GI(¥ left blank

THE SOLUTION TO THE 'SON OF MAN' PROBLEM

MAURICE CASEY

.\\ u adark

Copyright @ Maurice Casey, 2009 Published by T&T Clark International A Continuum impriut The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SEI 7NX 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038 www.tandtclark.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitte--d in any form or by any means, clc.ctronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or rctric.\'al system~

without permission in writing from the publishers.

Maurice Casey has asserted his right under the Copyright, Dc.signs and Patcnt.s Act~ 1988> to be identified as the. Author of this work.

First published in hardback as volume 343 of the Library of New Testament Sntdics series, 2007 This edition published, 2009 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Brirish Library

ISBN 10: 0567030709 (paperback) ISBN 13: 9780567030702 (paperback) Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production Limited Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd, King's Lynn, Norfolk

CONTENTS

Prejm·e Abbre11iatio11s CHAPTER

I

CWAPTER 2 CHAPTER

3

CJ.JAPTER 4 CHAPTER

5

C i-IAPTER 6 C i-IAPTER 7

CHAPTER 8 CWAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10 CJ.JAPTER

II

VII

" The State.of Play Tile-Use of the Anunaic.Tcnn (K)1V;(N) u , •Son of Man' The ·son of Man Concepr' Six Authentic Sayings The llealing of the Paralytic (Mark 2.1- 12) Jackal< lla,•e lloles (Man. 8.19-201/luke 9.57-58) The Son of Man io the Heavenly Ulul't (luke 12.8-9// Man. 10.32-33; Mark 8.38) Octl'ayed by a Kiss ( Luke 22.48) Jesus Predicts his Death aod Resurrection Other Synoptic Saying,.:;

56 82 116 144 168 179 195 200 212

Translation and the Use of Scripture. From Sayings of

C i-IAPTER 12

J es-lL~ to the Sy nop•ic Evange-lists The-Johannine-Sayiog.:;

C i-IAPTER 13

Conclusions

274 3 14

Bibliography /1tdex of Scriplllre and Ancien/ Literatllre Index of Modem Aullwrs

321 345 357

246

This page inrenrioi!GI(¥ left blank

PREFACE

T his book was writteo in 2002-4. In 200 1- 4, I hd d a Leverhuhne-Major Research

Fellowship awarded for me to complete all the nec.essal)' research and write the. first drafl of this book. as well as a small monograph on the Similitudes of Enoch. I

am extremely grateflll to the Leverhulme Trust for this award, which enabled me to oomplere this mnssive piece of research. I am also g.rateJUI to all those who have discussed with me the problems of method and of detail which 1his wotk ha..~ emailed. I began research on some-

aspec.ts of the Son of man problem by re.ading for a doc.torate at Durham Uniwrsity under Professor C. K. Barrett. whose extraordinary combination of learning and helpfulness with lack of bure.aucrac.y or interference re.mains a model to which one cao only al>pire. I would paJ1iculal'ly like-to thank also Dr A. Angel, Professor R. Bouckham. the late Professor M. Black, Professor B. D. Chilton, Dr. J. G. Crossley, Professor J. A. Fi11J11yer. Professor D. R. A. Hare. Dr C. Fletcher Louis. Professor R. Keams, tJ1e late Professor B. Lindars. Professor M. MUller, Professor C. M. Tuckeu and Professor W. Walke-r. 1 would ab~o like to thank memberS of the Aramaic. Bnck£JOUnd and Historical Jesus seminars at SNTS, the Jesus seminar at meetings of British NC\1/ Testa.ment scholars, and an annual semi oar oo the Use. of the Old Testament in the Ne\\1 now ge1lerally held at I lawarde11, fOr what I have leamt from them. I alone am respolts ible for what 1 have said. I would also like to thank my Nouiugh.arn colleague Dr R. II. Oell fi)r help with the \\'Ord processor on which this bt)ok wa.~ wrinen: a.od the libnlries of SOAS and tJ1e British Library for the facilities necessary for advanced scholarly work.

This page inrenrioi!GI(¥ left blank

ABBREVIATIO:VS

AB Ad1•. Haer. 11d~>. ,\1c.

Ad11. Pmx.

AGJU

Akk. An Bib

Anchor Bible Adversus Haereses Adversus Marcionem Adversus Praxeam Arbeiten zur Gesc-hichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristenlums Akkadi:m Analecta Biblica

ANRW

II. Temp01i ni and W. l laase-(edl>), Aufstieg tm d Niederga11g der rOmisclum l\-e/t (mall)' vols., GeJ·(io: W. de Gruy1er. 1972- )

Ant.

Antiquilies of the Jews

A.Pers. ASTI

Aeschylus, Per.fians Annual of the Swedish Tlumlogical lnslitw e

ATANT

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testame-nts

r1ThD

Acta 111eologica Dn11ica

•\Z

'Abodah Zarah

b. BaL

Babylonian Talmud Bampton Lectures

2 Bar.

2 Banrch

Ber BETL BGBE

Berakhol Bibliothec-.a ephemeridum thoologicarum lovaniensium Beitrage.zur Geschic.hte der biblischen Exegese

/Jib

/JJ RL 8111/..M

B iblica B iblical Research B ullet ill tif the JtJ/m Rylrmds Libra(\' Bullet ill tif the JtJIUJ Rylrm ds Librmy tif Mtmclre.\·ter

BNTC

Black's New Tesuunenl Commeruaries

BSRel

Bibliothec.a di Scienze Religiose

BTL

Oenjamins Tran.:;Jation Library

BWANT CBM

Beitrage.zur Wissenschaft vom A1ten und Neuen Testament CheSler Beauy Monographs

CB Q

Cmlwlit· B iblical Quarterly

CChr.Sl 2 Clem. ConBNT

Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 2 Clement Coniectane.a biblica. New Testament

BibRes

Abbreviations

Dnn.

Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament I Corinthians Cornpe.ndia renun iudaicarun1ad Novum Teslame.,uum Cotpu;. Scriplorunl Chrislianorun\ Otieo1alium Curetonian Daniel

Dec. Dem.

De decalogo Denum:rtrmio

Deut

Deuteronomy Dialogue Dipsades Discoveries in the Judaean Desen Etudes Bibliques

CO !~ BOT

I Cor. CRINT

csco cur

Dial.

Dips. DJD EBib Ebr.

De ebrietate

EKKNT

E\langelisch·Katholisc.her Kon-lfnentar zum Neuen Testament

I En.

I Enoch 2 Enoch

2 En. 2 Esd

LXX "Ea5pa,

n·

E"'. E,...R.

Es01e.r E.'ther Rabbah

ETL Eu.s. Exod.

Ephemuidu lheologicar Jowmienses

Eu.sebiu.s Exodus

Exp7im

Expository Times

Ezek. FRLANT

Ezekiel Forschungen zur Religion und Lite.ratur des Ahen und Neuen Testaments Freiburger Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie und Theologie Galatians Genesis Genesis Rabbnh Gittin Gospel ofThomas

FlPT Gnl. Gen. Gen.R. Gitt. Gos. Thom. H.A. hark Hnb. Hdt H. E. IJag Hos. HSM

Hi.\·to1in Animalium

Harlde.an Habakkuk Herodotus Historin Ecc/esinstica l~agigah

Hosea Harvard Semilie r--•tonographs

HTR

Harwrrd 11u•<Jiogic
HTS

Harvard ·Theological Sn1dies

IBS

lrisJr Bib/inti Studies

Abbrer•iatians

ICC IG

XI

lntemalio nal Crilical Comn.eruary lnscriptiones Graec.ae Isaiah

lsa. Jas Jer.

James Jeremiah

JBL JJS

Jaunrtrl of Biblical Litemture Jaunral ofh "\vi.\·11 Studies

Jn Jon. Jos. Josh.

John Jonah Josephus Joshua

JSJ

Juh.

Jaunrnl for the Study ofJudainn i11tlre Pu sifm. Hellenistic and Rama11 Period Jaunrtrl for the Study (if the New Testame11t Jaunral far the Study of the New Testament. Supplemenl Se.ries Jaunral for the Study of the P.u mlepigrap/w Jaunwl for the Study of the P:reudepigraplw. Suppleme-nt Se.ries Jaunrtrl ofSemitic Studies Jounrnl of71u!fJ!ogiml Studie:r Jubilees

Judg.

Judges

KAI

H. Dooner and W. R6IIi.g. Kfmmmiii:rche und Aramiiisdre buchri[te11 (Wiesbaden: l larraSSt)''' ilZ., 2nd edn, 1966- 9)

Ket. I Kgdms 2 Kgdms 3 Kgdms 4 Kgdms I Kgs 2 Kgs Kil. Lam. Lev. LCL

JSNT

JSI'<'TSup JSP

JSP JSS ITS

LD

Ketuboth LXX I Kingdoms LXX 2 Kingdoms LXX 3 Kingdoms LXX 4 Kingdoms I Kings ?_ K.mgs Kila.yim Lamentations Le.,•iticlJS Loeb Clas.sic.al Library Lectio divina

Lk.

Loke.

LXX I Mace. 2 Mace.

Septuagint Mishnah I Maccabees 2 Maccabees

3 Mace.

3 Maccabees

Mal.

Malachi

M.

MekhY

Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael

Mic.

Micah

xii

Abbreviations

Midr.Ps. Mt.

f\.·lidrash on Psalms Matthew

MQ

tvh)•ed Q:nan

MT Noh. Naz. NCB Ned. ~eh.

Mas.soretic Text Nnhum Nazir New Century Bible Nedarim Nehemiah

Neof

Neotili

N.H. NHS

Naturalis Historia Nag Hammadi Studies

NovT

NovTSup

."'..tol'llm Testamentum Novum Testamentum. Supplements

NTOA

Novum Testal'llentunt t l orbis antiquus

NTS

New Testamem Suu/ies

1\um. NumenSup

Numbe.rs Numm. Supplements

Onq OTP

Onqelos J. JI. Charlesworth (ec:l.}, Tlte Old Testament Pseudepig mpha (2 vols; New Yl)rk: Doubleday, 1983- 5)

ptl/syrlec

palesthtimr s:wiac lectimwry

Pes.

Pesal)im

Pesh 2 Pet. Phil.

Peshiua 2 Peter Philippians

PO

Patrolo.gia oriental is

Prov. Ps. Pss.

Proverbs Psalm Psalms

Pss. Sol.

Psalms of Solomon

Ps-J

Pseud(>·.JonathAI'I

PTS IQnpGen. IQpHab Qid I IQTg)ob

Patristische Texte und Sltldien Genesis Apocryphon Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk Qiddushin Job Targum from Qumran Rabbi

R. RB Ref. Re\'.

Revue biblique Refuwlio Omnium Haeresium

Re1• Tlwm

Revue thomisle

Sam I Snrn.

Samaritan Targum I Samuel

Re\'elation

Abbrel•iations

XIII

SE

2 Samue.l Sanhedrin Society of Biblic~l Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series Studies in Biblical Theology Sources Chretie.nnes Studia Evangelic.a

Sem

Sernal)mh

Shabb.

SMbbat

Shevi. Shevu

Shevi'it

sin Sir. SNTSMS

sinaitic syriac Sirnc.h Sode.ty for New Testament Studie.s Monograph Series

Spec. Leg.

De specialibus legilms

sr

Sllulia tlreologica

Suk. SUNT

Sukkah Studien zur Um,,•eh des Neuen Testaments

Ta'an.

Ta'anith

TBii

Theologische Biicherei

TDNT

G. Kiuel and G. Friedrich (eds), Theologit·al Dictimuuy
2Sam. San. SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBT

sc

T.Ephraem Ter. Tg Theod. I Thess. I Tom. Thuc. T.Jud. T.Levi Tob. TSAI

Shevu'ot

Eerd1Hans, 1964-76) Testamem of Ephraem

Terumoth Tan:mm ~

Theodotion I Thessalonians I Timothy Thucydides Testament of Judah Testamem of Levi Tobit Texte und SIUdien zum antjken Jude-nnun

1T

Theologisch 7ijdschrift

TU

Texte und Untersuc.hungen G. Kine I and G. Friedrich (eds), Theologisclu:s \llOrterlm ch ;..m1 Neuen TeJtame11t ( I I \'Ois; Smugart, Kohlhammer, 1932- 79)

TWNT

1Z

Tyndale Bullethr Theologisdu• Zeitsdrrift

\'.

verse

Vit.Cm/1.

De l'iln t.:mrtempfil•tt Vetu.t TesttJmentum. Supplements

TyuBul

VTSup

xiv

Abbreviations

IVBC

Word Biblical Commentary

\Vis.

Wisdom of Solomon

IVUNT

y.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Te-stament Yerushalmi (c Jeru:t<'tlem/Pales1inian Talmud)

Yeb.

Yebamolh

Zech.

Zechariah

ZAW ZN\V

Zeitsdrrift fiir die allleslamemliche Wis.u nscluift Zeitsclrrift fiir die neuteJtamentlidte \Visseusclwfi Zeitsclr.rift fiir Theologie uud Kin.·he

ZTK

Chapter One T HE STATE OF P L AY

The-Sou of m:ul proble-1H i~ one of the most dillic.uh problems in the whole of New Testament Studjes. Long after the two monogrnphs of A. J. B. Higgins have ce-ased to be inHuential. 1hany sc-holars ~till re fer to the. title of his article., 'Is theSou of mao problem insoluble?'' The purpose of this chapter is to offer a critical Forsd umgsberichte to the whole problem, This is not a comprehensive catalogue or previous work: M5geo~ MUller has provided a comprehensive history of the interpretation of 0 v'u)t; TOU avapc..)nou.! I oner a selective discus.o;iOil or whm ad ...anc.es have been made, what signitkant mistakes have been made. and 1he reasons fl) f both of th e~. The role of the-Aramaic. tenn (~)1.9:(~ ) u has bee.n cruc-ial to this, and I argue that the absence of S.'ltisfaC!ory discussion or it bas been one major cause of d1is problem's apparent iosolubility.

1. The Fathers

Theearliesl Fathers took important steps away from the historical Jesus. because they inherited 0 v'u).:; ToG CtvOpc.lrrou in the Gospels in Greek, and were not generaJiy aware of the Aramaic tenn (~)ti!J(K) ,~. We sha ll see that in 1he Fow1.h Gospel 0 v'u)c; ToG CtvOpc.lrrou already refers to the humanity of God incarnate.~ Here, and to a lesser exte-nt in the other canonic.aJ Gospels, Jesus is also 0 viOc; (Toil 0£oU). As the Fathers developed the doctrine-of Jesu~· two narures. human and divine. they naturally interpreted 0 u'u)c; ToG <XvOpc.lnou as a reference to his human n.ature. For e..'(ample. TertuJiian. as pan of a statement of faith, declares concerning the Son and Word through whom aU things were made.: 1. A. J. B. Higgins. JtstJ.t a11d the S()lt of Mmt (loodoll! Luttct\l.•onh. 1964J: 'Is the Soo of Man Proble-m Insoluble?'. in E. E. Ellis: :11\d M. Wikox (cds). Neolestamenlka a11d Stmilka: Swdies in HollcllrQ/Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T&T Cbrk. 1969). pp. ?CH17: ThtSmt ofMmr ill lht n·udtillS (Iflt!SIIS (SNTSMS 39. Cambridge: CUP, 1980}. 2. M. Miilk.r. Tltt' £-:pn.Hion 'Mm ofMan· <md lht De~Yit'JHIIt>rlt of Cltl'i.stolo-gy. A Hi.nnry t>f lnterprel
Soc Ch. 12.

2

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem hut\(' missum a palre in \'irgincm c1ex ca naiUIIl hominem C1 ckum, tilium hominis C1 fll ium dci. ct cognomirwtum 1c:sus Chri.stum.

. .. thtll he WIIS sent bytltc- Father into the \'itgin and born from her man und God. Son of man and Son or God. and wus turned Je-sus Christ. (Adi•. Prox. 2)

Here the reference to the. two nature$ of Jesus is clear from the context. whic.h has Jesus :.\rri\'e on eanh as man and God before LLo;ing the two referential tides Son of man and Son of God. Considering further the term 0 u'tbc; ToU O:vtlpc.lrrou in Greek. the Fathers also took O:vSp(.)rrou as a rererence 10 a r
as follows: ooiTOt; 0 I(Upu:ll; uiOr. Wv TOU eroU TOii <~vtOI; T11v ~J:: nl'; nap&i\IOu yiVJ'lOIV oU~C

i rrcuoxwbtJ~VO"; tv TOi; favl'O'Ii AOyotr; u'iOv Ov6pc.lnov rro.\kcitw; c.lvOtJaotv tauTiw. ... the. lurd himself. being the- Son of the living God. not being ushamod of his birlh from the virgin. \) lkn calh!d himlld f 'Son of man· i.n his own sayings. (Asainst Ewtomiu:; 111.1.91)

l lere-tlte-comtec.tion beh lleen 'Son or .nar1' and the virgin birth i~ absolutely dear, as is the. referent-e to the doc.trine.of the two natures of Christ. There is aJso a very d ear reference to the. sayings of Jesus, and hence to the Gospe-ls. in which the term is 0 uiOr; TOO O:v6pc..lrrou, with two articles. Here in the quotation from Eunomius. however. uiOv O:v9pc..lnou has no articles. Gregory of Nyssa does the same in his following di sclL~sion of Eunomius: ~ y~p viO; 0:116pc-.)nou ).[yna! OuX Tl)v Tit'; oap"Ot; oU"toU npO; ujv i~ tit; lytvvft8q ovyy
For as hC" is c.aUcd Soo of m:w because of the kinship of his tlcsh !\) her from whom hC" was born . ..

l le-re-too there is a clear refere-oe.e to Je-sus· birth from Mary, and 10 the title which in the Gospels is 0 uiOc; ToO O:vOpulrrou. Here too. however. the tem1 is simply u'~<)v O:v6pc..lrrou. This is moreover widespread in the. Greek Fathers. The. reason for this appears to be the doctrine of the two natures. The pote-ntiaJ problem with 0 u'r(w; Toii O:vOpc..lrrou is that, ill a culrure where the Ar.:unaic (K)l.ifJ(N) 1J has I01lg sinc.e been forgotten. 0 ulOc;- Toii O:v9pul rrou refers especially to Jesus himself. The doctrine of the two n:.nures required clear reference to his humanity rather than simply to himself. and this is easier to achieve with viOv O:vOpc..lnou without the artic.les. The question of this difference did not arise for the Latin Fathers. since reasonable literal'}' Latin had no articles. Accordingly.jiUus lwmbtL\· could function as a specific titJe of Jesus and :.t reference to his ge.neral human nature even in the same context. The interpretation with p
71te State of Play

3

Thjs interpretation slowly died out, and never made. it into critical sc.holarship of the modern pe.riod. The other major line of intetpretation whic-h took 0 u'•O£; ToG O:v6pWrrou to indicate Je-S-us' sonship of a particular pers,)n regarded it as a referenc.e to Adan~ . Ps·Athanasius provides a clear example of this:

0 ycip T<-l\1 Ok(,)\1 &u.uovpyOt; )..Oyer; ~ q uiOt;- civE!pc.)rrou. oOx Enpo; Tit; (i t.~i:\1 OOv ini yijt; yiyo~ro\1 uiOr. ci:v&pWnoo,

Yivb!JtVO<";, cK>J.ci: &Vnpo; AOOIJ ...

KaiTo• oUK iK onipt.~cno; Ov-8p6c;. 0)..).' ~t::: nvnfuaroc; O:yiou ytvVfl&ik , tvOr; ¢ VTOIO. Toli npc.nonk&orou AOciiJ vi~ voq&i}ona1. For 1hc Word. 1-hc ani6cct of the uni vcr~.:-, app.:::.tcd liS Son of man, not :.s having bo.--eoolc soolclhjng diiltrem, b1.u a sc..--ond Adam •.. II thctcforc he bcc:.mc Son of m:Ul oo c-anh, yc1 '"'till bcgoucn of (ahe) holy spitit. 001 of 1he seed of man. he shall be eoosidctcd son of one. thc firsl·f(Jt mcd. Adam. (Otl tilt> l11camalicm A.gainst Apollillaris 1.8)

Here again the doctrine. of the two muures unde.rlies the whole discussion. the tem1 Abyoc; be.ing used with reference to the fully divine maker of the universe, and u'16c; OvOpc.lrrou referring to his existenc.e as man during his incarnate life on earth. Here too it will be. noted that ulO;- Ov8pWrrou doe$ not need the.ru1icles in Greek. This line of interpretation did not merely continue for centurie.s, it is regre.uably still with u.s.' 1l is acco!'d ingly to be noted that in the Greek Fa1hers it does not require any stress on the second anicle in 0 v·u); ToiJ O:v6pWrrou. as if the e.~pre.ssion itself required the incan1ate Jesus to be son or a ptlrticular man. On the corurary, we have j u.~t see-n in Ps-Athan.asius that this interprelation was held with the artides omined from u'l~ 0 v0pc.lrrou. Til iS iSagain due tO lhe OVeJriding ioftue.nce Of lhe doctrine of the two natures. Once the Fathers produced these interpretations \Vhich stt\\' the term Son of man having some special reference to ~
gcllC'ralion. (Oration 30. 21) This is as dear as one could wish for in espousing both interpre.tations. and again in using u·tOc;- O:uepWnou without the.artic.les. Anmhet major trend which began in the patristic peritxl was lhe \'ie\'' that 1he Gospe.l tide- 'Son of man' was derived fronl Daniel 7.1 3. Tertullian was the first Father to give expression w lhis view. lie was not of course the lirst Father to interptel Dan. 7.13 with reference h) Jesus. We find this alre-ady in Justin. For

4.

,t,·.n-1. >l-4 bd i)w.

s~ 1

4

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

example, .u Dial. 3 1, I, Justin interprNed Dan. 7. 13 with rercrenc.e to the parou..,ia, as the Gospel writers had done before him. At Dial. 76, I, he went fm1he-r: (rTov ycip t.k uiOv Ovept.Snou Mvn 6avtQ.\ TOv napo:Ao:IJP,civovTa r~v ai~cov eaotMio:v. oVK ooi,-0 ToUTo oivioono:; T0 ycip Wt; viOv O.vep
tt

For wltcn Oanid c:.lls him who rocci vc~ the ctct'MI J;ingdom ' like a :too of man', is It\: 001 himing :u the s:unc thing? For w s:.y
bec-ame man. but shows that he was not of human scod.

Here Daniel is held to h.ave predicted the virgin binh of Jesus. JlLq in interpreted the Gospel title 0 ulO;: ToU O:v6p(.)rrou similarly at Dial. I00,3, c-iting it ·with the anicles. and immediately discussing it without U1e-m. As in the Greek Fathe-rs alre-ady discussed the pre-~;:;ence or absence l)f the articles in the expression 'Son of m.au' makes no apparent ditlerence. Also, in ignorance of the Aramaic-tenu {x)iiJ(K) -u, both Daniel's ~ viOv O:vOpc.lnou and lhe Gospel title 0 u'u>:; ToU O:vepc.>rrou c-an be-int<.'-1-preted with relerence to the virgin birth in a way thou the mundane (~)ih(x.) 1~ oould not. because the latter was an on:linJJ)' term for any man. or even .any person. and people are nol born of virgin....;. In the first 1llajor conuneotal)• on Daniel extant, l lippolyt-us cook a similar approach at greater le-Jl_gth. lie refers lOr example-ro Jesus' two natures, and his fi.)nction ofjudge.rnent at his partlusia: ... 'tvoopw;

« l\:0: Kol Ov6pwrroc;, ulO;- e~oo KO.I civ6pWnov ci n' oUpavt.lv !::prr-.\t; T~

.:Ocru~ rropo:ywO,..evor, .

... God i nc:.rn~u e and m.sn. Son ofGOO :.nd of m.sn. com.e from heaven asjudg~ for the world. (IV.I0.2)

Hippolytus also uses the Gospel term 0 u'u)c; Toil avep~rrou witJl reference to the Danielic te-xt, commenting oo •he-manlike figure beiog brought befOre tl1e-Ancient of Days: n-pO:;- T00Tov rrpoonvf~ll 0 uiO; -rOO civ&pc.lnou UnO \lt¢i)uy.- ~oTo
Here again we see a Greek Fath-er apparendy quile oblivious to the presence or ab.-;:;enc.e or the articles io the exprt.""Ssion 'Son of mao'. This is the \\1C!Stern tradition of the in•e•·p•-etatiou of Dan. 7. 13 \\'hicl1 was carried .so much further b)' Te11ullian. I have already noted Tettullian•s adherence-to the doctrine of the-two natures of Christ. and his interpretation of ji/lu.~· Jwmini:> as a rererenc.e to Jesus• human nature (Adl~ Pmx. 2).s At Ad1Utlc. 111,7. Tenulliao expoUJlds the idea ofiWl) advents of Christ, and assigns Dao. 7 .13 -14 to the second. His most extensiYe discussion is at Adv.Mt·. IV.J O. The c.ootext is the-story in which 5.

See Pt). t- 2 aboYc.

71te State of Play

5

Jesus promlUfl('.eS the forgiveness of a man's sins, using the term ' Son of man' of hirt\l\e.l f at Luke-5.24. Te-rtullian argue-s that the tenn.fililL\·Itumit~i.\· must mean that Jesus had a human parent. and since God was his Father, that must mean his virgin m04.her. He then ntrns to Daniel with the. following c.ommenl: Quid nunc. si ip~o 1i1ulo fil ii llOminis ctnsC'Iur Chri ~1us a.pud Daniclcm? Whut now ir Christ is apprC'd alcd according to D:tnid with the \'C'r y Lide. or Son of nmn? (Ack Mc. IVJ 0.9 )

This is the-absolute c.entre of the line of interpretation which began here, and whic.h is still with us. Here-the ac.tual title used by Jesus. jiliu.-. lromini:r to Tenullian and to any other Latin Father, is seen to be present in the text of Daniel itself. The term (K)~~(~) "1J was om kn0\1/ll to Tert ullian. so it cannot c-ome into question. By thetime that it did come. into question, the-tradition that the-Gospel tenn 'Soo of man· was derived fi'orn Dan. 7.13 \~tas muc.h too strong a tradition to be easily budged. In originating it, Ten uitian was able to argue that Je::;u.s was uniquely qualified to have both the name.of Chris£ and the title o fjilius lwminis. NC'c:alius erit c-11pador uuiusql)(' quam qui prioret nomen sonitusC'sl Christi ct nppcllationc.m filii llOminis, ksus sc-ilkC1 ere:uoris. Not will :-.nyooc- be more cap<~bl c- of bc>Lh !han he- who fit~l rec-d w d Lite n::tmc- of Christ and the- 1ilk ofSoo of1nsn, na.mdy the c-reruM's JC'llus. (Ad•'.Mc. IV, 10.1 1)

The only other possible place where jiUus homiuis oould be found was in other passages M ::;cripture. Tertullian unfortunately went fOr Dan. 3.25, a 1t1istake-which therefOre ne\ret caught on. Otherwise. he saw fit to deveh)(> futther his use of Da11. 7. 13. cornme-rlling a.:; fOllows: Idem ips.i Danid i rc\·dal\lil dirc.:1o fil ius OOminis ~·cni c-ns eum c-adi nubibus iudcx. s:ic-u1 C1 sc-riplura dc:monstmt. He \vtiS also reve:aJrcod dirccdy to Daniel himsdr as Lhc Son of man coming with the d ouds of hc-:twn as judge-. as sctip1urc al!.O dc-m\'ltlStr:uc~. (Adlt.lllc. IV,IO, t2)

This interpre-t:; Dan. 7. 13 as a dire<:t revelation to Daoiel of Jesus as Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, so this is not only the standard western Christian interpretation of this text, it also includes the direct reYe.lation of the. tide ji'liu.\· hominis to DanieL Tertu1lian further derives Jesus' ability to forgive sins from his po~it i on as Judge in the Danielic tex•. This kind or reasoning is also still \Vith us. Once.this Lmdition of interpretation was properly established, it c.ould be-adhered to by Fathers \!Jho kne\V the 'scm of' idiom perfectly well. For example. Theodoret e-xplains it in C.llmme.Jlting oo Dan. 11.9-10: v'1o\,.;- ~ o:UTOO Ko).Ei nlv OTpo:-nio:v nu uo--r
Hc-ealls. 'l'lissons' tln~c cnu\ls!cd willt raising dw army.:-.~ •~ (nrecallcd}~onsof men. and !heprophets (arc called) f,(lllSof tile PfOt)hcL~. Fol'i1i ~ :m idiom ofdw bngua~ of dle Hc-hre>A·~

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

6

This did not prevent Theodoret from expounding a conventional western Christian view M Dan. 7. 13 and or the Gospel title 0 u'u)c; Toli Ov8pc:.)rrou. Commeming on Dan. 7. 13-14. he q uotes tvlt 24.30 eomplete with both the articles of 0 O:vOpc:.)rrou. and comments:

ul<X- roU

-roliTo oo:¢c.Y; n~Qr; iO'i&:~t\1 0 I!OXciptor;: f!.O:t/1.,)., ll}v &VTfpav OW'fitpOt; i mq,ciV
The- blessed Daniel d early UIU£hl us this. foretelling the second appeutancc of the suviour ...

Having quo1ed f>.•lt. 24.30, where 0 uiOc:; roU OvOp
teml: u'iOv u£v Ctv&pWnov oo:¢c.k ctnoKo).Wv, 81 'iiv ciw.>.aj)£ ~IV. ckarty c:.lling him ' Son of m:l.n•. bcctlullc ohhc M turc whic-h he took on.

l le-re Ihe e-ls' usc of 0 ui~ ToV O:vSpc..)rrou as a title of Jesus alone. and the patristic doctrine of the two natures of Christ. are both paramount. There is no question of Theodoret being able to see pas:t the evidence of the Gospels to an original Aramaic idiom in sayings of Jesus. Gnostic use of the term ·son of man' was even funher removed frofn the mioistry of the historical Jesus. According to diffe.rent Gnostics, r-.•tan, or &v6pQnoc;. might refer 11()( to humankind, but to an exahed syzygy, or even. apparemly in pru1ial de.pendence on Gen. 1.26. 10 God hirnself. The Son of man c.ould •hen be au emanation li"'nl this being. In one vetsion n"'jJOrted by lrcnae.u.s, Christ united h) Sophia descended on the virgin·bOn) Jesus. who opeoly conres::ed himself as.filium primi lwmhtis, ron of the first man (Ad••. Haer: 1,30,1 and 12·13). In due course. Eugnostos had as the first, second and third aeons, Immortal Man, Sl)n M rvtan • First Begeuer, an-d Son M Son of Man • Saviotlr (111,3,85, with V,l3, 12-IJ).r. This

re.veals funl1er remoteness from the.Jesus of history, and no real connec.tion with the Aramaic (~)iV:(x.) 12.

Some.gnostic documents show varying degrees of connection with the.c-anonical Gospels:. For e.xample, the-Gospel of Thomas. which has only some. gnosticizing fi':atures. has a ::lightly elaborated version MML 8.20//Lk. 9.58 as saying86. without any indication as to how il was interpreted. The. Peratae reported by Hippolyrus had

a \'ersion of In 3.14. induding 0 ulO:; ToU O:v6pc..)rrou with both articles (Hipp. Ref V,l6,ll). ll)i:; reference has ho,vever nothing to do ,~,~jtJ~ the crucifixion of Jesus, ao event \!Jith \!Jhich Gnosticism could never properly c.ome to terms. II c.Oflcems

rather the exposition of che meaning of the serpent and the ce.nlrality of the Son for salvation. 6.

For an ET, D. M. Patl'(l(, ' EUg;liOSIM 11\c 81.:-ss..."d (111.3 and V. l) :tnd the- Sophi.s of Jesus :l.nd UG 8>02,3)\ in J. M. Robio11on (cd.). Th~ ll.tog HomnwJi Uhnuy ilt EngliJh (4th cdn, Lcidcn: Brill. 199l>). pp. 22~43. The- text is still a~·:.il:lbk ooly in Ms facsimile-. whic-h I tegrcl that I do ll(l( read. Clwi ~t (111,4

71te State of Play

7

11ms, gnos1ic use of the tenn 'Son M man' is even more rernote lfom •he ministry of the historic.al Jesus than the commems of more orthodox Fathers. ?vloreover, specifk.ally gnl,stic ideas aboot the ·son of n1an' did llOt survive beyond the ancient period. Accordingly. they will not be funher discussed in this book. The c.onunenB ofthe Syriac-speaking Fathers l'night have bee.n expe<:ted to be l)f especial interest, since they spoke and wrote in the same language as the historical Jesus. Unfortunately. however. they had no idea that Son of man sayings now found in dle Gospels originated frorn Jesus using the ordinary Anunaic. term (K~oiJ(~) , J with reference to himself. Their knowledge of Jesus was mediated through the Gospe.ts. Initially. this knowledge came direcdy fn)m the Diate-ssan)n of T.atian, which represented 0 uibt;: ToV O:vOp<.'m ou \1/ith ?\;FJ~i ;nJ . For exarnple. it ha.r; this paJ1ial ve-rsion o fM t. 8.20//lk. 9 .58: :;;;!·; TI!001 1:11" ;;'7 ;;·7 ~~lli.i :;-c71 ... ii:i7 !'Tt K l'lli'J ~'7.rn:> (Ephr.tcm. ConmumiUI)' on lire Diult .mmm VL24a..l ·2.f

!Jere !\iVJ~i ;n J is a Christological title \Vhich refers h) Jesus alone, a trartslation of 0 ui~ To0 O:vOpi:ITTou , not a reflection of any diret:t knowledge of the way in which Jesus re.ferred 10 himself in Ar.:uuaic. It is a new •enn, oot previously kn0\1111 in Aramaic, and lnve.Jued as a strategy for dealing wi1l1 a translation proble-m. In due course, other Fathers and translators used ~1~1 ;n~ (e-.g. Lk. 7.34 ~in cur), or ~1.9J.'\ U1 :n~ (e.g. Mark 2 .28 palsyrlec). Neither of the$e alters the main point. Each is a translation of the Greek Chris:tologic-al title 0 u'u)c; ToU O:v9p~nou. Each is accordingly a neologism. an Aramajc Christological tide whk h refers to Jesus alone. Given that these were new titles. the fathers and translators naturally continued to use (K)--.IJ(~) ,~ itself as a general te-rm for h\Jmatlkind. So, fl)l' example-, Tatian used !\iiJ~ , J for &v6p(.)rroc; at Mark 2 .27, there-by correctly representing the sentiment of ~·lark and indeed of Jesus that lhe Sabbath was c.reated for people in general (Ephraem, Commentary on the Diatessam11 V.24,10--12).il With this: as pan of the eve-1)'day language, the Fathers made widespread theological use-o fN.-&1(~) i J with refe-rence to Jesus• hu.nan nature. For example, Ephraem cotnments di1ec.tly t)n Jestt.:; during the hlc.amatioo: ... Kry)~ i:'l l\1:;!~ 1~1 K'C :C

'\-'> ·:; ~;';-~;

For hi.' istw:.:~ God :.!so i:n a hidden manner. :11\d (son ol) mtm vi ~ibty...{Commt iiiUI)' 011 tht DiultJ.~arwt

V. t9.10· t1.)

7. I ci1c Sl'Ction. JX~t-agnlplt and li.nc M p:u:.g_raph frllm L l cloir (cd.). Sctitll f..phrem. C8: t>t>. 121- 5 ~l ow.

8

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

At the same time, s:omewhat similarly to the western Fathers, the Syriac-speaking

Fathers also used their Gospel title 'Son of 1\lan• with reference to Jesu..:;• humao nature. For example. Philo:xenus refers h) the doctrioe or Jest:~s' IWl) oatu~s: ~~t~:->:! n·10~ N;;!!:->1 ti ;n:n :mtiro n•"Md !Oiti ti ;r,:n and {his) Son o f God U\ d)' i n his dci!y. and (his) Son o f mall by nallHC' i n the hum:.nity.

( 1irlctatlls Je Jtdwrw.rio 32)

Here Lhe two balancing ChristologicaJ tilles :.m~- inte-rpreted by means of more general terms to give clear reference to the divine and human natures of Christ With son1e idea l)f the 1wo narures in the background, ~~:(x) 1J or ~iVJ(K) 1J' 1n oould be used to refer to Jesus as a human being, the reference being made clear by the context. For example. NarSai Ct)lnments, leU 1\.il(:.:) 1~ 1n. 'he chose. one (soo ol) l'nan' (H omily On the Epiphany t)j Our Lord. 387). He.re the lengthy contextual discussiOil makes it dear that the relercnce i:: to God's choice- of Je-$uS fOr the

incarnation. a situation 10 which his human nature. wa•:; essential. Again, Jacob of Serug commenlS: XO'i? 'T;; n;:; Ki'J-dii :riO l't ~S

1hc d,..nying ()Cop!c who hung a/the (son o l) man oo a/llle 1, 17)

1rec. (Homily a,~;aill.fl lite Jews

In this c.ase, the.broad c.uhural cootext is as important as the immediatelysurroundiog lite.rary oouh~xt ioleaviug no doubtlhat this refers to the crueilixion M Jesus by the

Jews. Both these examples illustrate the massive.gap between the kind of comments that could be made during the ministry of the historic.a1 Jesus and the advanced lite.rary aod theologic.al environrnent of the- Syriac.-::peaking church. The laner context pennit.J: even the simple (K)Wl(~) -u to be 11.Sed on its own with reference to

Jesus himself alone. where.as attempts to reconstruct sayings of Jesus with similar reference result in confusion. The use M Dan. 7.1 3 in Ihe Syriac-spe.aking d1urc.h was complicated by two thctors. One was the e-xtraordinary lranslalion of the origi1lal :oiJK u wilh ri.?J..:: 1:!, perhaps otiginally a deliberate attempt h) avoid the-interpretation of this figure-as a

direct prophecy of Je.sus. The second fac.tor, whkh may indeed have been involved in the first, was thallhe Syriae-speaking church preser"'ed t11e original interpretation M Wl~ 1:!J as refhriog to the Saiots oft11e Mt)St High, inte-J'Pretjng these as Maccabean Jews or somethiog dose lO this: they added a secondary re.fe.reoce, at the level or n or the like.• 10 Jesus. For example, l11eodore bar Kooi commenrs on rWJ~ 1.:1 at Dan. 7.13: !'1'7.:~"'1~ N!'C;IJ j""''l~ F<~1'U1'\"ili ~l:tK K~.'l'7.t pjm') rm~f7 '\X; p;;

In dleir historical comext 1hesc

wotds r~f~'t 10 !he t>.·tsec~es, bulthcir essemial quality i ~

fulfilkd in our lo1xl Lllc Mc~s-i sh.., 9. A . Scher (ed.). Thtodoms bur KIJ11i- Ubtr Srholilw1 (2 1954). vol. I, p. 344, lines 5-9.

vols: CSCO 55. 69: SS 19. 26,

71te State of Play

9

Although this was lhe main interpretative trndition. il remained possible to use. j'"OJN 1J in an appropriate-ly Danielic c.ootcxt with simple refc.re.nc.e to Je-s.us. For example-. Aphrahat rum s down the iruerpretatioo of Dan. 7.27 with re fere.nee to

Jewis.h triumph. and after S-upporting this with scriptural quotations. he commenlo;: ":li?:V 10 jU:>l il·~ i5J:O:l jllt\ 1 11'"•li j'i:I.JK 1:: Xill\l

And a !11M of nl<'n came to !>Ct them ffl..'\:: a1)d ~th<'r 1h.:-•n. ':tnd they did not re~'"Ci vc him'. (Jn Li t) (AI)hrahat. Dt!m. V. 2 t) II

was also pt)SSible

It)

use

r:ziJK 1J

and

l\'l7JK1 ;i1J

roge-ther. as iu the fo llowing

passage of Jacob of Sen1g: l'1-ll! 1 N1:l j'ir!X 1:: T N "lrilil\i ' :T N:liX 1:i? ~l:l1 ;;? n~ ~ir!K1 :lUi

Th.:\t h.- tlt)t)Carcd ' like a son of men'. chis is lhc !Oig_n th:.! lh<' Son of l.od could beeomc- theSon of man. (Homilr agai11st rlrt Jrws Vl. t13- 4)

It ere the second le, 1el of iruerpn.'tation of rills. 1~ at Dan. 7.13 is delibe-rately interptt-led \Vith the-Gospel Litle s.tdJK1 :iiJ. The dilTerence is bo,vever St) great that no Syriac Father ha.s been re.corded as arguing that the Gospel title ' Son of man' was derived frorn Dao. 7.13. a.~ we ha\•e seen Terlullian do.

As in the Wc:-st, the doctrine of the inc.ammion permined especial refere-nce. to be made to Jesus' ltu)ther Mary, or to the firSt fnan Adam. For example-. Jacob of Se-rug fo llowOO the above commentl)ll Dan. 7. 13 \Vith a comn1ent on the plural ' thrones' at Dan. 7.9: ~l:lJ~l1'l N? ":111' :0 X"\01'0 ,,). 1\t"n:ii

.o-w il: 1\;; ~-wr. :l""Q1 ;;1:i? ~~ For :-.lhronc was. r)()t pbc.:d I)Cside him for• a tson ol} man. Bill ror his Son who b:com:- the Son of man from ~iiriam. (Humi~,· asuimt tile- Jews Vl,l75-6)

Here lhe.underl)1ing point declared in lhe following two lines., is lhal ne-ither an~els nor monals. can sit in the presence of God. Hence the second throne must be for Gt)d's Son, and this conuast has led Jacob quite reasOJ)ably to make reference to the prt)Cess of the inc.amatioo, and hence to Jcsu.:;• birth liom Mary. Jacob does not howevet say that xiiJN i n K~Jl\J ;,""Q actually refers 10 her. lsho'dad or Menv associated the term iBelf mote cloltely with Adarn. He C-
IQ.'\

;;'? n·7;

;;o;;#:; ""\'~K Kir.1K1 ;;u KiX. .. .1\:.1 ~K O!Ni

.. . btu he said 'this) Son of (the) man·. 10 make il kl)()wn tim He had in LrUih no ~rsO•lal f:.lll« i.n his m.t~nhood, like- Lhc r\'Sl. but was (his) Son orth~ fil"!:l Man, Lll3l is to say. ofAdam the r:1Lhcr of L~ (whok) community.

I Je.re the tenn has been interpreted as 'the son of the nl:ul'. and the man in question has been identified as Adam, so that in enec1 the tenn is held h) mean ·soo ofAdam'.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

10

II is clear 1ha.t the interpretation of ~l!i:R\1 ;n~ and the other expreS!:ions lOr the Gospel title 0 ui<X- TOU avep.<.)rrou il~ the SyriaC-· Speaking churcll($ is of limited value to a sea~ h for the original meaning of (x.)t9J(K) 1~ as used b)' the historical Jesus. There a.re three important points. One is that the invention of x.ltJK1 ;nJ and

two other similar expressions. aU neologisms. was felt necessary by Tatian and by subsequent translators. This shows what a large shjC1 in meaning had taken place between (x.)liiJ(K} 1:1 and 6 u'a<X: ToU O:vSp(.)rrou. Secondly. the continued use there are. a large number M examples ifl our relatively extensive primary source.s. and bec-.ause references to Jesus can be c.ompa~d and c-ontrasted with the use M (~)lOiJ(K) 1~ during the historic mi1listry. Thirdly, a..l: in the West, theological interpretations of Gospel lilies for ·s on of man· of x.tXIJ(K)

1J

is instructive, both

becalL~C

continued in accordance with the theological traditions of the churches. not with any concerns about what the origins of the tem1 might have. been. It wa.~:; moreover the nlaioline inte•·p•-etations of relatively 011hodo:x "'ed:tenl Fathers which domir1ated Christian theologic-al comments on 'Son of1nan' for centuries. Ooe major line of interpre-tation coolinues to be l)f central importance. that t11e tem\ really derives from Dao. 7. 13. A minori(y of scholars, on the other haod. still believe that it means ·son of A dan~·. hue-rest in 1he origins of the term 6 u'u>:; Toil O:v6pc.lrrou as seen in its rx:lationship to the Aramaic term (K)IV;(K) 1J did llOt begin urllil lhe days of

the Refonnation and the Enlightenment. as the work of some learned men be.ganthe very slow process of heading towards critical sc-holarship.

2. Frvm Grolius w M £-yer Among lhe-earlier sc-holars, I cite Grotius. for he was to- be ooe of the most influeotial Commenting 011 Mt. 12.8 in 1641. Grotius set on·\llith 1he n1ain point: Errant qui u'zOv ToV O:vOpc:.)nou lfillum lulmfii!S j hoc loco Christum pt'CU)iaritcr intdligunt. Those who under!tland uiOv ToV Cw&pWnou !soJt (If11uml in this pa.s:•agc a.s a n:.rcrcnce to Christ in particular arc mistnken.

This is one of the main points which has been central to the debate on this term ever since, and Grot ius gave several reasons lOr his judgen1ent. Of especial importance is this comment Se-d. IU dixi, no1issimum cs1 Hcbt'St>i ~ O'iK 1:: LJillum /umtJnl. f) homin-em quenwis signific:u~ But as. I said. il is qui1e clear th:u fot the Hebrews O
01311' ... 10

10. H. Gr01ius, AmuJialitmn in lifJJYJS t'WJIISt'iitmmr (Amstc:rdamiParis, I (>41 ). ad Joe-. I had ac.xss to this :as Amtotdliont.f i11 quaJuor Emngtlia &- Acta Aposloltmll!l in H. Grotii Optra Omni(l Thwlosicd (Amstcrd~un: Blacv. 1679). Tom II vol. L

71te State of Play

II

This comes close to a reason whyOulc-; Toll O:vepc..)nou could not be a Christo logical title on the lipll of Jesus, but it leaves irLt;Oiuble probletns behind it Jrwe-know only this. we cannot explain why Jeltus used the Aramaic tertn (K)vh(~) ""0, Mr how it came 10 be transmuted into a Christo logical title. The bi ble-ceru ~d nature l)f this

limiration is especially obvious in Grorius. for he could re-ad Aramaic and Syriac. Subsequenr crirics narurally fastened on the obvious fact thar in the Gospels in general. 0 u·u);: TOO O:vepc.lnou is C\'idently a tille of Jesus alone. and makes sense. as such everywhere. Gn)tius made another signilieant aod complementary point in COn'lltlenting t)n Mt 12.32. With a referenc.e back h) f\+(t. 12.8, he now declared: .. . idem hicobservandum puto per viOv Ctv&p~nou lfilium "''"'itll.tJ. quam vis udditoarticulo. non hie Christum solum int<'-lli~.i. S<"d hominc.m qucnwis. ne Christo quidcm <'XC<'pto. E.<>t enim sacpt' anicu lus si£num &,<'nc:-tulit:atis, ut 0 £&vtK0; JEihnicusJinfra XVIII. I?. T~ 'itpEi l.raa•rloti} ~tarti 1,44 . .. . til:cwise 1 think it musa be ob~ervcd W l by viOv 0ll6pt.lrrov Json of man). ahhou£h the :ulkl<' has be'cn udded. Chris! uJone- is not to be' understood. bul t~nr man. Christ nO! exceplcd. For the :utick is ot\cn u sign of genemlity. as with 0 €evu.:O;- Ia Genii/e ) (~it. UU 7). T~ icp1i [lhf" pn'e,:t}. (M:uk 1.44)

Behind Grmjus' second pOint here lies a subsequently freque.Jll objection to his interpretatjon of both ll1ese- pa...t;sages, that the iirsl Greek a.rtjcle in 0 uiOt;- ToU

O:vOp<.)nou emails a reference ro a single person. Gr04:ius already knew that il might be what I shall call generic. One of the most e.xtensive auernpts at a l inguistic explanation of 0 ui6t; ToU O.vOpc.lnou in the pre~m(ldt.nl peril)d was made- by J. A. Dohe-n in 1792. 11 A t Mt 8.20, Bolte.n translates 0 u·,o-; TOO Ovepc:mou as 'ein Ande.rer', and explains: Eio ~~-a. womi1Jesus hicr auf ~ich sdb !<>tCI\ zich. A/ooc 'Soo of man\ with \'<'hich Jesus h~-rc fdcrs 10 him!O\!"lf.

Bolten otTers c.rosl!-reterenc~ to Mt. 5. 16 and 7.9, and at 5.16, Tc.3v civOp<.)c.lv, he translates 'andern•• and oflers lhOre explanatory CO!l'l.rnents. He translates the 'Syrische' N:WnJ.. which he \\'rites io Syriae script, 'w6rtlich' as tv1ensd1ensohn, and note-s that it has a double meaning. Firstly, it means 'Mensch· ,like-the Ilebrew 01~ p . For this he compares the Arabic. the Samaritan ' Mensc.hens.ohn' . which he says ill j lL'H like lhe Syriac, and the Elhiopic walda eguala emmaiJeimv. whic.h he. trafllllatc-s ' Eve1lSOhn' and 'den Sohn des Geschlechts der M ulter dcr Lebe.ndige·, and notes as a tr.anslation of 0 uiOt; ToUO:vOpc..lnou at Mt. 9.6, 12.8,32. Secondly, the Syriac:: ~l.?nJ, like ~ Ul. is lL~;ed as an iodetlnite pronoun, like the Ge-rman 'rnan, j emand, Einer, ein anderer'. Noting the U.(tC-or ~:o!Ju in the Syriae version, Dohen

comments:

II.

J. A. Bolten. Der Bt ridll dts Mutfltiius \WI J~sst dem Me.u ia (Altona: S1abcn. 1?92).

12

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem WcOI) al ~o Jesus ofl von sich sclbst\'n in dc•· dd tt~ PeNon mit ~\!h.,:: gl:'rcd-:1 h:.t: so ist dieB

cb<:n so \'ic.l. :tis wenn dn Deutscher so \ 'Ofl sich mit ~fan sprache. Whe-n thcrdore Jcsu ~ llftc-n spoke of himse-lf in the Llti td J>CtsOO with •son of ma.n•. th is is very mudl like a Gcnmlll speak ins of himself using ·r..·Jsn ••

This auempt to explaio 1he idiorn.atic use of (~)~J(!\) 'U wilh the Gennan 'Man· was a n:tlural ploy. and & hen•s several d iO'cren1 translations M ~~J'U as an indelinite pronoun show how hard he was 1rying to e.xplain Syriac \Jsage for Gcnnan-.speaking

scholars. However, Bolten went on to give mos1 of the Matthean sayings as examples. This oombinmion made it almost ine.\•itable that he would be interpreted as giving (~)lt;(~) I J

I (X)

gene.ra.l a meaning, and that many o f his examples would

be found unconvincing. Bolten proceeded to another point whic.h hac; been problematical ever since. He suggested that the. Greek translator did not unde-rstand the idiomatic usage of -~ttlYu, and that he-o ften translated it with civOpw rrOt;, but o ften. especially when Jesus spoke of himself. with 0 ul<X- ToUO:v9p<.lrrou. This inability to understand the translator(S) has C-Ontinued tO be a ll'l3jOr we.akoess o f linguistiC approaches h)

this problem until recentJy. and assumptions about the translation process remain a weakness in the work of many scholars. Wilh these basic points made. Bolten offered similar comments and tmnslations fOr mbe.r pas.~ages. For example, at tvh. 10.23b he one.rs a t r.ti L~ l ation 'da8 rnao schon ben euch gekon)lnen isf: at tv1t 12.8, ' Und dem tv1enschen ist a11Ch d er Sabbath ulltergeordnef : at Mt. 16.13, ' Wo nir wird man voo d en l euten ge.halten'! '. At 17. I2, he- re.nders 0 vi&; To\i O:v8pc..lrrou with 'ein Anderer', again noting the Syriac N:oiru , and co.nments that th is does 001 sound so good in Gennan 'als ill d eo

Morgenl5ndischen Sprachen. in wekhe.n man einer solchen Enallage pe-rsonarum 1h eht gewohnt ist'. Such conun ents were Mten made-by sc.ho laN, b ut withl)Ut any suOkienl j ustificalio n. Bohen's au empts to trans late N:oin:J showed how· difJicult it is to do so. His view lltat Jesus was speaking in the third person about himself was based t)u t)nly two ii!cto rs, the general meaning o r the Syriac 1\-r.iJ""lJ , and the

fact that some sayings are about Jesus himself. Evidence of Aramaic texts in which (~)IV;( N) 1~

was used by a speaker to refer to hil'use-lf had to await the w-otk of

Vem1es. Without it. it is not surprising thai scholars familiar with lhe Gospels in Greek should argue that. like Grotius. Bolten had failed to make proper sense.of Son of man sayings in the Gospels. Criticism of this linguistically based n-adition was accordingly widespread. Vigorous criticism ofGrotius and others is found for example in lhe work of Gaillard in 1684.•= Ill the opening part M his t~atise, he d isp utes the lu)lio n 1hat 0 u'tb; Toii O:vOpc..lrrou could mean simp ly •man', c.iti•lg Grot ius on tvlt. 12.8, and g iving th ree reasoos li.)r his judgement. u I lis tirst argument is that the Jews kOC\1/ that Jesus was

12. l. Guillardus. Spcdmen Qtr«l!stiomun ill NtJntm ln.tlmmt iiiLWI tlr Fi/i(l Hominis (lugduni·&l:IV(l(Unl: l opez. 1684). 13. Gaillardu!>. de Fi/i(J H(Jminil·. pp. 4- 5.

71te State of Play

13

human, so he did not have to tell them so. This argument would have some force. against a view that Jesus was deliberate.ly declaring his human nature. but it is not very well f(X:Ul\ed on the linguistic obs.ervatil)ns ofGrotius aod mhel's. Gaillard's second argument is based on tJ1e article-S in the Greek expression 0 uiO:; ToU OvOpc.lnov. Jle describes lhis as ' non ... simpliciter. sed e-mph.aticus•. contrasting the LXX occurrences of v'u)t; O:vOpi:Jnou without the articles. This argument has a main point which bas beef! C.f'IHI"U Ov&pWrroo. quocies a lcs.u fuil adhibim.. tOiics indic:n ccnum ilium lwminem, qui. fomla humana, Oankli in viso srmbolk o (c.VII.Il) fui1 proposilus: a1quc adr:o Rcgcm ilium. a Oro constitutum. qui humane hominibos c-sS
14. W. Scholten. Spt
15.

Scholt..-,l. Dt> llt roti oioti roti Ov8p<Jn'oo. p. 67.

14

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem The. tenn 0 \ii~ TOil Ctv&pc..lnou. as oftc.n us il was used by Jesus. so oflcn refers to tho/ IXIJ'/inllar man ,vf'lo. in hu.ma1\ fonn. w:.s iihmvn 10 Daniel in a :~ymbol ic vision (£Mn. 7. 13): and so that king. c-stublishC'd by God so thal he:. mighl rule: dcccnlly over people. the same who was ~\'C-aled by the name of 1l.k!>$iah. And ](';US himscM. indeed. by rncans of this <');pression spoke of himself. no! of anyone-else:.

The fitsl part or this, taking every refet-e-oce 10 0 viOt;- TOO O:v9pC::mou to be a reference 10 Dan. 7. 13, is the tradition which I have 1raced ba.c.k ro Tertullian, as Scholten docs hirnself. aud which nourished in this rethW<'Hed fonn thnYughout this

period. The deliberate reference. to the. Messiah. so conspicuously absent from Son of mnn sayings and anything much like them in the Gospels. is also assened. as it had bee1l by Gaillard. and was by many others. h is associated with 1he messianic in1erpre.t.ati01l of :oiJK ""'Din Dan. 7.13. Scholten a..~sen:s that 1his was the Jewish interpretation. citing only d1e work of Carpzov.16 l ack of thorough comparative exege~is remaioed a widespread feature of scholarShip until l 1-e<:lifiOO it. 17 Section XXIX, ' quibus Jesus, de TOY YIOY TOY AN6Pfl n OY excelS
Eli:un c-nim vcnturum. docc-.b:ull. ante quam Mt.\'.fias vcnin:~.l u For they were 1c:.ching th:n Elijah would c-ome bcf(l(e.IIJt' Meniah c-ame..

This caused a major problem for exl"ge-tes, especially when scholarship became sulliciently learned for the absence or such a view from Je.wish sourc.es to be

16.

Schohcn,

De apptllatiune

rOO u(oU roV Ov8pcirroo, p. 92, d !ing I. B. C:wpzov. uti Du11.

f'IJ I J. /;/, Ch. II. M. C~y. St>ll t)j.ltftm. 11u~ Jurt'tpr~tUtrltm mul hiJiuetlc<' uj'Du11itd 7 (London: SPCK.

Dis.~~tJ'IIillc) tl~t jillo ht)IJI/11/:J ud At~li(fmmr Df~trum JdfJ!tt.

17. P. 1980). revi!led :md abbtC\'i31.:-d from P. M. C:.sey. 'The lnt('!p1\.'1Stion of Dnnil'l VII in J~wis.h 31\d Palti ~(ic Li•cr.m.te nnd in th~ New TC'Siam~m: fl.l'l Approach 10 the Son llf Man Problem' (Dis..~ . Dundm.. 1977). I &. Schoh.::n, De upptllutiont roti vioV roV O:IIOpc.)rrov. p. 114. t9. Schollcn, De appellati(Ntt roti v/oV roO ti~rroo. 1,· 125.

71te State of Play

15

c-Onsidered inlpl)l'tant. We shall see thou the sc.rihes really be-lieved that Elij signilic.ant as it looks at first sight, because the use of (K)~l(~) "l:J in Jesus• Aramaic was not seriously dillerent from Syriac usage whic.h Bohen tried so hard to present The importance. of a Christian dogmatic framework for the complete derivation of 0 ulO:; TOO OvOpc.lrrou fron-t Dan. 7.13 wa..'> expressed \\1ith particular clarity by Schulze- in 186 7. ~ ' He- be-gins with Mt. 16.13, treating it as literally a word of Jesus. Like the-use of Johannine s.ayings already noted, such treatment of a completely mmsual Manhe.an saying is to be expected in the pre-critical period. when the priority of Mark had not been established and lhe. nawre of Matthean editing had not been uncovered. After S-Uf\'e.ying Greek expressions suc.h as u'itc;: Axau:.3v. Sc.hulze concludes that 0 uiOc:; TOO civOpc.lnou is not natural Greek. To e.xplain it, he goes for the I lebre\1/ 01K 1J and the Aramaic .UUK "U. Nonetheless, he proceeds to argue Vel)' strongly that 0 uiOc; TOU avep~nou refers to Jesus alone at f>.·lk 2.27f.//MLI 2.8.!4 Here he make-s three main pt)ints. If is first is the c.onte-xt. Christian scholars could generaJiy do this in a plausible way. because most Son of man sayings in the Gospels really do refer primarily to Jesus. His second point concerns the first arricle, which he unde-rstands a.'> a rercrellce to a particular persoo. Thirdly. despite what he had just wriue-n about the. Se!lli(ic. background of 0 u'10c; ToU O:vOpc..)nou. Schulze discusses it here primarily to argue thm, whatever some or his predecessors had \\'riuen, "'e must oot fOrget the-significance of the tenn a.'> found in the Lord's usage. In practice, this meaos that he c.t)uld argue from the surface me-aning of Gospel texts in Greek. and largely ignore the question of how Jesus could mean this in Aramaic. At this point, Schulze takes hi:. next Jnajl)r step. lie lists scholars who have seen tJ1e origin of 0 ul~ TOO O:vepc.lrrou in Dan. 7. 13, quite a long lilil already in 1867.:$ He then argues for this view himself. He does so within a \'ery strong framework, the. Christiao ''lew of Jesu s as Messiah. Jleoce he regard'> ·son ofma.n• as d1e equivalent Casey. Ammai< Soun:es ofMark's Gospel, pp. 122- 3; pp. 125-3 1 below. Scholte-n. D~ <tppt'llotiOJu• ro!i uioii roV &vOp<Jn-ou, p. 163. Scholtc:n. D~ lm. pp. 12- 15. 25. S~hui2C", \bm Mmrcl1msolm. pp. 20-2 1. 20. 21. 22.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

16

of 'Messiah·, and sees 1he Old Te~tarn eut as messianic throughout TI1i.s greatly fhc.ilitates seeing the origi11 of 'Sot! of man· in Dan. 7. 13. for it was already seeo as a messianic pn)phecy, as I noted in consideriog the '''ork or Schohen. Schulze then has no di llicuhy in showing thal some-Son of man sayings io lhe-Gospels are de.peodent on Dan. 7.13. 1\)r some of them really are. and Schulze se-Ll) his criteria

rather loose-ly so that he increases this number. For example. in addition to texts such as Mk 13.26//r\<(t. 24.30, whe.re the use of Dan. 7. 13 is iodeed obviolls, he lists l\•lt. 13.37.4 1, under the gene-ral notiOI\ lhat Jesus' return li.)r judgement is the basis

of these verse.s..:l6 Schulze then pn)C~"'"' because it is a ctmtrasl with this fundamental text_!? With a criterion like that the number of sayings dependent on Dan. 7.13 can be increased, eornpletcly Ct.)ntrary to the evidence-. Together with .an &.hulze's main poims. this criterion has been used by many sc-holars taking this view in the subsequer1t debate. The rest of Schulze's exposition is all :.tlong the. same lines. His whole presentation presupposes thai Jesus me:.un whm the-Greek text of the Gospels seems to say. when seen against a background or Christian dogrna. This has rernaioed a major fearurc-M the-debate ever since. despite the advent of more critic-al scholarship. A major variation of this view was de.veloped duriog the oineteenth ce1UUr)', following the rediscovery of J Euoch. This was the development of the Son of Man Concept. TI1is viC\1/ "'as originally based on the occurrences of the term 'Sou of man' in the Similitudes of Emx:h. which survive only in the Ethiopic translmion of I Euoch. According to this view, Jews at the-time of Jesus expected the coming of a glorious figure, •the &)n or man' . Jesus identified himself with this figure. The tlrst three manuscript.~; of I l:.iroch were brought h) Europe io 1773, and the firSt translation. b y R. Laul'IV}ir.u tr-wrslute-tl fitmJ w1 Ethfopic: lttaii/IJcripJ in 1/ee Bodleia11 Library (O::.tl:CJ', 1821}: idem. Ubti Enm:h rersitJ ethiopica (Oxf(Jtd: Parker. 1838}: A. (i. HoO'nlann. Das Btu:h HmOf:h in l·ol/sramli,'>er Ubt•rset:,ltJig mit fmtlauf~ndttJ K(}mmentat ... (2 \'o ls: Jena: Croci:e•·, I &33-8): A. Dillnl:lnn, Libu E111xh anlliopice uti qlfiJI(/Jt~ NN.Iit.'nm ./idem ediws (Leipzig: \ b gd, 1851 ); idt•m. Das Buell Hmocll iib~tset~ wul etf!iirt (U:ipz.ig: Vogel. 1853). 29. A. Hilgcnfcld. Dit' j ii
71te State of Play

17

tvlensc:hensohns' .z.J The (already traditional) capitalization and corruua are to-und in the translation of I £11. 46.3: ' Oiel> ist der Me.n.sche.nsohn. der die Ge-rec.htjgkeit hat .. . '·,..This ltl the light or the natioos (48.4) or •cter Sohn des Weibes' (corrupt available text of 62.5). All these made \\'Onderful sense to him as a Christian work, with the Holy and Elect being the Christian community. and Jesus as the 'Sou or mao·, the light M the oation.:; and the lOOn of Mary. The treat111entof 'Son of fuan' as a title-was ce.•ural to this incorrect view. Other scholars argued that this is a Jewish work, but they \\'ere still inllucnced by Christian conceptil)OS of what the teml 'Sl)ll of man• was. Jt did no1at this stageoccur to anyone that it might represeot lhe ordioary Aramaic term (~)\dl(~) 1:1. lienee it \1/ilS capimlized and treated as a title. For e.xample. in the first English translation of I821, Lmu-er.ce declares that 1 /:)ux:h re.pe.atedly refers to the. nature. and character 'M the tvlessiah, !hereby giving credible-proof of Jewish opioions before the birth or Christ'. The tenn.~ for this exalted being include ' the So•~ l)f man·:" At 46.3, the translatil)fl capilal izes 'Son or 1t1an •. aod puts the definite article. before it and a cornma after it. so the identification of the figure is like Ihis: 'This is the Son or •nan, to whom righ1oousness belongs: ... •. Similarly, i•~ the classic. Genna1l translation and edition or I 853, Oillmanntreated it as a Jewish \1/0rk, listing the 'vorausgese.t2.t BegriiTe des llimmelreiches. des Menscl1Cnl>ohnes• among the things previously known fro m the New Testame-nt and now k.nown from books like this:l! At 46.3, !he translation identilies the figure as laurenc.e had dooe in English, with delinite article, capital lener and cornma: 'dieses is1 del' rvte.nsche-nsohn. de.r dieGerechtigkeit hat ... •. h was this treatmenl M ' Son of man' as a tide •hat led to tlleSou or Man Concept. Once this wal> seen in I Enoch. it could be re.ad into Dan. 7.13 too. It was alSl) 1-ead into another well-knO\VIl work, 4 E=ra 13. These were the.only signifka•H sources of the Son of Man Concept until the late [\1/entieth ceorury, and they remain lhe most important. In New Tesmmeot scholarship, this kind of development can be seen lOr example in Deyschtag 's New Teswment Christology, published in I S66.lJ Beyschlag begins like previous adherents of the tradition by heading straighr for Dan. 7.13 as the origin of 0 ui<X- roU 0:\'Sp(.)nou. To this end. he quotes the most ob\•ious Gospel texts ~uch as ML 24.30 and 26.64. The new variant is iruroduced by quite wild remarks about Jewish speculation. followed by more pree.ise reference to 1 EmK.h . Here he regards the Son of man as a Messiasbe~eichmmg. and stresses that the tenn is 'der l\.•le11Schensohn' .J ~ Beyschlag goes on to criticize a variety of people 30.

Hilgcnfdd,jiidi.sdre Apol:ti(yptik, 1,· 155.

luurcncc. 711e Bock of Emcll tire Pmpht'l. p. xl. OiUmann. /Jas Buc/r HelUKII. p. h•. ·'-'· W. lkyscblag. Die CllriJ.tologie dts NI!IU!Il Testamtnu. Ei11 bibli.w·h·theologisclter \Vtr.mch (Bcriin: R.
The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

18

with a lower vie.w of the tille 0 uiO;- roV OvOp
is furthe.r he.ld to be what is important about the Son of man dyins.: it is the.de.ath of the Messiah that matte-rs.u Thus Beyschlag's \\'OI'k iodicates how the new work oo

the Similiwde:r t?{ Enoch could be. incorporated into a relatively oonser.•mive vie.w or Dan. 7. 13 as the origin of Jesus• use or 1he 1em1 'Soo of .nan'. Towards the end of the nineteenth century. an important revival of the. linguistic approach to this problem took place, with the application to it of much more in!Onuation about the use-oflhe Aramaic tenll (x.)~J(K) 1J. In 1894, Eerdmanns again argued that the Aramaic (x.)vll(x.) u meant simply 'r"an•. and was not a me$Sianic designaljon in the leaching of Jesus, m)r in Dan. 7 .1 3, nor irl lhe Similitudes w·rinen

in Dutch. and it did not c.an-y work as far forward as three Gennan scholars in the immediately succ.eeding period.J" In lhe s:une year. Wellh.auseu contributed an unduly fanu)uS footome. in which he pointed out correc.tly that Jesus spoke-Aramaic so he used Jxmurscha rather thnn 0 u'•~ ToG <Xvepc.lnou. and that the Aramaic ba-masdra means simply 'der tvlensch'. This repeats what linguists had said before, and Wellhausen added that Christians. belie''ing that Jesus was the Messiah. . .. iibcrscb:tc:n es nkht mit 0 0ll6pt:.lnOt;. wie sic gcsollt hiittc:n. sondern durchuus falsch mil 0 u'i~ Toii Ov6pc.lnou . .." . .. did no1 tmnsl:ue it wilh 0 Ov6pt:.lnoc;. as they should h:1w done. but quite: wrongly wit.h

0 \1~ ~ TOii Qv(lpc.)ITOU •.. This is a ''igorous prese.lllation of the. continued inability of scholars £o understand the trnns1ation process. Ill 1896, two rundarne.tu a l works were p·ublished. One was the first major monograph which attempted to s.ee behind the Greek Gospels to the Aramaic sayings of Jesus: Meyer. Je:m Alutterspnrdte:ts Meyer assembled the main evidence for belie.\•ing that Jesus spoke Arnmaic, and supplied a sensible discus.o;ion of what 35.

lk:y!!chJag. Cltristologie. pp. 17-22. B. D. E.;-rdma.n~ ' De oorspl\'ltlg oron de uitdrukking "Zoon d~-s mcnsdtcn" als E..-sngdi ~chc ~icssias·titcl '. IT 28(1894), pp. t53- 76: set tUnh« W. C...-sn Mane!\. ' Nachschrift'. 1T 28 (1894). pp. 177-81: B. D. Ecrdm:lJIS.. ' De uitdtukking " Zl)Oil .'l!e. :ul do nM r~d Dutch: I

36.

owe the: latter references to

31.

~f. ~t. ).fiilkr. J. Wellhauscl\. /sraelitisrhe urnl Jiidi.w·hr Gt'sdridlfe (Be-rlin: Reime-r, 1894}. p. 312

n.l. 3&.

:\. r..·Jcycr. Jesu MJtlterspmcht'. txls guliliiisdrt Ammiiisch ilt seiner B~
pp. 12- t5.

71te State of Play

19

Aramaic sources should be used. He tried to go for Galilean Aramaic~ since this was Jesll:;• dialec1. For this purpOse he used both the Jewish Aramaic of the Palestinian Talmud and Christian Palestinian Syriac. He stated openly that these sources were. too late in dnte. but since earlier ones were not available. he used them all the same. The. great advance whic-h he. made was to offer reconstructions of whole Aramaic. sentenc.es. which he loc.ated in their original c.ulturnl context He. was espec.iaJiy aware. of the linguistic dimension of the Son of man problem. He proposed to put it on a new fl)ming 'durch den Riickgang aufs Aram§ isc.h e ' . J'~ Accordingly. he. suggested this for Mk 2.27-28:..,

The great advantage of 1his is that it enables the fi nal example of K"idn J to appear a.!;; it must appear in Aramaic, as a thWtnal tenn for man. Only a whole sentenc.e can do this. and whole sentences cannot fail to do it. For this reason, the procedure as a whole was an essential step forward. This is a pan icularly good example, bec~use the St)ll M man statement M Mk 2.28 is closely tied h) 1he unambiguously general smtement of 2.27. AI the same titHe, the pn)posed reconstruction has pt'Oblems. One is JJOsitiog l\"tnJ behind both examples of 0 &\18p(.)rroc; in 2.27. This made it diflicuh to underStand the translator, ar1d Meyer made-no serious auempt to do ro. Meyer's reconstructioo of f\•11. 12.31'1 fun her illustrates these points:

!Jere h)O. it is a great advantage that •he cornplete senteoce eftsures; that :oiJu emerges a.:; a nonnal term fOr man. II is also good that there are no proble-ms with the late date of the Aramaic used. Moreover. t:his is a Qsaying. and the proposed reconstruction penn its the t~nderst attdiog of Lk. 12. 10 as an ahemative understanding of the same Aramaic. This might have led to important advances in our understanding of Q. Also helpful \\' tvleyc-r 's reference to Mk 3.28, nO:vTa 0:4>E9hon a:t Tole; uiol c; Tc.lv Crv9pt.lTT(.)V, \\'here he saw a d ear ec.ho of~IL;n~ in the original saying. None-theless, he had insutlicient appreciation of lhe need w understand the tran.!;lator. The use of t'J-o in the indelioitestate, which is entirely reasonable onArarnaic grounds, requires an explanation of the consiste-m use of d1e articles in 0 uiCt;- ToUCtvOpc.) nou. Meyer also offered an Aramaic.rec.onstruction ofMk 2.10. He knew ftom his study or Aramaic, more extensive than that or any of his pn."'dec.essors, 1ha1 (K)iiJ(K) 'U had to refe-r to ·man' in general, and he knew frotn his study of the-Gospels that each Son of man saying had to refer to Jesus in particular. He had not however found Ammak e.vidence that both thiogs were posltible at onc.e. This led hifn to a conjecmre whic.h was to run fruit]e$sly fo r some time. lie note.d the use of lhe-Aramaic KU) ~i:l:i by a speaker in the third person to refer to himself. and announced that one would 39. 40. 4 1.

Mcyc-t•."-l•rrterspmche. p. 9 1. Meye-r. Mlttlfm-prache. p. 93. Meye-r. Mltfler.\'/Jrttch~. p. 94.

20

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

also expect ~:oiru ~1:1;1 . He c.ould no 1 however produce any e-vidence of this, aod this was emphasized rnlher than mitigated by his bringing forward a linJe evide-nce which was not Lhe same at all. such as the Christian Palestinian Syriac. lectionary havil)g ,~where olhe-r Sytia.c versioos have ~nJ.:~: He proceeded to offer Aramaic recoustruclionsofMt 8.201/Lk. 9.58 and o f r-.•tt. 11.18-19a/llk. 7.33 34a. renderiog 4

Wlu as •ein Mensch (wie ich)' and •je.nand' respect i vely.<~) ·The reconstmctions themselves are quite plausible. which however underlines the fact that Meyer did not solve. the problems which be. raised so d early. ~·leyer also be-lieved that in some passages 0 u'1 61; ToGO:v9pc..lnou is a messianic title, and he cMrecdy noted lhat Dan. 7 .13 had bee1l use.d. h tOIIO\\fS that his wonderful advances in our understanding of the Aramaic substratum of the synoptic Gospels did not lead him to solve the. Son of man problem. There.were two areas of il which were to need an01herc:enmry of study. One was an impnwed ulldei'Sianding or the idiomatic use of ( ~)!Lr:(N) -u ln sayings \Vhich have both a general level of meaning and a ge-nuine reference to the speaker himself. This would necessarily entail tJ1e collection of much more Aramaic C\~dence. The other was the complete transiliOil process. from the use of (K):zil(K) -u by J eslL~ in authentic sayiog.'>, through the translation process. to the creation of new sayings by the early church and the evangelists, sayings which never existed in Aramaic and which had no general level of meaning.

3. From Liet~numu w Venues

Late.r in 1896. Liet7.mann surveye.d the use of(K)IV;(~) 1J in •heTargu.ns ofOr•kelos

and Jonathan. the Palestinian Syriac Gospels. and several tractates of the Palestinian Talmud:·~ This survey of Ammaic sou ~e material was much more ex(ensive than the work of his predooessoi'S. It conYinc.ed him thal WJ 'U was a stnlightforward term fOr a person. •die farbiOSe$te u1ld unbe$titnmteste Dezeichnung des fnenschlic.heu lnd i viduul'tls· .~ $ 11 is dtis pan of lietz.nann•s work that is oflasting importanc.e. for

it should have made it impossible to avoid •he mundane namre of the expression (K)IVJ(~) , J.

Jle-ca1Tied il through by arguing vigorously that (K)!ff.l(N)

1J

\\'as oot a

title in Dan. 7. 13, 4 Ezra 13 or the Simili111des of Euoch. though his ignorance of Ge>ez made the Iauer parl of the argument a tour de farce which would have to be completely redone. He concluded: Jcsu!: hal sich s.clb!>! nic den Titd 'Mcnsc-hcnsohn' bc-igd cgL wc-il
Meyer. Mutrtnpracht', pp. 95-U. f\okyer. Mutraspracht'. pp. 96--7. H. Lictr.munn. Da Mntfchtns(}hrt. £in Beitrag ;.ur neult.\'lamtmlidretl Tltt(J/ogie (F'reibur~ i .B.Ilci~'7.ig.: Mohr (Sidx--ck). 1&%). 45. t.icczmann, Mm.,·chettJ(}hn, p. 38. 46. Ucu;m:~nn, Mtltsch~tU(}Im. p. S:S. 42. 43. 44.

71te State of Play

21

Jc,;us never eoofcrrcd t.hc 1illc 'Son of m:m' oo hinlSCif, f\w it doc.~ nol cxis-1in Artunaic and on linguistic grounds it cunnOl exisl.

With this in mind, howe\·er, l ielzruann's consideration of the-use of 0 v'u3c; ToU O:vOpc.lnou convinced him that it was a technic--al term of Hellenistic theology.~' This was hardly a satisfactory conclusion for a te-rm abse-ot from Acts (exce-pt 7.56) and fi'Om the epistles. Where he. did believe that KIV:! 1:J \WIS original io a Son of man sayiog, lietzmann did not oO"e-r I'OC·OI\Strucrions. On Mk 2.28 and r-.·tt. 8.20fl Lk. 9.58.~ fOr example, he simply translmed with 'der tv1ensch · and treated both \'e!'ses as general statements, ' "irh some reference back to the \\'Orl:: of Meyer. In the latter case. he also cot~e<:tured that 0 uiO:; ToU O:v9pc.lnov might have re.placed KJX. a quite wild conjeCiure of oo e-xplanatory va lue. ~" His simple comments on the inappropriateness of 0 u'iOt;- Toli OvOpc.lnou rather than 0 O:vOpQ noc; as a translation also show that he belonged to a period of scholarship when translators could not be fully under:..~o..)d. It follows that, allhou_gh part M lietztnann·s wol'k was important. it could not lead 10 a complete. solution to the problem. There was very little positive development of this approach in the immediately succeeding years. In two COIHributions, Wellhausen agail"l stated the main pOiots a.~;sened by this approach. but made no significant progress towards solving its outstanding problems.~ In a good piece of ind\."'Pf'Odent critical scholarship. Dupc>nl's 1924 nu)nog:raph repeated many important points, but could not tnake further sigoificarn progres.~; .~ For example, he regard.~; ' l'honune' a.:; the original sense M (N):z.-"J(K) u at r...1k 2.10, 2.28. an-d 3.28 29, and 'un honune' at ML 8.20// Lk. 9.58 and Ml. I 1. 19//Lk. 7.34. Jle-could not however carry lhe-discussion of the Aramaic leve-l of the tradition any fmiher fonvard. and his comments on the tl'aosition proc.ess w a ' titre mes.~; i aoique' show the Sllll1e lack of understanding as his predec.essors: 'sinon d'une e!'reur de tnlduction au rnoios d' une-iotetprCiation imparl'aile'.s.1 Other occ-asional c.ontribtttioos abnost made significant progres..~. Fol' example~ in 1948, Olack drew atte-ntion to an idiomatic use of(K)WJ(K ) -u which \Vas later to be re.garded as of fundamental importance.n This is at Gen.R. Vll.2, whereJacob of Kefar Niburnyya, ordered by R. Haggai to rome and be beaten for ruling that iis h should be ritually slaughtered, responded as fOllows: 4

Mo:nx •-;;7 ~:rnl.'\o :17•:.:. ~·~• ;j; -c A (son \)I) man who i ntcrptel~ the woad ofTor-.th is beate-n! I anl amucd.

47.

lii:tunann. Menschrnwhn. p. 95..

4S. licwnann., Mensr:henschn. pf). 89-90. 49. J. Wcl\haUSo.'n. Ski:.:t:n wtd 1Vrarbdten VI (Bcrli1\: Reimer. IS99). f)f). 187- 215., 'Des. ~tc-nsdlCil Sohn•: Einleittmg ill dit drei trsll'll Ewmgelittl (Jk t lin! Reimer. 2nd c-dn, 1911), PI)· 95-S. 123-30.

50.

G. Dupom. lL Fils dt• {'Homme: Essui Hi.\·toriqut' tl Critiqut' (Paris: Fi.schb:u:her.

t924).

St. 52. (34-5).

Dupont. Le Fils de I'Hommt. pp. 4 1-(,0, 159 .

M. Bl'lck, 'The Son of ~t:l!l in the Teaching of Jesus', £xp'fim 60 (1948--9), l)t). 32-6

22

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

We should now be able to see thai here the-speaker uses a general statement to speak about hi1Hsel f. Dlack lh)\\'CVt-r was not able to see this. finding for example both that VJ -a here rcfe•·s uoambiguously to the speaker. and that the Aramaic level of re.Jevant sa)'ing.s of JeslL't is al'nbiguous. Sig.niRcant progre:\S on Aramaic sou1'C-es had to wait uotil the seminal paper M Verme.s in I 967, and progress on the questioo

of an~biguity would hardly be possible until I otlered a brief critical discus.~ion of llllx1ero arnbiguity research in 1985.13

A IOl of other J"e$e.arch was published from different perspectives. The. b~\si c view that the Gospel1erm 0 u'u)c; Toli O:vOpt.)rrou ' "as derived fn)ru Dan. 7.13 continued to nourish. albeit witl1 several variatioos. In 19 10, Abbott declared that the ropular vie\" in England was that 'the son or man• was a rec.ognized messianic title deri\red fro m this passage. ~.~ In serious eritical schl)farship, this was ollen cornbined with the Son or Man Concept. For example-, io his highly regarded 1959 mooograph, T< eruitled his Chapter I 'Die traoszendente I loheit der Menschensohngestah io de.r sptitiUdisc.hen Apocalyptic' .$$ The discussion is carried through at the hand of Gennan lJ'a.ns lations of Dan. 7.131'., 4 Ezm 13 and the.Similitudes of Enoch. the three major soutc.es of the Son of Mao Concept There is no di.sct•ssion of the Aramaic (~)1.92(~) 1J', nor of the-original text or any M these docurnents. Tile-discussion M Dan. 7.13f. already introduces die Geswlt eines tmns:;eudeu ten Volhmder:r. T< bluntly ca..~ts aside the interpretative section of this chapter, inte-rpreting the-ntanlike figure in the light ofd1e lradition of the Son of Man Concept. Having dooe Sl), he comments on the interpre.tmive section: s~~ieBiich bersubl d ie Deutung 7: 15ff. lkll 'der d Mm Mcnschen glkb' seines Chat:.kletS sis indh·iducllcr Gesrall und se1:t1•da~ VoiJ: de-t liciligcn d e-~ H.!kh~• cn • :1.!1 seine- Stelle. The imcrprcltltio•t in vv. J5tr. ~ h im 'who is like a nl3n' completely of h is io
This atbitrarily retnovel> the-Je\\fish people from the origioal text of Daoiel 7. and alters •he-inlel')lre-tatil)n of 10/J~ 'UJ 10 the Son of Man Conc.ept. Tt>dt pnX".eed~ secondly ro 4 Ezra 13. lie lnterp1'ttS the figure whom he calls 'the Man• frorn wilhin the san'\e tradition. eve-n though he concedes that •the tvlan' is no1 a. title. lle again itllei'JlreL~ lhe vision a.ll if it were a description of a real figure-. an-d igoores the-intetpretalive-section of the chapter as second
53.

Sec,,,,,33- i, 40- t below.

54. E.A. AbOOn, 'Tht' Son of Mun' or Conrribl•litms (Oi:.tCS.iatica VJU. C:-.mbridge: CUP. t9t0). p. xv.

)).

w 1/ee Smdy of Jltt' 71rouglet oflr!J.Its

H. E. TML. /kr Me11Khmsul!fl ill der SJ'IIqJJiJdlm Uiwrlitfmmg (Giiter.iloh: Gcrd

M,'Jhn. 195-9)! 7111! SlJn of Mun ill fht S)'IIOplic TradiliQII (lrans. D. M. B:.non: l oodoo: SOt

t9l>5).

56.

nidt. Mr!IISCht'tl.follll. pp. t9, 2t: S011 u/Mtm. pp. 12. 24.

71te State of Play

23

judge-. lie does not however consider his identificatjo-n as Enoch. nor does he discuss how the use of the-Aramaic (x.}oiJ(K) "'CI would a llOCt his description of this figure-. l ie dl)es di.sc.u.ss btieH)' the c-on.siderable differe1lC-es betv1een the ligures in his three c.hosen documents. but this does not cause him to consider seriously the. possibility that this figure might be a modem conslruct. This approach Jed to a major problem, for the Son of Man figure does om suffer and die, whereas in the Gospels 6 ulO:; ToU O:v9pc.lnov is ce-•Hral 10 the .najor prediclions of Jesus' suiTeri•tgaud de.ath. Til is pn)blem 'vas usually met by re:son:iog to anothel' lraditionally popular Cht·istian 1ext, l ~iah 53, interpl'tled in accordance with Christian tradition. This indic.ates how abstracted the Son of rvtan Concept had become. lOr death is a central characteristic of'(x.)'Ol(x.) , J. TOdt made very little ulle- of anmher major development. dte auernpt h) see theSao of r-.~tan Concept agai1t.Si the background M a more ge.neral Near &stem 'Man· c.oncept. For e-xample, in a 1951 book which became inlluential in its 1956 English translation. Mowinc-kel distinguished carefully between Jewish e:\:pectalions of a national t\•le-$sinh and the Son of man.n He offered a lengthy discussion of the Son or to.•lan Concept. He began with Daniel?. Although he accepted the interpretalive sectior1 as what the author oflhe final fOnn oflhe text inteoded, he argued on the basis or what he could not explairl that 'about 200 B.C. or earlie-r d.ere was in Judaism a conception of a heaven I)' being in humao IOrm ('one like a man•). who, at the IUnl of the age, the dawn of the e$c.hatolo£ic.al era. would appear. and would receive fro m (iod delegated power and authority over all kingdoms and peoples• .5' He argued from the plural ' tlll'l)nes' . which again he could not explain. that this figure '' "as thought ora:. sharing God's lhrone, a divine being_ in hUIHan fl)llll •. tv1owiuckel then used the teaching of Jes-u.s ahoul the Son of fnan al Mk I3.26, 14.62 and parallels to argue that ' the C-01\C.eptjon of the Son of Man• was 1he. traditional lllate•·ial which was rciurerpn::ted h>' 1he see-r of Daniel 7.59 This is a panicularly clear example of Christiao traditil)O being use-d w lOon and expound ' the conceptioo of the-Son of Man'. conttary to the text \\•hich is S-t:ipposed 10 lOon the basis for the exposition. Mowinckel proceeded to the Similitudes of Enodr and 4 E:ra 13, the two other major sources of1he Son of Man Concept I le added in several Olhen:, announcing for e.xafnple-the messianic interpretatjon of Ps. 8.5. withoul any discussion of texts which so interpret it. let alone their date .~ He then provided a lengthy discussion of \'arious feature.s of the Son of Man. a composite character drawn from the various texts \\-'hic.h 1\-•lowinckel conside-red to be rele\•ant. Having fonned this comple.'t C-haracter l'rorn 1nany ditfe1'tnt texls. Mowinckel fOund that his 'heavenly, pre. existent being, "the Mao", of divine angelic character ... did not originally have aoy c.onnexioo with the Old Testa1nen1 Mes.o;ia.h ... •M h is this which took him to 'the 51.

S. r..·Jowinckel. Hall .wme kommt"r (Copt•nh:tgcn: Gad.

\V. AnMrson; Oxli>rd: Blackwdl. 1956).

5S.

59. 60. 6 1.

Mowinekcl. HI' That Comt'IIJ. p. 352. Mowinckct. H,. Tltut Comnlt, pp. 352- 3. Mowil\Ckct. He Tltut Comt'tll. p. 351. Mowinckcl. Ht> That Comnle, p. 420.

195t): HI' 71urt Comtlh (tram;.. G.

24

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Primordial t>.•lan ' , c.onceptious of \\•hich he supposed to have been 'widespre
an<:ie.nt e.ast ' .~ These are the two vital steps characteris-tic of this line of research. The first is h) con:aruct the Son of Man Concept fn)tn a variety of Jewish sources, some interpreted. and some dr.t.'>ticaJiy misinterpreted, from the perspective of this specific academic tradition. The se.cond is to find that this cannot be explained

l)O

the basis of other a.~pects of Jewish culture., and to tum to another modem construct 'the Prirnordial Mar•' or the like, liw a proposed expl:u . ~n i on. t-.
wrd tlie Ewmgelir.lliilwrlit/enmg (Hciddlmg: Winter. 1919): R. Rcittc-1\Slcin, Dtu inmiscl!e £r/iisrmg1fll}'.\'lt'rium (Bonn: Mt~reus & Webe-r. t921): J. M. Creed. ''The- 1-lcavcnty Ma.n'. fl'S 26 ( 1925), pp. 1 13-36~ C. H. Kraclins. Alllhropcs and Son of Mall (Colrmtbia Unil•t nity Orit11/al Swdits 25. New Ymk: Columbia U.P., 1927)~ W. S1acrk, Dit' ErWsewm-aJ·ums ill detJ OsJiidrm R('/igimwJt. Unltrstu~hiiJigen :;It dt>n AllSdrucksfomrm der biblisclrm Chrislolttgit' (Soter l)

(Bc•1illi.Sumgan:

Kohlhamm~r.

t93&): H. L Jll.AA.'n. Dit Hetux:hgutall. Eine wrgleicht11Je

rl!'l~~iOJisgesc/lichtlidJe Umer.mchllng (Oslo: Oybwad, 19.l9).

(14 . lJIT.

Mowine-kd, He 71rat Comtlh. p. 423. citing V. GrDnbc-ch. Nurdi.ske myter og sag11. pp.

65. MowinckcL He 11wl Cmneth, p. -123. d ting G. Widen,s.rtn. Rdigitmens riiJ"IJ. ReligitHJsjt'Jiomenlogi.fka .wuditr (N"Il ii~Yrsikler (Stockho-lm. 1945, :1953). pp. 3641:. 389f. (16. Mowinckcl He Tllal Ctnltet!r, pp. 42.3-4, ci1ing Jtlnlle-n, Hellorlrse,taiJ. pp. 3M., 1050'. 67. f\fowirle-kcl. He Tlrtll Cm1retfr. p. 427.

71te State of Play

25

l11e main problem witl1lhis figure is that it nevet lX:Curs any\vhen::. It is a mod-ern construct, put together with no regard lOr space, time. or culture. h is e:m·aonlin.ary t11at MO\IIin~kel's comments oo its dille-rerH fOnt\.;:, and its massive varie-1y l)f names and o1her qualities. did nm aletl him to this. Mowinckel then moves to 16 'most important features in the figure of the. Son of Man'. the.similar· fault'> M which I howe already analysed. By this stage. it is doubly obvious that there is no real reason why t11is almighty cons-truct should beealled 'Son of Man•. except when r-.•towindel uses the Similitudes of Enoch to expound it Nor is the result really aU that like 0 u'iOc; ToG CtvOpc..lrrou in the te-.ac.hing attributed to Jesus. So the very short section on the 'Son of f\-lan as Used by Jews'. after surveying brielly features of Jesus• rniniSII)' in which fOr example he does oot come in glory, but is 'the pn::acher and mediator of God•s rorgi\•ing grace. the friend of sinners and tax·C-Ollectors', assures us that "'Theaunosphere about I rim is dillC:re.nt" from tl1at in the us-ual idea.~:; about the Son of Man.•t.J Mowinckel proposes two altematiw understandings of the diffe-re-nce: Jesus muy ha\'C mcanl that He m1s the hc.u\'enly Son of Man. who had come down in u mystctioos manner, :Uld now walked 1M C':'trth. Or t·lc may htl\'o.' mcam 1hat ~ ws~ an elc01 man. 'vho would be exulted to be wbul tbc initiated said lhat the Son of Man wa.s in hC-11\'C-n.

h is strikiog that ne.ither view is found in dte teaching of Jesus. Mowinckel proceeds to the problem which was by this stage tradilional for the. S-oo of Man Concept. commenting that 'there is anodter great aod inC-Omprehensible inuo\·ation in Jesus' '>'iew of Himself as the Son or Man.' To understand this ' inc.omprehe.nsible innovation' . Mow·inckel tumed to the Sullering Servant of l:.aiah 53. 'Je~us was the iirst to mke this prophecy seril)USiy in its real meaniog, and apply it h) Himself. •.w Conrempt for Jewish use of scripture is thus combined with this proposed solution. What is so striking is that after the use of two modern constructs. the Son of rvtan Concept and the Primordial Man, Mowinc-kel totally failed to oner a prope.r explanation M the use or 'Son of mao' in the teac.hiog of Jesus. His whole approach indicates his membership of an ;.tcademic Christian social subgroup. whose members devoted a massive amount of effon and learning to the. furthe.r devetopmem of the. work of their predecessors. Their efforts. learning and positions as distinguished professors ser.•ed to conceal the decisive methodological weaknesses at the.centre.of their work. In 1967. Borsch rnade anothe.r ane1npt at the.pn)blem frorn a similar pe-rspective-. but with much more exte-nsive. discussion of the New Testament material ' 0 The first part or the-book is similar in methodology 10 the work of tvtow·inckel. drawing on ruany diverse sources to pu( rogedte-r· an anificial cons-truct. fiors:ch made more effort 1han tvtowinckel to explain the specific tern\ 'soo of mao'. For example. he6S. Mowi.nckcl. Htt That Comrth. p. 447, quo1ing F.. Sj6bcr,g. · ~t~nnisk(llioncn i judcndom odt ut'ktistcndom'. i.n 28:e Srenska LiimlwhliiroreniJte i StO
26

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

used Psalm 8, treating this as a pic(ure of the First f\•lan 1iJiiog in paradise. He noted particular-ly the parallelisnl of'Man' and 'Son of f>.·lan• sugge-s ting that there is •very

re.a1 poim in the second desi~,nation. for the reigning king was the re.presentative of his anc-estor the f\•lan. the first king. in whose offic.e he now serves. but he is also the son of that Man, his desc.endant and legilimate heir.' ;1 This is however dependent on the artificial cons1ruc1of 'his ancestorthe-Man, the first king', as \!Jell as on dubious interpre.t
as a sig.nilic.aru improvcrnent O!llhe work ofMowinckd . Dorsch's relatively exh!'fL;;ive cornments on the Ne\VTestament material are also unsatisfactory as regards me.thod. For example. he interprets John 3.13 in accordance with traditionally problematical exe.gesis. ending with the. ques1ion as to what Lhe Son of f>.•lan•s previt)u!i ascent could haYe been. ' We would suggest I hat, according to the pattern of the rites and myths in whic-h the Man asce-nd.~ to heaven and is !.here sho\vn divine sec.-ret:-., the reference here is to the liturgical and/or mythical a.:.o;ce!lt of llle one who was ordained to the function l)f the Son of Mau. ' 12 Here again the artificial nature of the Man constntCI makes this e-Xplanation uotenable, even apart fro m the question of what the real interpretation of Jn 3. I3 should be. Again. the Son of Man as lord of the sabbath (tvlk 2.281/Mt. 12.81/lk. 6.5) is ali.~)Ciated with Ada1h. the c.oming of the ne.w age. the ceremonial acti\'ity of the ruler and the coming of the Messiah. So 13orsch e.ornme-nt;; on the ~bbath, 'hl this se1lSe, both in 1enns of its first purpOse and its fioal purpose, it could be-.seen a.-;; the day of the Man.' As for Jesus' argument from the behaviour or David per:miuing his I"OIIowe..s to eat the shewbread, ' it is pl)ll.~ib le- to gues:.o; that there may once have been a p rol'ollnd relationship in the context of t:he. Man speculations. Da\~d= as the anoimed king. could well have been seen as a descendant of the !vlan and a type of the Son of Man Oll lhe basis of Ps. 80.17 or general traditjon in this regard ... Thus it may once ha\•e been that. as Jesus acting as the Son of Man was lord O\'er the sabbath. so he also was the Son of Mao providing bread for his followerS. on Thus BorSCh's strongly associative arguroent leaves t1le text be-hind ahogethe•·· This c.on1bination of artificial c.onstruct with associmive reasoning could ne\'er lead to a successful solution to any problem. So far. we.ha\'econsidered re-lati\'ely conservati\'e uses of the Son of ~·tan Concept and the Primordial Man, in the sense that we have seen them used to inform our unde.rstanding of the teaching of Jesus about himself. Another major developme.nt was to suppose that. in using the Son of Man idea. Jesus predicted the coming of someone other than himself. This was gene-mlly associated with a radical view of sayings comaining Lhelerm OuiOt; ToU clvOpc.lrrov. for most of these were attributed to the early church. They resulted from the cho«h•s sec.ondary i denti ('ic~'ltion or the Son of man with Jesus. The church then created sayings comaining the term which e.orresponded with what they sought to believe about Jesus' historic ministry. 71. 72.

13.

Borsch. SmJ o/Matl in Myth and 1/istmy. p. 114. Borsch, Sm1 ofMml itt ,!tfyth a11d HisUII)'. t). 273. Borsch. Sm1 ofMwl i11 Myth a11d Hisuny. t,l,· 322- l .

71te State of Play

27

One of the most influemial figures was Bultmann, whic-h is quite extraordinary in view of the brief and dogmatic nature of his published comments on this problem. Bultmann divided the Son M mao sayings inlo three groups. ( I) as coming. (2) as sunCring death and rising again. and (3), as now at work. ~ This threefold classificalion was not !'lew. For exarnple, io 1900, Rose p!'oposed the fOllowing: ' (I ) C.tU:\: qui se rapporte-JH a Ia vie humaine e't it l'apostolat du Sauveur, (2) les textes qui t nonc.em Jcs souflianc.es e.t Ia passion du Sauveur, (3) ce titre e~t assoc.iCa Ia parousie et au triomphe final. •a Rose.'s work ha.;; howe\•er long since been fotgmten, because his comments from a conservative Catholic perspective contained nothing new and menK>rable: tOr hirHthis wa.:; siroply a useful dassitkatiorl, which indicated ' les trois s1ages de Ia destiuCe et de Ia carriere du Fils de l'homme'. Buluuann's U$e of tllis th!'Oelbld classification, on the other h.'tnd, wa.c; quite devasw.ting. Buhmann regarded his third group, the 'Wn of man a.~ t10w at work•. nm as using a messianic title-, •son of man', but as resultiog ffol'l'l a misundersta.ndiog of the Aramaic rneaning ·man', or ' I'. This pe.n'tlitted the authenticity of a srnall group of sayings, b11t !eli standard ditlicultics twer their meat'liog, and over the plausibility of the proposed misunderstanding. Buhmann funher announced that the whole of his second group were wJticilli(l ex l!w>ntu. One rea.~on was that tl1e.y wereseparate from his 1irst group, Mother that they are absent from Q. another thal they were implicated in the iruer'(ln:tation of his death in the-light of the early church's interpretation ofscripture, since 'the idea ora sullering. dying, rising rvtessiah orSon of Marl \Vas unknown to Judaism' .u• This is one of the points where Buhmann was dependem on the Son of tvlan Concept. It also presupposes that Q was Ut)t merely an entity from which things could be abse.nt. but also so extensive that Matthew and Luke were bound to visibly reproduce from it things which they had already inherited ffom f>.·lark. It does not really permit a pn)per explanation as h) \\' hy thesepredictions c.ontain the term 0 ulO; ToU O:v9pc.lrrou. This is doubly so because Bultmann argued thatthe.y are 'p!'obably later products of the l lellenis(iCChurch' ,n even though the Hellenistic. church as found in Acts and the. Epistles shows no sign of them. The fact that the predictions of Jesus• r~surrec tion are separate from the parousia predictiOtL;; re!'nains irnportaut. D'ulHnarm thought his iirst group were old, and contained autheutjc predictions of the C-Oming t) f the Son of Ulan. Tbjs figure was not however identifie.d with Jesus in these sayings, but ooly later by lhe church. Here again Bultmann was dependent on the Son of Man Concept, which is requin."<< for the belief that there \\1
14.

R. Buhtnflnn. nu·<1logy of1/Je New Ttslument (2 vols: 1r.tns:. K. Grobe!: London: SCM,

t952). vol. I p. 30: for convcnkncc. I dtc 1his s:y~rcmatk. if brief, di !leus~ion. millet' than the remarks scallcred lhroughou1 the sc.\'C-r.tl editions of Dit GtJchkhte h'clu. 192:t). 71lt History of lite Synoplic 1iuditi<m (•rans. J. M:aNh; O>:fon:l: Blackwell. 1963}. 15. V. Roi>i:. •Eu.tdc11 EvangCliqucs. IlL Fils de l'homnl~ Cl Fils de Oicu'. RB 9 ( t900). P~'· t69-99 0 72}. 16. R. Buhn1ann, 71teolog_\'. p. 31. 1 7. R. Buhm:~nn, 711toiog:r, p. 30.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

28

this, Buttmann made. no auempt to explore how this expectation could be e-xpressed in Arama.ic. This is the.apprt)ach to the Son of man problem adopted by TOdt in his iofluential 1959 monograph. 1" 1 ba\'e already criticized his discu ssion of the Son of Man

Concept. The remaining c-hapters of his book. are organized around lhe. threefold classific.at ion associated with Bultmann. begimting with 0 1apter 11 on the-sayings about the coming S01l or tv1an. TOdt does make a number of gi)Od points. Nmably, following Bultmann. he make.s it dear thm Son of man s.ayings about the parousia eannm be fined into indubitably authe-ntic teachiog of Je-StJs about the coming M

the k ingd om ."~ He also make.s quite a lot of perfec.tly reasonable comments on the editorial work of rvtmthew and Luke.''1 The whole book is however 11ltally Jla\lled by the. Son of Man Concept. and by the associated absence of proper study of the Aramaic level oflhe-traditil)U. For example, in dealing with sayings suc.h as Lk. 12 .8, T< argues on the S.'lfr)e lines as Buhrnann. 'Keineswe~;; wird die ldentitiit Jesu nlit de-•n Mcnschensolm be-hauptet' .111 Thus such sayings are passed as authentic. bUl a figure othe-r than Jesus is supposed (0 be referred to. What is worse. this initjal step of interpreting such sayings as sayings of Jesus about a figure other than himself led TMt to suppose- that all sayings which do identify Jesus with the Son of Man are secondar)' products of the early c-hurch. This had the devastating effect of attributing a massive proponion of Son of man ~ay in_gs to the early church. These inc-lude all du~- prt~dic.tions M Jesus• sullering. dying and rising again, toge-ther with predictioos of his death such as Mk I 0.45 atld 14.21 ."1 Unlike Dultmann, Tiidt attributes this massive creativity to the Palestinian Olristian community rather than the. Helle-nistic community. using comments by Jeremias whic-h e\'en include a liule Aramajc_u This chan~,e is howe\'er of no real help, because the proportion of ::econdary sayings posited by T3dt is so _great •hat he could not show why the church should have used 6 uiOc;- roU avepc.) rrou in them. siocc the initial phase was simply Jesus talking about a figure other than himself. Saying.<> anributed •o this c.onununity also include f\·lt. 8.20// lk. 9 .58 and Mt. 11.19//lk. 7 .34, ' their amheruicity disproved by their dis..<>imilarity frol'n the .autbent i ~ parousia sayiogs of the S-on ofMau•.M Despite many incisive comments, therefore. T6dt's basic approach h) thi:: problem ensured that he c.ould not re.ach a correcr solution of it. At this stage of German scholarship. there seems to have been no limit to bow radical an approach to the synoptic tradition might be favoured. The worst \Vas

7S.

Tlidl, M~llscht!tl.follll : Solt ofMall.

E.g. T&l!, Mt>mrlle11so/m. 1). 32: Son of Mun, p. 35. 80. nidl. Mmsdll!'ll.wlw. p. 39: S<»t ofMall. p. 42. 82. Hidl. Mms
71te State of Play

29

Vielhauer.11$ He picked up on the observation that while the kingdom of God and the Son of man both appear central concerns in the teaching of Jesus. the.y do not appear together in sayings that may reasonably be conside-red authentic.3 r. Finding that the. kingdom of God was indeed a central c.onc.ept of the teac-hing of the historical Jesus, and acc.eptjng Duhmann•s vie\1/that the group of sa)'ings about the coming Son of man were the oldest laye-r of Son of man sayings. Vielhauer argued that all Son of mao sayiogs originated in the earl)' church. The problem is a real one, sufficient for me 10 label it in due coutse ' Vielhaue.r 's dile-mfna•_s1 The use whic--h Vielhauer made of this point. however. borde-rs on the irrational. Whm stands against it are some of the most basic. important and thoroughly discussed points of Son of man research. For example. it does not e nable us to see why the expression 0 u'1 6t; ToU O.v6pc..)rrou was used secondarily in a large. number of sayings which were attributed 10 Jesus himself, when the. term is virtuaJly absent from the rest of the New Testament t\'ft)reover. Vielhauer's dilemn1a appears serious because t11e Son of .nan elemem i.n the problem is the Son of t...1an Concept: 'der Mef!l>Cheosuhn ist ein prlie:
85. P. Vid haucr.. 'Gouc11rdch und ~fenschcn~ohn in dc-t v~(kdndigiU\g J.::su'. i.n W. Schnc.:mclc-het' (ed.}. Fes(.fchrift fiir Gii11fhu Dehn ~mil 75. Gtbur/slag (Nc.ukii'C'hen: Ktds ~·locrs. 1951). 1)1). 51- '79. Ret,rinl~d in P. Viclhauer, AufJiir:,e :;11m Nt:IU'IJ Tcs/umem (TBii 3 I. Munich: Ks isct•, 1965); 'Jesus Wid ohn: Zur Oiskussioo mit 1-lcinz EdiUird T3dt und Eduard Schweizer'. ZfK 60. 1963. lll-77. Rcpl'imcd i.n Vid h:lu~'f. AlifJiit:;e, pp. 92- 140. S6. Earlier. H. B. Shaml;l..!l., Son of Mull and Kingdom of G(l(/ (New Yotl:: H;Upct, 1943). p. 89, which ,v-a;: tlOIIlOW;!Wt' avttilabk 10 Vid.hsuer ('0-onesrcic-h u11d M ~nsche•t!l!>hn\ p. 51 n. 5), who WllS much tOO!c i.nnuenced by C'retYWUl discussion inlhe Buhmann tradition. 87. Casey. So-11 lJ/Man. pp. 208--9. Sfl. Vielhauer. <(',.ouesrdc-11 und M~nschcttMJt.n•, p. 52. S9. Sec ,,,,. 234-S, 237- 8 below. 90. N. P.:'tl'in, ' The Soo of ~13.1\ i.n A.ncicm Judai ~m and Prinl itivc Chrislianity: A Sugge11tion', BibRc.s II ( 1966), pp. 17- 28: !\'()rimed in N. Perrin, A Modt m Pilslima.gt in Ne~t· 1hlamml Clrriswlog)' (Philadcft,hi.s: Fortress. 1974), Ch. I l l~ idn11. Redi.scm·ering 11111 Teaching tifl t Sil.f (londoo: SCM, 1967}. pp. 164-- 71~ It lei v~r;~ad, •o.::r apoksf)'f)li ~c-he Mcnschen!oohn dn thrologisches Phanloot ' . AS11 6 ( 1967- 8), pp. 49-105: idtm. •Exit the A~to~-alyptie Son of ~fa1l'. .r...rrs ts(1971- 2), pp. 243- 67.

30

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Perrin's argument \ 1/
13. He nonetheless deserves credit for making one of the main points with great c.larity. Unlike Perrin. Leivestad was quite-djsrre..ssed by the destructive work ofVielhauer. I lis tirst n1ain poim was also that the. tenn 'Son of rnan• is not a titJe in the n1aio

works used to de.velop the Son of Man Conc.ept. Like Perrin. however, he did not disc-uss the
hard with some of the mos1 imponant standard points of Son of man research. such as that the tenn is used in the.Gospels only by Jesus himself and is absent from Acts (e-xcept 7.56) and fi'om the epistles. So when Vem~ es· se-ftlimll paper was publis:hed in 1967 ~ the-Son of Man Concept had been a Jiule bit puocrured, but it would need a lot more se-rious work to bring it to an end. A differem approac.h was offered by a small minority of sc.holars who argued that ·son M man' '''as a c.orpOrate 1enn. The most l~unous wasT. W. rvtanson. though he was neither the first nor the last.'J1 This approac.h was an offshoot of the traditional view that Jesus deriveitrary interpre(ation ofa vigorously presented individual who is finally identified as Enoch ( J En. 71.14). ManSt)ll (rie-s to 9 1. T~ W. M:~Mon, 71re Teur.lling of JI!JIU (Cambridg~: CUP, 1931. 2nd c-dn, 1935). pp. 211- 34. 259-84~ 'The S(ltl of Man in D:~nid. Enoch and the Gospel ~ ' , BJRL 32 (1949- 50). pp. 17 1-93; r<:Jlrimed in T. W. M:~n son (~d. M. Black}, St11tlitJ in the Go...,tl.t wrd Epist{eJ ( ~ianchcster. r..bi)Chcstcr U.P.• 1962). pp. 123-45; carlk1~ e.g. A. T. C~dom., ' tk Son of M:~n', 'Titt> lmerpreter I & ( 1920), pp. 202- 14. 92. Casey. Smt tJ;{Man. csp. Ch. 2; :11\d funhcr l)t). 82- 91 below. 93. Sec cs1x:dslly Manson. ' D:micl. Enoc-h !tnd 1hc Cl()()pcls\ 17ft-90, = StcltlieJ. pp. 128-42; ~·ld in rcs.poo..sc P. M. Ca~cy. 'The- u~ of the Tcml "son of mllll.. in the Simili1udcs ofEnoC"h', JSJ 1 ( 1 9?6~ pp. 11- 29 (1 1- ll).

71te State of Play

31

restrict lhe Son of man's righteousness and his pl).-:;ition as a revealer of secrets: ' ... whal the Son of Man pOS$esses aod reveals is the hidden treasure. of God's \Visdom and righteousness embodied in the Law•.'M In fact the revelation is much broader than this. including a multiplic.ity of c.osmological. eschatolo£jcaJ and other secrets. in accordance-with the. tmdition of Enoc.h as revealer. He-nce the Law is not so muc.h as memioned. for it does not cover the range.of revelations which are central to this work. Mon."::ver the Similitudes provide no positive evide-nce of the Son of man as an idea that is being ac-tua1ized. This hypothesis is supposed to provide an explanation for Enoch's iderHification with the Son of rnan: it provides no explanation or 1he absence of similar remarks about other people who are supposed to actualize this idea. The inclusion or 'divine viodication' as an elcrneut of the lotal conc-eption indicmed by the term Son of ~·Inn enables Manson to overlook the fact that it is said or ' that son M man· that he vindic-ates the righteous and elec.t by his condernoation of kings and the mighty. whereas the righteous and elec.t are vindicated by this process. Moreover ' that soo of rnau' is the one who reveals, wherea.~ the righteous and elect are those who receiw revelmion. I £11. 48.4 also disting:uishe$ between 'that son of rnan' and the righteous. The filet that the son of man flgure and 1he e.tee-t and righteous have in common certain basic qualities. those of election and righteousness. should not be allowed to obscure these fundamental differe.nc.es. Finally, the use of the tenn ·corporate personality' gives the false impression that a cornrnon teamre of Israelite tl1ought is being: used, wher-eas it wa.~ as much an artilicial rnodem construct as the Son of Man Q.)fiCept.',s. Manson applied this understanding of the tem1to some but not aJI of the Gospel texts. for example, he did not ioclude f>.·lk 2. 10 , 28, suggesting brietly on the basis or previous scholarly discussion that in them the h!nn 'Son of Man' 'repre$e-nls a misunders1anding of an original Aramaic bar niishii', which should be rendered 'rnan· .% Where he did apply his corporate understaodiog of 'Soo t)f man· 10 Gospel texts. the res-uh \\1a.;; quite-disa.urous. For ex~l rn pl e, in diS(ussing M t. 8.20//lk. 9.58. Manson declared that 'as an aJJOcalyptic ~ymbol the birds of the air stand for the Gentile nations', and that in I £11. 89 "'foxes•• is a syrnbol for A nunonites•~ He cornbioed this with his corporate understanding of the tenn ' Son of rnau' to produce his interprelation of the sayirlg: ·everybody is ar home in Israel's land except the true-Israel.''' This is completely remote from the Qtext of which it is supposed to be an interpretation. AJI this also results from ignl)riog the fll)nnal use-of 1he 1enn (K)VJ(K) 1~. As Manson hint..-:;e.l f put it so dearly. 'Je-sus took the term Son of Man. and with it its primary meanjn£,, fro m Dan. vii ... We have no good rea.~on ro suppo..c;e that he was

94. Manlton. ' l>.lnicf, Enoch and the C"fO!'t>ets•. p. ISO. = Sludks. p. I 32. 95. SCi: csped:~ll y J. \V. Rogerson, 'The Hcbtew Cooccprion of Corpoi'".UCPets003liry: aRc.:.>.:.smiru:uioo', Jl"S NS2 1 ( 1970). l)f). 1- t6. 96. Manson, Tetu:lrillg. p. 214. 9?. 1". W. Manson. The SayitrsstJ/ Jesus ( 1937. :ts. Pan ll ofn•e MisJion and Me.u ugt'tif J tJfU. e
32

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

a'vare of aflY 01her Son of Man than Lhe Daoielic. ·~ Dut we do! h wa~ already well known fro rtl the work of l\•ley~r. LietZJl'lilOO, We ll h au~n and others that (~)1.:7;(~) 1~ was ao ordinary term for ·mao·. It IO!Iows that Jesus could see several specimen:.:. of (~)1.:iJ(~) ""lJ

by j ust walking down a Capemaun\ street a 101 more when he !aught a cro-wd, ond thousands when on a visit to Jerusalem. h is a ie.~;t imooy lO the inability of Lietzmann and Olhers to actually sot..·e the Son of man problem that Manson

c.ould make so little use of a piece of information whic-h he knew perfectJy well. As well as these seve.ml different approaches to this problem. the traditional view that the Son of man in the teaching of Jesus meant that he was in some special sense the son of Adam continued to be put forward. The most extensive presemation was Lhat of Abbott.") Abbott believed lhal critics did not agree as to what the term for Son of man was in the Aramaic.of Otrist's words.100 He did not however discuss the work of Lietzmann, Meyer and others who might be thought to have made a decisive c.ase for (:o:)lV;( ~) iJ. I le regatded the Targtun to Ezekiel, which always ~ndeJS the l lebrew 01:0: p with DiK 1:1, a..~ of decisive significance-. This '"as not a satisfilcrory nhwe. h shows only that one translator overinterpreted the biblical -!l1N p, which was a tenn fOr ·mar\', 'human being'. h was not howevcrs(nL-.ed in the translator's t-rwironment, leaving the possibility for any exegete to ioterpret it literally as 'son l)f Adam'. That the Targtut) 10 Ezekiel does this cannot possibly inform l iS about Jesus' di ~ourse in Aranlaic. A decisive objectil)O to this view is that it makes the behaviour of the Gospeltran.slators inCt)mprehensible. If they found D1K 1:1 io their sources, they should have rendered it with 0 v'10c; roU A~a}J, a comple.tely straightforward equivalent. We have however see-n that the translators were not properly understood anyway, so it is perhaps not surprising that this l)bjection seemed le-~~s ill'lpo11ant 10 Abb()U than it should do to us. Abbou saw sigoilkance-in the fact that, while the Tatgumist always used -!l1N 1~. the LXX always used y·,S: O:v6pc:.)rrou. He thou~'lll this enabled him to equate the two to the. point that this provided a precedent for the (;iospe.l translah)rS h) translate D1K -a w•ith 0 uiOc; ToV Ctv9fK*)rrov.l01This is nol a legitimate move. The Targum and the LXX were. two completely different trartslators, and the.y interpreted DlK p in Ezekiel dit1ercntly from cac.h other. Nothing can equate the two quite different renderings. Abbou•s pOSitive arguments wen~ not stroug enough. A lengthy series of parallels between Ezekiel and Jesus are too general to give a reason for Jesus to use O'n\ 1:1. 101Againsl the-conventiomll vie\!/ that Jesus used (N)~l(~) 1J, Abbott held the difrerent Syriac renderings of 0 uiOr; ToU Ctv8pc:.)rrov in the Syriac gospels. 10)

9&.

ManJ~oo.

'Son of Msn•. HJRL J2, 191,-= Sllulit'.~. p. 143: likewise. T1r!' Sefl.YJIII·Me.uiah

(Ounbrid~ : CUP, 1953), p. 72.

99. Abbou. 'Tire Son uf Man' : more b•ictly in tucviOtlll years. Noles QJ1 New Teswment Critid.\·m (Oi:ncssariea V II. london: A & C Bl:lck. 1907), pp. 140-52. ' 'The Son of Ms~~ · : T11e Mi'ssa,gt oflht Son of Man (london: Blad:, 1909). 100. Abbolt. 'T11t Son ofMan'. p. xi. 10 1. Abbo.'lfl. 'T1rt Son ofMaJt', pp. xxii- xxiii. 102. Ahbou. 'T11e So/1 (}fMaJt', pp. 82-107.

33

71te State of Play

This is n·u~thodl)logica.lly unsound, be.cause it equate-s the dit1iculty of translating (~)lOll(~) -u i11to Aramaic with what Aramaic might reasonably be reron strui'ted fro m 6 uiOr; ToiJ O:vOpc.Jrrou as possible words M Je$US. Comparing (K)WJ(~) , J with iJ1~ 1J . he argues that the Iauer 'covers rno1-e ground' and explains a variety or things such as Paul's mention of Christ as "'I he last Adam'• or second l\•lan •. 1"' This again shows the-over,vee•ling inlluenc.e of Christian tradition, according to which the.acrual1erm 0 uiOc; ToG O:vOpc.lrrou is of central importance. For people re.ading_ the Gospels in Greek. in the light of Christian tradition. this is a natural intCre-nce. We shall see however that in JeStL'>' own words it was the contem of Son of man sayings which was of fundame ntal importance. The- striving for an important temr le.d Abbott astray, just as it did scholars ,~,~ho hardly \'eJHured be-neath the surface of the Gospels in Greek. At this le\•et. presentation of the. mundane-nature. of (~)tiiJ(~) ,~ as an ordinary term fOr mao was not helpful to scholars like Abbon, because it reinforced their natural feeling that this oould not be. the correct explanmion of the imponant title 0 uic),;- ToV O:vOpc.lrrou. These manydille-rent anempts on t11e Sonof man proble-m unde-r lioe howditlicuh it was to solve. De.spite the earlier work of Lietzmann. Meyer and Wellhausen, the dominant traditionofGennan sc.holarship in the 1960s made linle use Mthe Ara111aic (~)WJ(~) ,J., and believed in a ,\.fet~sclrellsalmbegriff artjficiall)' constructed from German translations of very few sources. two of which (4 E:mt and the. Similitudes af En"ch) sun'ived only in corrupt l.raoslations themselves. A fresh auempl on the Ararnaic (~)Wl (~) -u ' "as overdue. h was natural d1a1 it should corne from a Je\llish scholar and be. based on careful study of source materiaJ in the originaJ Jewish Atarnaic. I mm next h ) the seminal paper of Verrnes.1ru Vermes began with some brief comments on the history of sc.holarship. He then surveyed the. use o r ( ~)'OIJ , J in Jewish sources as an l)rdinary term tOr •man'. and in references h) a single io-di\•id-ual, to •e.\•eryoue' and 1he like. This survey was broader than any which was previously oh•aila.ble. II IOnnc.d the background for themost impo•·tant and intlueruial section of his paper. Here Vennes brought fOrward Jewish Aramaic evidence of lasting importance. and interpreted it to me.an lhat (~)~J ,~was used as a circumlocutioo fOr •r . This aspect of his interpretation did not convince most scholars. Nonetheless, tJ1e primary source material used by Vennes required interpretation whic.h has pr0\ Cd to be of vital signific.;l.nce. Moreover, some. mher aspects of his classific.ation and interpretation have stood the test M tjme. In particular, it has been widely accepted that at least the majority of his example-s are examples of 1he-idiomatic use of ( K)WJ(N) 1~. and most of theargument has been about how to interpre.t lhe idiom found in most of these sayings. The-re has also been widespread acceptance of his interpretationof thecircumstances 1

Abbou. Tl1e Smr o/Mmr·, t>l). 108--9. Abbou. 'T11e Smr ufMatr·, ,,. 109. lOS. G. Wmlcs. ' The UJ>c of ::ztJ '~~'tJ -~ in Je-wish Aramaic'. App. E in M. Black. Atl Aramaic Appro<Jch /o lh~ Gmpels mul Acts (Ol(-(on:l! OUP. 3rd cdn. 1961). pp-. 310-28: reprinted in G. VC'-rtTK'S. Posi·Bibfi
Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

34

in which this idiom was used: •to most instaoces the sentence.c.on1aios an allusioo

to humil iation. danger, or de.ath. but there are also examples where reference to 1he self irl the third person is dictate.d by huftlility or modesty.' 1116 This would also

pro\'e imponant in interpreting some sayings of Jesus. The first passage discussed by Venne$ was Gen.R. Vll,2, to which Dlack had already drawn attention, and his comments enable the main issues to be seen

especially clearly. Vermes prese-nted the passage as follows: 107 Jacob of Kcfar Nibburayya gsve a ruling in Tyrc lltat tiJ>h AAoold be rituslly sbugh!4'rcd. l·lc:lling this. R. Haggai sent him lhis otdc•~ Con\C and be- !\ICOurgcd! f-Ie replied, Should;.:;! u tx- scourge:<~. who proclaims lht: word of Seripturt.?

Venues' comme-nts on this passage illustrate beautifully the strengthsaod weak 1~esses of his approach: Theoretically. of course. !xu· misl1 msy he rcndcrOO he-re :Ill •one-•. b1.u the coo.t~l hardly suggcsiS thai at this psniculat junetUI~ J:.oob intends w voice a general principle. 1-luft by his oppon.::m's h:.tsh wor.:lll. he- c-learly s..--.:ms Ill be r~ fcrring to himself a.nd lhc indirect idH>m i." no doubl due to the impliod humiliation.

l lere-Vent~s has correctly 1>erccived that !!i) IJ is a ge-,n•ioe refere-nce h) the speaker hi m~lf. hlthe state t) f scholarship as it \\ as, that was an important advance. Vennes was also right in arguing that the idiom is an indire<.~t one. used because of the implied humiliation of the spe.aker, and this has also proved important in understanding some Son of man sayings of Jesus. What did um 001Wince evcrtone was Vcn\1es' attempt to remove the general level or meaning of this saying. As he sh0\1/e.d so ably hi•Hsell: (~)V.:(~) ,J is a general tenn lOr ' man', and this makes perfe<--t se1l.Se here. because Jacob was really appealing to a geneml principle that an interpreter of scripture should not be scourged, in order to avoid being scourged himself. What went wrong here was the question which Vermes asked. This was the traditional question as to whether the saying is intended to •voice a general principle' or refer to the speaker himself. Vennes remaioed \\'ithin the framework t) f this traditional question. and I was the only one of his supponers and critic-s not to do the same. Vennes was not helped by the fnct that pragmatics. thesn1dyof language as a means of communication between people rathe-r Ihan a cll)sed logical system, had still barely got ofrthe ground. It was eventually to prove helprul in tl1e-understandiJlg of this idiom. Vermes' adherence to the traditional question had a side effect which no one. could possibly see at the time.: it entailed that he did not admit as examples of this idiom sayings in which the ~.eneraJ leve.l of meaning was too obvious for him. This severely restricted the nunlber of c.xamples: which he could find. Vennes• final conunents on this sayiog contain another error of method within the frnmewolt of the same question. He 1

106. Vc-nncs, ' USo.' of ;:.!! -at~J .,~ in Jcwis.h Aramaic'. p-. 327. 107. Vcnn~s, ·u:~c of~·J uktt;l ,~ in Jc-wis.h Aramaic', 1,· 321. For Black's oonlme-ms. sec pp--. 21- 1 ab\wc: :1t\d r..., my pttse--nt:uioo of 1hi ~ psssngc. p. 75 below, pas..>~agc 3&.

71te State of Play

35

claimed thm his interprera.tion wa~ 'tl u·ther w nfinned in l11e p<'lrallel text prese-rved in Num.R. xix.3 '. \Vhich he presented a$ fOllows: Should IJJ -~be scourged who l>roclaimsthc wotd ofScrifl(urc? R. l·l t~Wi S3id. Ycs. l>cC"t~use JOlt did 001 give !be t ig.hlmti.ng 0-o n•;·;; ~'?).

This presupposes that texts with variants may be interpreted as the same. when the. main p0int1nay be that they are diffc-reJlL II also e:'l:emplifies again lhe rc:.lric.tion l)f Vermes' ime1pretative et)mnle.Jll withio the traditional question. This parallel does indeed show that :;JJ -u in Jacob's saying is a proper ~fereoce to hilhse-H: bul \Veshould not follow Verme-~~ in supposing that this undermines the gene-ral level of meanmg. Thus Vermes should be congratulated on writing a seminal paper. Much more research would however be-necessary before his work could be fully utilized to put forward a complete solution to the Son of man problem.

The next eveol in scholarship was a magisterial and inltuential survey of the whole problem by Colpe. 1011 Colpe's prese--ntatiofl of re.levant Aramaic evidenc.e included Seti re 111,16, the oldest extant exaJnple of(N):z.-"J(x.) 1~. 1 ~ Referring to the e\tidence e-oll~cted by Vennes and his predecessors. Colpe Stl£.geste.d that ·a spe.aker could include hi1nselfin tdnJ as well as x'WJ '"U, whose generic sense ' "as ah\•ays apparent, or he could refer to himse-H in either and yet generalise at the-sa,ne-time: 1111 This presemation of both le.vels of meaning at the same time pointed scholars in the right direction for future work. Colpe took the view that 0 utOc; ToU Ov6pc.)rrou was a translation of the definite state x'WJ(K) 1J.. assertjng that the definite state in Aramaic was aJready meaningless. 111 He-thought 1his translalion was ·not wroog·. bul ·whe1l K+liJK 1:11 which originally meant only a man in the evetyday seose-. is re.nde.red 6 ulO:;- ToU O:vOp<.lrrou in Greek. then this is misunderstood or rather deliberately i ot~rprcted along r-.~tess-ianic. lines.' u: A lot of pro~Jess was therefore stm necessary on the state of (K)V;(:.:) 1J in this idiom aod the translatiOil process. tvloreover, afler definiog the Ara1naic evidence in this way, Colpe found only five e.xampl~s in the teaching of Jesus (e.g. Mk 2.28: Man. 8.20/iLk. 9.58). Thi:o> was not enough to represe.nt all the amhenric sayings of Jesus. Despite this presentation of the Arama.ic evidence. Colpe proceeded to a lengthy argunlent that the lde.a of the Son of Man (.~·fenschensolrm'orstel/ung) et)uld not lOS. C. Colpc. 0 uiO; ToU 0:116p<.)rroo. JWNTVtll C1969). pp. 403-S I -= TDNT VIII ( 1972), pp-. 400-477. 109. ID/v'TVUt. p. 402. from JWNTVIIL 1). 4-0S. Set fUJ1flcr pp. 67- &below. J):tllsagc 20. I10. ID/Y'TVII I. pp. 403-4. from 7WNTVIII, 1). 406. I I I. ID.NTVIII. p. 404. from JWNTVIII. J)t). 406-7. I12. ID/v'TVII I, p. 405, from 7WNTVIIL 1,1,· 4-07- 8.

36

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

have an Israelite genealogy. This has many

or the problems which dogged

the

Son of Man Conce.pt including an inability to unde.rstand creati\'e work using the ordinary tenn (M)WJ(K) ,J withirl Israelite tradition. Nonethe.tess, Colpe oOfred a lot of useful c.r iticism of proposed noo-Jsraelite origins of this Idea, concluding Y.•ithout

any apparent enthusiasm that the Canaanite hypothesis was the best available. Moreover, he did argue-1ha1 •son of n'l<'u)' was not a title in Je,,•ish soun::~, 1lOI eve-n in the. Similitudes of Enoch. Finally. he SU£gested that the synoptic Gospels displayed material of generally Jewish origin with such big differences from exrant Jewish source nuttc-rial that they provided a fourth soutc.e for •a Jewish Son of Man Tradition'.'" This is methodologically a quite dubious move, which funher unde.l'lincd Colpe's inability to understand creative \VOI'k, this time using 0 viOl; ToU O:vOpc:.)rrou within Je\\1ish-Christian tradition. Colpe the-n proceeded to a relatively detailed c.onsideration of the Son of man material in the New Testament He suggested that the. synoptic Son of man sayings should be viewed as the result of a de.velopmem which took place in three Slages. The first smge- wal> the preaching of JelOlL.::. I Jere Colpe included only three sayings which he understood in terms of his earlier discussion of the Aramaic expres.
offered no Aramaic reconstructions of these sayings, and his genernJ oom.ments in Gennao (and likewise in English) sh0\1/ed that muc.h more. y,•ork was ncc.e:i.'tary. 11'1 considering the. preaching of Jesllo;. Colpe added eight sayings about the coming Son of Mao \\'hich 'yield a s.etr-contained apocalyptic picture and seem to stand up to critical analysi s·.~~~ In discuS."ing this group. Colpe made no anefnpt lo consider the use-or the Aramaic tt'm) (~)1.!73(~) 1J. This sh0\1/S the-c-Ontinued stre:r1gth l)f the Mi'll:rche,:rolmiYJrstelhm.~, which wao; still re.garded as such an important entity that the use o f( ~);ziJ(N) 1~ did not need (0 be bro-ught to bear upon it. As 10 whe.ther Jesus meant himself or not in this group of sayings. Colpe sat on the fence. unable to make up his mind. Colpe's second stage of development wa...:; the t)ral tradition of the primitive community. Here Colpe argued that sayings about the coming Son of man were applied to the returning Jesus without actual change, and that this affected the interpretation of the other three authentic sayings. Then funher Son of man sayings were formed by the community. and 0 uiOt;- ToU Ovep~rrou was added to existing sayings. Sayings auributed to this second stage included for example Mk 14.21 , where Colpe supposed the term 0 uibt;: ToV O:vep<.'m ou to be a secondary addition h) a dominical saying. which originally began •for I must go' in Aramaic. This extraordinary assertion was not howe.ver accompanied by proper discussion of any possible Aramaic. origina1. 11 s This was also one of several cases in whic.h the c.riteria for considering sayin~ or expressions to be primary or secondary were not remotely adequate. Much further work would accordingly need to be done at points 113. ro,vrvnl. p. <129. from nv.\rrvm. p. 432. I 14. TDNTVIII, p. 433, from 11V/I.t'fVItl. ~'· ·U:S. 115 . TONTVII I. p. 446. from TIVl•ff VIII, p. 449.

71te State of Play

37

like this. Colpe's third stage was the literary tradition of the primitive c.ornmuuity.

Here he discussed the editorial work of Mark. Luke and ~·latthew. This was naturally dependent on the previous discussion of sayings which Colpe belie\'ed to have been spoken by the historical Jesus or produced within the oral tradition of the primitive c.om.nunity. All the inc.()rrect decisions taken in the discussion of the t'i rst (\1/0

stages accordingly e-ntailed that the work on Lhe third stage would need a complete ove.maul. Colpe's work was the-1-efore a mixed bles~ing. On the- one hand, he did draw careful attention to the Aramaic materiaL and Lhis ought to ha\'e prevented future scholars from lea,•iug it
material in his efforts to unde-rstand the teaching of the historical Jesus. Moreover, he sti ll bas an inlluential Son of Man Concept. and a variety of aspects M the Son or man problem remained unexplained. All this ensured 1hat his e-xtensive inlluence would not push scholarship in the din."Ction of a solution to this problem.

Since then. the work of Vermes has led to furthe-r developments of a linguistic. solution to some a~pects of this problem. all of which has proved ve-ry controversial. I have been promine.nt in this aspect or 1he work, which re.aches iLs cuhnioation in this book. I now plot out the main paints of development. and note the nK>st

imponant criticisms. In a brief aJt ide in 1976, I pn)posed that the examples of Lhe idiornatic use M (K)tOJ(K} -u b1(1ught forward by Vcnnes have.(\VO Jevcl.s of meaning. In discussing Tg. Gen. 4.14b as an example, I described the-idiom as li.)IJ0\\1S: ' ill Aramaic. a speaker could U$e a genemJ statement. in which the exp1~ssion lOr 'rnan • w-a..:: ;;~ 1J . in order to say something about hirnselr' ." 6 While I have been C.otlSinlined by some •~&orenablt­

criticism Lodescribe this indifferent ways. the main poinl remains vnJid and is expounded in Chapter2 oftllis book. I also argued that the Lranslation \\rith 0 v'10:;- To0 O:vepc.)nou was natural and. n04.ing other possibilities. virtually inevitable. Subsequem work has enabled 111oe to futthcr in'lprove our unde1standing of the translatioo process. I also began to make use of Ara.1naic reconstructioos of saying:; of Jesus, and in Sl) doit~g I noted that the impression that Son of man sayings might refer to someone other than Jesus •js simply a fUnction of the lac, that Son of .-nan sayings are trnnslatjonese'. 117 l11is simple point is sutricient •o den.olish one of the main points or all Lhe wotk io t11e Bultmann tnldiliOI\. I proposed about a dozen c.xrunpk:s of this idiom in authentic. sayiogs or Je~'>us, all but one of \Vhich are IOund in Mark or Q. I aiSl) argued that thi:; hypothesis would enable. us to solve. the classic. problems of Son of man research. a contention '"hich this book lOeek.s to establish. Jn ano1hcr article in 1976. ! tackled theGe'ez text ofd1e Similitudes of E11ach. m I argued 1hat its use of1he tenu ·son of man' should be underStood in tl1e light of nonnal use of the Aramaic tenn (~)lL;:(~) -u, and that the Son of man figure was from 1he first inter.ded 10 be understood a..:: Enoc.h. I

I 16.

tl 7. t18.

P. M. C:.:>cy. 'Th~ Sol\ of M:w. Problem'. ZN\V 6? (19 76}. pp. 14?- 54 (147). Casey, 'The Soo ofM:.n Probl~m·, !). t5-0. Casey, ' "'!100 of m:.n" il\ the Simili/L1des of Etux·h'.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

38

oond uded that the Similitudes should therefore be discounted as evidence of a special ·son or rnan' c.onoept in Judaism. which lefl very liule evidence or aoy such thing. I developed my hypothC'$iS moc-h further in a 1980 book. 119 This wal< the first auempt h) oner a complete di scus..~io n of 1he-comparative exegesis or Daniel 7, and hence to explore fully i1s significance tOr the Son of man problem in the New Testanh~tH . The discu.:;sion of Daniel 7 it-;;etf io Ch. 2, and of its use t)r absetlce in

the Apoc-rypha and Pseudepig:rapha in Cb. 5, demonstnlted that the-re \liaS no ·son ofMau Concept' in ancient Judaism. 11le discussioo of the Gospels inCh. 8 shO\Ved

that the use l)f Dan. 7. I3 was iodeed inlportaot fl) t understanding a small numbert)f Son of man sayings attributed to Jesus. These were.however too fe.w to be the origin of 1he tenn. 1 argued that all or them \\•ere the work or the early c.hurch or of the evangelists. This was entirely consislent with seeing the origin of the term in the use of(K)\dJ(K) u by the historical Jesus, in accordance with 1he idit)tn to which Vermes had drawn attention. With all this in rnind, I \Vas able to draw up a table which showed h0 \1/ the development ofSonofrnansayings tined into the developrnentMGospe.l traditions. 12" Genuine sayings of .leS'lL{j LL'ing the Al'amaic IC:fl'll (K)idl(K) u were almost aU frorn our oldest sources, Mark and Q, and thu$ confined 10 the synoptic Gospels. Seve.ral fUrthet say ing,~ n::sulted from developmeots: of Jesus• genuine prediction of his: death and I'CSlun."'Ction: this fitted well into the needs of the evangelisLr;; a.r;; they composed their Gospe.ls:. There was: also a group of sayings: which used Daoiel 7.13, ill which 0 u'16t; ToiJ O:v9p<..)nou clearly referred to Jesus alone at his second coming. These sayings mo had an excellent Sit~ im Leben in ~·lark and Matthew. where most of them we.re to be found. for they implied that Jesus would come \'e·l)' soon. a belief of fundamental impon.ance to the earliest church including Mark and Matthew, but a problem by the time of Luke and John. There was the-n a penumbra of secondary sayin£,5. ;.md the sayings in the Fom1h Gospel appeared to form a separate group which fined into Johannine thet)logy as a whole. In 1983, lindars Mfere.d a discussion of Son of man sayings: in the. Gospels: on the basis of another modific.ation M the evidenc.e or the-use of (K)i!J(x) 1:1. ~ l ie pi'Oposed !hat the key to the Aramaic evidence wa.'> 'the idiomatic use or the gene-ric article, in which the speaker re.fers to a class of persons. with whom he identifies himself ... II is this idit)m, properly requiring bar (e)Tiasha mther than bar (e)nash. which provides the best guidance to the use of the Son of Man in the sayings of JesLL-.;! 1:: There are two serious problems \\1ith this, as I pOinted out in 1987.1::1 01le M these. should have been obvious e-mpirically at the time, though it was not fully unde-rstood until later. This is that eumples of this idiom 1

1

Casey. S<m t/Man. C:tscy. Sen t)j'M«Jt, t). H6. B. lindzlrs. Jes1u Son of Mmt A /rtJII i".t«miJwli011 (}f 1he Stm of Ma11 sayi11g:~ iulilt' GcJtNis(l.bt\don: SPCK. t983). 112. Undars. l tsus 5().11 ofMmt. p. 2.J. 123. P.M. C:.scy, ' Gcocral, Oe~ric :.nd lndcfini1c: Ttl~ Use of 1ltc Thml "Son of M:.n" in Ar:1maic Soul\.~ and in 1ltc Teaching of Jesus'. JS.\rr 29 ( 1987). 1>1>. 2t- 56 (27- 34). 119. 120. 12 1.

71te State of Play

39

in fact vary as to \\'hethe.r tl1ey use the definite or indefinite state M ~WJ(~) 1J . This is sunlciently striking to be. inconsistent with lindats' clainl that this idiom properly requires the definite state (K)IV:(K) "'IJ. The se.cond problem is that lindars' reference h) the ·geoeric article' is not a satisfactory de$cription of the Aramaic. defi nite-state. Underlying d1is is the filet that oeither anicles nor generics we.re fully understood a1 the tin1e. '''ith the-resuh that descriptions of the defioite state in Aramaic were often misle.ading. This was especially regreuable in that Lindars was quite right to see that Son of man sayings might be true. of a restricted social sub-group rather than o f everyone. l ie appears to have thought that this was not consistent with my undenaanding: of this idiom: I argue in Chapter 2 of this book that it is a major feature of it. Responding to lindars io I985, Dauckham sugge-sted that •Jesus used barc11ash (probably, rather than bar euaslta) in the indefinite seose ('a man•. 'someone'), whic.h is itself a very common usage. bm used it as a fom1 of deliberately oblique or ambiguous se lf.re ference.' ~~ This has t)ne of the same-problems as lindars' proposal, in that it implies that Jesus use.d only one state-of (K)W:(K) "U, whereas extant examples vat)'· l111:·re is oo dinicuhy in 1inding examples of this idiom in which tdJ I J is used in an indefinite sense-: in I987 I dre"' attention to what I now present as passage$ 24 and 29 in Chapter 2 . But none of the examples provide an 'ambiguous self-•-e-li!rence'. All are intended to be true of m.ore people than thespeaker. ~·loreover, Son of man sayings in the-Gospels are not generally presented a..:; an1biguous. Oo the contrary, 011e of the nHtjor reatUI'eS of this proble.-n is tl1a1 the apparendy unique and newly produced term 6 vi <X- TOU avep(.)rrou causes no difficulty in unde.rstandiog: everyone km)wS that it refers (0 Jesus, Md apparently to him a1oneYs Bauckham's proposal should thereli.)re !lOt be acc.epted. In 19 84 , rvL MUller c.outributed a thoro·ugh survey of the ,yhole problcm.11h In addition (0 discussiog the rtlevant ptifuary sourc-e rnaterial. MUller provided a massive a.nou1U of infonnatjon about the-history or scholarship, c.arefully classified into ele\'en excursuses. The tirst two substaJUive chapte-rs oner a very care-ful discussion of Daoiel 7, e$pecially v. 13, and of the Similiwdcs of £11och and 4 Ezra 13 - the three major sources of the Son of Man Concept. In Dan. 7. 13, MOller interpre~ ed !VJK-.D as 'e.in reines Symbol', a symbol for the 'l leiligen des H<Schste.n•, and .so ' ein Symbol des triumphierenden Israel in desser\ TriUit!ph ·.~~· He noted the creative use of this text in both Lhe other documents. While he did not himself discuss tJ1e text of the Similitudes of Eno<'h in Ge•ez. nor the versioos or 4 Ezra 13 in their original languages. he made careful refere-nce to sec.ondary literature which did. This led him to conc.lude that the use of Son of man at I En. 46 is dependent on Dan. 7 .13 1

t24. R. J. Baucl:.httm. ' The Scm of Mnn: "A Man in my Po!>i tion'' ot "Someone' '?', JS/YT?.J (19&5), t>J,. 23-H (28). t25. Ca!>ey, 'Genct"JI, \H:ne-tic snd Indefini te', pp. 34- 6. t26. M llllct.lkr AusJmck 'Menscht molm'. 127. M Uller. Dcr AtrJJrud: 'Mmschmsolm '. Pt,· 19. 2!.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

40

rather than the. re-use of an e-xistjn_g Son of Man ConcepL A t J 1:./ r. 70.1, he noted the major texlual \':triant then ktu)Wn, and ltauslated · oanach wurde der Name jeoes

Menschensohnes bei lebzeiten fon von den Bewohne.rn des Festlande.s zu dem l len1l der Geister eth3ht.' AI I l:./1. 71 .14 he noted dlat the-text was makiog c.a reful refere-nce back to 46.3, and accordiogly the conc.lusioo to this wotk ' haudelt also nicht \'On llt'nochs ldentilizieruog mit einer bereits existierenden El'l6sergestah ... sondern sic verklinder1, daB l lenoc.h "jener t\
According1y,afterc.areful discussion of 4 Ezra 13, he conc-luded, 'Die-Untersuc.hung des Gebrauchs \'On Dan. 7, 13 im. I l le-noct1buch und 4. Esrabuch bringl uns also 2u dem Ergebnis, daB auUerhalb des Neuen Testan1ents kein Ze:ugnis daffir gibl, daU der Audruck ..r...tensc.hensohn" eine an sich verstandliche r-.~tessiasbeui c.houog gewese.n sein sollte oder mit einer bestimmten Assoziationsreihe \'erbunden gewe-sen ware:•.!! It \Vas good lO have this impo•·tant result carefull)' presented in German. and highly regrettable that our Gennan colleagues did not take more notice of it. h\ his third chapter. rvtUIIer offered a lhMough discussion of the possible influence. of Dan. 7. 13- 14 io 1he New Tesramer11. While he allowed !YIOI't: influeoce than I had dooe in my investigation, for he a11owed rt\Ore-indire-ct or creative use in esc.hatoh)gical passages lhan I had done, he Jike,vise conclude-d that its use came. from the U rgemebull' rather than from Jesus himself. ~~to reO\'er. he independe-ruly c.ame io the important conclusio1t thal ' Ocr Ausdrudc "Mensd•ensohn" kan11 oicht Hinge.r als sicheres Keouzeiche-n des Eiullusses der Oat~ielstelle gelte11 ... " 1' 1 This left one more substantial c-hapter on sayings of Jesus which were not de-pendent on Dao. 7.13-14. Here MOller wt)rhd syste-matically through all the Gospel Son of man sayin£s. He concluded his discussion of the rema.ining Markan saymgs. ZuSo!lmntcnfas!>end !!61 s.kh 11agcn, d:.S kdncl! dcr in di~Si.'fll Kapilcl bch:.ndch('O I I Mal'tini~h~n ' Mcn!'ChcllS(Ihn'·Wonc Cll UMl~ ich ll\tl~~hl. daB man. den Gc-br:.uch des Au!'dned:s in dicscr Evangclicn!ll:.'lwi fl im Anschll•Ban odcr von dct aram:\i ~cl\Cn Rcdcwcise

her \"Crsteht. in dcr dn Spn:ch!!r aufgrund des besondcren Chnraktcrs der Aus.s.1gc bttr b.:nutzt '·"'

Jra.w:h(a) als Umschreibung ffir liC-ine eigcnc. Person

While tJ1is was a step in tJ1e right direction. further work would be. needed on the Aramaic idiom itself. on reconstntc.tions of proposed sayings of Jesus. and on the transition process from sayings of Jesus to sayings in the Gospels. I made a number or contributions to these iss.ues in 1he-tOih)wiog ye-ars. In 1985, I offered a funher refinement to our understanding oflhe Anlmaic idiom discussed by Vennes. I pmposed thal it should not be regarded as anlbig:uolL't. In so doing, 1 oO'erod a brier overview of work done in ·ambiguity research', and tJ1e more helpful 128. 129. 130.

f\Mikr, DtJ' .-\11sdnrck 'Metucllt'nsohn', pp. 70, 72, 15, 88. Millie•·· Dl'r Altsdruck 'Menschrosohn, ll· 154. Millkr, Dl'!r :\usdruck 'Mt>tUCI!e/lso/m ', p. 187.

71te State of Play

41

work of linguists such as J. R. Searfe.ut I also drew aue.ntion h) lhe dire e lTec L~ of the •hen c.om'"o'~ habit of treating setHences •it) isolation', drawing on the \VOrk of '"ore linguists, aJld notiog the frui•JUI inlluenc.e upon the1n M children's specialish and ethnomethodologists. • ~ I onered ao Aramaic rec-onstruction of one sayiog. Mt 8.20//Lk. 9.58. In explaining the. mcafling of this saying, I dre\V on existing scholarship about 1\.ry~n, a tenn which itlcludes jackals as well a..' fi)xes, and on the known behaviour of jackal~ and of birds which roost itl the CapenHlUOl area. I furd\el' noted t11c work of modern linguists on general stonemetmi, which 1nay be restricted in scope but which may persuade if the. general leve.J of meaning is: obvious enough.m The ma..;sive variety of work here drawn on should be c.arefu11y noted. One reast)fl \Vhy the Son of man problem has been so ditlkult (0 solve is that mnny incorrect assumptions about the use of languages in general have been fed into New Testament s:c.holarship. both from the. inade.quate work of previous generations. and from our own popular culture and use of language.

13 L P. M. Cas~y, 'Th~ Jackals Md th~ Son ofM:m {Matt. 8.201/luk~ 9..5&)'. JSJ\7'23 {1985) pp. 3-22. al p. 1. with p. I&n. 15. referring CSJ>edally to J. R. S.:t1rlc: ' lndirc~t SJ>el'Ch Acts\ in P. Cole s nd J. L ~forg,an (cds.). Syntax and Sntumrics. 3. SfJl'f"£"h AciS (london/New Yott : Acad~mi~ Pi\."SS.. 1975). pp. 59-82. csp. 67-S. 132. Casey. 'Jack31s ' . pp. l 9- 20. n. IS, citing C. S. Smith. ' Th~ Vag\l~lll!SS of ScniCilCCS in lsola1ioo', Papers from thr Thirrumlt Regiunol Mer1iJ1g. Clrica.•;o Linsuistk Sl)('it(\" ( 1917). ~'P· 568- 17: 1-1. H . Clatk, ' lnkrring what i ~ m~am'. in W. J. M. lewh and G. 8 . Floi\'.S d' An"ttis (.:-ds), Studi~s in lht P~rctplirm ofLtmgJtog~ (Chiclll..'ster: Wik y. 19?8). pp. 295- 322: J. R. Scat!c. ' lil ct-:~1 ~f~"Sning•, ErJ.emtltliJ 13 ( 1978), J)J). 20 7- 24. rc~'rimed in J. R. Scat!~. £rpnJ.\'irm and M~aning. StudieJ in th~ 'Tittory of Sprult ACI.f (Csmbridgc: CUP, 1979). Ch. 5: E. Ochs. ' lmrodw.'1ion. Whttt Child Lsnguag~ C:~n Comributc- to Pmgnlalics' , in E. Ocbs and B. B. ScllietlCiin (o.'ds), De~-elopmrntul Prasmdtifs (Londoo/Ncw Yotk: A~-sd~·mic Prc~ll, 1979). J)J). t - 17~ A. L Vanek, ' A NO(~ oo Comext·S~.IlSiti vc Grammar\ Papers itr LiJlgttiJtit"s 12 ( 1979), pp. 211- 92: R. 0 . \ '3.1\ Valin. ' Mc:ming :md lmcrpre,atjon •• Juumo{ {}fPrasmatics 4 ( 1980), J)p. 213- 31. 133. Ca."Cy, •Jackt~ ls'. p. 9, with p. 21n. 23, citing R. P. Al>elson and 0 . E. Ka..nollSC. 'Subjccth·c Acc~ptttnre of Vcrbst (io.'t>ernfi.zaljon '. in S. Fcldnlan (..-d.). Cos11itirt CmrsiJti'tlt',\' (lot\ikot\!Ncw York: Acadcnlk Press. 19<>6), pp. 171- 97: R. Revlis. S. G. Lipkin a.ndJ. R. 1-lsycs.. 'T~ Jm1'011ance of Unjvcrsal Quantifiers i.n a HypothC1iC!'tl RC'tlsOiling Ts$k\ Jmmml of lf'Waf Lcuming and Verbal Beha\"itJW' 10 ( 1971). J)p. 8f>-91: R. Re\'lis and J. R. 1-l:ty~'S. ' 11\c Primacy of Gcnmlitics in Hyfl\"'lh~ticsl Reasoning'. Costtili~-e Psydr<>log_v 3 (19'72). pp. 268-90; 1-1. Gollob, R. ROliSillan and R. P. Abdsoo., ' Social judg~mcnl as a lllnctioo of lh~ number of i.llSlanccs.. C'Oil~i~tcncy. a.nd rek\':lfi('C of infOI"lll3tioo pr~'SCnl '. Joun!dl Qf Persottalit)' and S<J<.·iol PJycholog)' 21 ( 19'73), ~'P· 19- .33: G. 0 . Klemp, ''The Influence ofSd cclcd Verb Chcu·sctcri~tics on the Acc..•pltlncc of Generic As..;..-nions·. Journal ofH:rbaf UumiJ1g a11d Vubul Beh<wiour 1.3 (1974). pp. .355- 64: G. Bc:.r a.nd A. l·lodun.. •Jmplicational PriMit,lc-s and thc Cognitjon of Confittnatory. Cl'lmmdictory. l•lCOOlpkt~ and hrclcvan1 lniOnnalio•l', Jmmral of PaJonulity a11d Social PJ)x·lwlos.v 32 ( 1975), pp. 594604: 0. M. Pock:schi :l.l\d R. S. \Vycr. Jt., 'AeCo.'J)ltlllCC of Gcncrali.z:uions O.sJ>~d on lnducti\•c and O..."dt.M:tive Evidence'. J01mud (}f Perso11alily urtd Social PJ)t."hulogy 34 (1916). J)J). 496- 509: Cas~y. 'Jsctats•. ~'P· 1()- 12 with I)J). 21- 2 nn. 24, 26. 1dc-ni ng to H. Sacks, 'E'"cryooe ha.~ It> li~\ in M. Sanches :l.l\d 8 . 0 . Blount (cds), Stx·i<X·,t/mral Dimttl.filJns of U:msuage Use INew York: Acadcmk P~ss. 1975), pp. 57-79: K. Wales. ' "Personal" and "Indefinite" Rc.fcreJlCC: The u11cs of lhe. pronoun ONE in Prc.~t -day English·, Nutlingl1am li11guistk cirntlar 9 ( 1980), I'P· 93-1 17~ idtm. 'Exophors rc-txami n~d: the use11 of lllC J>CtsOOSI ptOik>lln WE in pre~m-day English'. U£-\ PaMrS in Littgui.flio 12 ( 1980). pp. 12-44.

42

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

In 1987, I carried furthe-r the study of the idiomatic u.~e of the Ararnaic 1efl'11 (~)1.92(~) 1~. IM I noted the early e-sample of it at Sefire 111,16. long bef\)re the l i.ue M

Jesus.u.s In discussing this and other exaJnples. I a•-goed thatlhey all h:we a general level o f 1\leanin.g, but that this may be restricted to a Sfnall social subgroup. I also argued 1hat examples of tlle idiom ma>' use (~)t.:7:( N) !J in the definite or indefinite state, and thai the presence or absence of tl1e-prosthetic Kmakes no di nerence to the usage or 1he idiom. 1presented Aramaic IX.'C.t)ll.Struc.t ions of further sayings or Jesus, \Vith brief discussions: f>.•lt. 12.321/lk. 12.10 (cf. Mk 3.2&-29), Mk 2.27-28, lk.

22.48, ML 11.1 9//lk. 7 .34, Mk 14.21, and I0.45. I also made a preliminaty auempt

to unmvelthe origin and secondary development of other Son of man predictions of JesulO' passion now fOund i1lthe synoptic Gospeb. In 1988. I a lTered the first attempt at an Ar.unaic recons(fuetil)O of a whole f>.·larkan perieope. natnely Mk 2.23-28, as then seemed po~sible in the light of

modern di~ooveries of Aramaic documents, especially the Dead Sea scrolls."' The passage had often been split into smaJI pieces by scholars who could not see the c.onnection between the situation aud Jesus' arguments, becalL';e they studied

it in Greek against a bac.kground of Christian assumptions. After presenting the Aramaic reconstruction l)f the whole pas.~ag.e., I Sl)ug.ht to uode-rstand it by means l)f Je,vish assumptions which would h.ave been common to Je-sus. his djsciples and his Phatisaic oppone111s. This enabled me-to see the Son of man saying at r...tk 2.28 in its original cultural context. This cultural context was in the life of the historical Jesus hjmself, so thai the. !\."COnstruction of the Aramaic source of the whole perioope greatly increased the arguments for the historicity of the whole incident. In I994, I offered a nw1-e thorough survey of the use-of(~)Wl(~) -u in the Targums aod Pe-shitta tha.n had previously been anempted. In general, I c.oncluded: ( K)>Z'!(l.") , ::ill a nomu.l Ar~nl3ic term f.:~r 'll\31l '. hs serna.ntic :~~:. COITCSt)()lldS :.ppmxim:udy

tll th:u of th\~ Hc-br.:'\v l:l1X ;:: :.nd the- AJ:.maic- (N)e!;K h overbps grcady wi1h the Hebrew o1x and ;t.ux, :md 10 a lcs.>!er cxtcnl wi1h ~ Atsm:.ic (N}i;!!(~) 'Jl.: i1 ovcdaJ)!i: tll some extem with Lhc Hebrew ;z!•x. ~l :uld other w(l(ds., a1ld wilh 1hc Arnm:.ic -cJ. A1ld ltm. Consc-quentl)', some uanslaum used it fi\.'<}Ucmly f(lf 011" a1ld c.!1JX. and occa~ioo:il ly for mhcrwords. Other lt:.nsl:.tor.~ us.::d ii iCAA ftel)UI.'tnly. ~md soole. f!ll"Cd with 1)()1more th:.n one dill'ieuh example of on; p. djd nOl u11e it stall. At !.:11.~1 in docunw:ms ,vf'lich do not oomaio D'iK p, Lhc1\' is

always.un appropriate alternative. m

I also noted c-ases where (!')JOil(K) 1J ilO used with particular reference-to Ezekie-l, Daniel and Noah, and in general s:latemems with particular reference to Adam, the chiefbutler, Joseph, rvtose$ and Zerah atld his army. I the-1\ brought fOI'ward a further

six examples of its use in geneml statements which have panicular reference to the 134. Csscy. ' Ge•w:rnl. Generic :.nd lndcfini1c'. t35. Nmv t):Jssagc 20. pp. 6?-& be-low. 136. P.M. Casey. 'Cuhurc snd HilitOI'k ity: the Plucking .:~ftliC Grnin (~iark 2.21·28}'. NTS J.l (1988), pp. l- 2l. 137. P. M. Ca-.ey, 'The lJ~ oflltc TCml (~)li":(K) u in the Ar:tmaicTt:tnsla.dons of the Heb1c-w Bible'. JSNT 54 ( 1994). t)p. 87- tiS i99).

43

71te State of Play

speake-r. n~~e or these were from the Te from the Peshitta (Job 16.20-21 ; Ps. 40.5; Ps. 94.12).

This new e.vidence contributed to the solution of the Son of man problem in three different ways. h1 the first place, passage-s in which (M)'Ilfl(N)

'U

is used

wirh pan icular reference to Ezekiel. Daniel and Noah clarified the fact that this tenn for 'man' can be used with reference to any particular individual precisely because- it is a nonnal •e-rm li.)r ·man•. h I'OIIows 1hat bringing tor,vard one or two passages in whic-h it may be thought to refer especially to the messiah does not gi\•e it ' messiaoic o\-·e,·tones' or the like in passages where 'the Messiah' is not me1uiooed. Secondly, gene-ral statements in which (K)~:(x.) -a is used \Vith

particular refere-nce to Adam. the chief butler. Joseph.

~·loses

and Zerah and

his anny further clariliOO the fact that, again precisely because (~)::IJ( ~) ,~ is a nonnal tenn lOr 'man', it may be used in general statements which have p~u1icular

reference to any panicular indh•idual. This forms essential background to its use in general statemenls which have especial refere.nc.e to the speaker, or the speake-r and others, made obvious by rhe context Thirdly. it was useful to have more examples of this idiom. It should have become ever clearer that, when examples of it emerge from straightforward !\.--constructions of sayings of Jesus in their original Aramaic. they should be accepted as genuine examples of sayings of the.

historic.al Jesus. In 1995, I brt)ught rorward oe\V eYidenc:e fi'om the. fie-lds of Bilingualism and

Translalion studies. and from study of translation techniques in the LXX and to some extent other Bible versions. ~·l y purpose. was to illuminate. further the process by which •he Aramaic. {~)tdJ(~) -u \\'as translated with some apparent cons istency

to produce the Gospel term 0 ui6c; ToU O:v0pc.lnou. 1lit There were two problems, both of \!Jhich had bee-n JJ9J1 of traditional scholarShip li.)f a long time. One-was that some scholars could not see why the lr.lns lator(s) had bee.n literal e.noogh to use-

u'u)t; at all. The other was that scholars could not understand how the consistent use of the iirst article, 0 whe-n in •he nominative. perfectly comprehensible as deliberate reference to Jesus by Gospel writers writing freely in Greek. could have. arisen from !he pn.)cess of translating (K}oiJ(K) , J. In the immediately preceding years, lOr example, Hare had argued that the translator should have pul &v9p
138. P.M. C~y. ' Idiom and T tanllla!ion. Som~ Aspcc-ls o f1hc Son of Man Probl~~m',NTS 4 t (1995).1>p. 164--81. 139. 0. R. A. Hare. 111f' S011 (If Man Tratlirio11 (Minnc:ljl\"\lis: FOittc~s. 1990), p.p. 249-50~ A. Y. Collin~. ·~Origin of lhc Dcsign~uion of J esus ss "Son of ~fan"\ HTR 80 (19S?). J>p. 391--407 (399): idem, ' Oa.nicl 1 and Jesus'. Jocmwl ofTheology 93 (1989), pp-. 5-19 ( 14 ): idem. ' Daniel 1 and ~ Hi ~IOficat J esus'. in Of Scribts a11d Srmlls: Swdies on tht Hrbrt>w Bible. lt11t'l1tstamnltal l11daiJm and Chril·tiatl Orisitls prest med tu ](Jm Stm,gt~eU on thr occaJiOII tif llis Sixtieth Bitthduy (~d. 1-1. W. Atui dgc, J. J. Collins and T . H. i\'lbin: Lanham/NY/london: Univcr.>i1y p-ress of A •nc••ka. t990}. pp. 18t- 93 ( 1 90)~ J. ~t . Roits, 'The- Son o f ).fa•''- 185 13 ( 199J).pp. 186-9&(191).

44

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

questioo of the lirst article by effectively translating 0 ulO;- ToiJ O:utlpc.lrrou back i11to Aramaic. commenting: Th:.t Al :unaic"'"ll~ilking Chri s•ians did not pcrcd vc the phti111C :Ill gC1lrfi c ••• is adequ:udy

dcmons11tatcd b)' the. consi!>tC'nl choice of lm lwios lOu mllhriipou as iiS G~ttk c:quin1knt The: ankks indicate that the-ttudeniS re-garded the Ar.tmaic phrosc: as n"fc.rring to a single indi\'idual. lcsus.1.u

In thil> sitwuio•t I brought to bear l)U this probll."m our greatly inc-reased knowledge

of the habits of translators. and especially the massive varie.ty in the degn.~ of lite-ralism which the-ir works exhibit I s lh)\Ved 1hat the trans lation of (K)WJ(~) 1J wilh

0 uiO:; ToU clvOpci rrou falls within the. range of nonnal behaviour by translators. I noted that all traoshnors suner frofn interference, both a..~ bilinguals and doubly so from the text in front of them. The degree of literalism in this c.ase is consistent with the kllO\Vn behaviour of the tran~lators of the l=lebre\1/ Dible into the LXX. I also argued that, given 1he variatioo in the state of (K)WJ(~) ~ io t11is idiom. it was elltirely reasonable of the translators to consistently use the first article in 6 u'u)(; Toil O:vSp~nou. This e-nsured the reference to Jesus remained clear. and c.ould be perceived by bilinguaJ translators as both generic and particular. so th.at the phrase 0 u'u)(; ToU O:vOp~rrou as a whl)fe was as nearly accurate a translation of (~)::IJ(~) 1~ as was in practice possible. Ill 1998 and 2002, J carried this \IJOrk fUrther in two mooog:raphs, one on Aramaic sources or Mark's G ospel ~ and the sec.ood on Aramaic traditions behind the Q material. 1'*1 There were three main points at which I SOll£:ht to go further than had pre-''iously been possible. First. I sought to advance furtller the methodology M doing Aramaic reconstructions: of whole passages. I a•gued that more work had become possible following the discovery of more Ammaic.. especially the De.ad Sea Scrolls. Secondly. this meant that it wa..~ now possible to rec.onstruct far more Aramaic sources than had pre,•iously been feasible. at poilUs where the existing Greek •ext of the Go:> pe-ls had been literally tnlnslaLed. In parLicular, some Son M man sa)~ ng.s could now be reconstructed within a comp!e.te narrative context For example, Mk 10.45 could be-seen to c.onc1ude Mk 10.35-45. and h) draw together the whole pericope with reference back to its opening, and the whole pericope could consequently be set within the ministry of the his1orical Jesus. An even more remarimble example i:> 1he Son of man saying round at Mk 9. 12. Til is has always beer\ part of the-small oarrative now fOund at Mk 9 .11-13. 11li.s dl">e-S not make proper sense. in Greek. The proposed Aramaic reconstruction. however. makes excellent sense. and can also be set within the ministry of the. historical Jesus. '"' )' d iSClL~S:ioo of tvlk 9. 11-13 1t1ade pa.rtic.ular use of the third major advanc-e whic.h I sclught lO make in these t\\'0 monographs, h) carry further the insights into bilingualism and the proc.esses of translation which continued to come fro m our t 40. Hat.:. Stm (ifMall. p. 249. 14 1. Case-y. Aramaic Simrcts of Murk S Gosptl: An Ammaic AtJProuch UJ Q: Solln:tsfor Ihe G<>.\"fJels of.41altllt'll' und Luk~ (SNTSMS. 122: Cambridge: CUP, 2002}.

45

71te State of Play

c-Olleagues i1l these tields and in the study of the LXX. I p<'lrticularly drew auention to the use by the Gospel translators of a translation Jtnrtegy: Th-e onty clc~r su-.ucgy in the synop1ic Gospels oonc<:rns the u-snsl:u ioo

of(~);;·!(~) ,~.

We shall sc:e tlu1t voc must infer the following strategy: we usc 0 "iOt;- ToV O:vl'pW ifoo li>r (:<:)i'~(:<:) ,~ ,.,.·hen it r.::fe rs 10 Jes-us, a.nd not othNwisc ... This is Vet)' impori.Sm f.:~r understanding lhc. whole of lhc: s)·noptic: tradition. for a translation stnllcgy can only be employed when cxtensi\'e ponions of the lilcralurc in whic-h it is found m in foe:! truns1ated. 1 ~ ;

This account~ both for the occurrence-S of 0 uiOc; TOU avepc.)rrou as a translation of (~)i!J(~) ""IJ , and for the eornplete absence of anyth iog like a translation of (~):ziJ(~) -u when it doe-s not re fer to Jesus. and for the virmal absence o r thep lural. r\
the death of John the Baptist was necessary to make sense of the saying. Hence the unsatisfactory result, which led me to quote from modem work on translation strategie~~:

If Lhc 6rsa

:~rcide

were 1akcn

a..;

generic. s~ the S.."eood

mu~

be. bilinguals -could

S(:C d~c

original idiom. The trunslator h.."'d thc:reforc done. M well as possible. We mar fed thnt his work illustrnlcs a gcncnt obsctv'Stioo n\!'ldc by n1o.:lem studcn!s oftmnsl:.tion: ·S!mu:gics d \'l

noc solw trsnsl:.tion problems - thcysre merely piMs thtl! c:~n be inlplcmcJ\!cd in :.n ;utcmpl 10 solve problems.' This funhcr illustrs1es the normality of the procc:s.sc:s by which M:.tk's text Wll.S produttd. 1"''

In an article published io 2002, I made 1wo ful'ther points. t >l-1 One is thai the Aramaic.

language was re1ativelystable fora period ofcenmries. Consequently, it is in principle legitimate to use the Aramaic of different times and places in order to reconstruct Jesus• sayings, and s tories about him. in •he language in which they were orig ioall>' traosmiued. Sec.ondly. !laid out the optional use of the definite and indetinite states in generic nouns, and in sonle-unique o nes. For this purpose, I Sludied all the nouns

in Ammaic. down to the time of Jesus. A very clear pattern eme-rged in ge-nerics: the deHn ite o r inde-fin ite state may be used. This is entirely Joglcal because tlle use of

either state c-annot afrect the meaning and use of such nouns. The same is U1te of the small number of nouns for unique items such as the eanJl. This is very imponant for unde-rstand ing the variation in the state of (~)i/J(~) , J irl the idiomalic usage c.eutral

142. Clsc:y, .-\mmaic Souft't'.r ofMarkS Go.rpt.o/, p. 103. 143. 0.-sc:y. Ammai< Sourc~.r nf MarkS Gospel, p. 132, quoting H. G. l·l i~ni g. 'f-lolm.::s' "Mapping Thco1y'' and the Lsndsea1>e of Memal 'Tta.MI:uion Proc:csscs'. in K. M . van Lcuvenz,\1311 a1)1! T. Na:.ijko:ns {ed11). Traru/(llitHl Srudies: The Sial~ of th~ Arl. Procc:edings of the First James S. l~olmt.'ll Syn1posium on Transla1ioo S!Udics (Amsterdam. t991). pp. 7?- 89 (85). quoting 0. C. Kiraly. 'Toward a Sysacma1k At,t,roach to Translation Skill ~ 11\SLruCiion\ (Ph.D. thcsi~, Utb:.na. l llinoi~. 1990}. p. 149. 144. P. M. Ca~y, ' Atamaic ldioo\ a1)1! the Son MM11n Problcnl! a Rc11ponsc To Ow~n a.nd Shepherd'. JSNT 25 (2002). pp. l - 32.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem to this book. The older ~lu)farship debated whether the fOrc.c of the d efi nite state had a lready been removed in ti rst--<'.entury Galilee, which we are. in no J>OSition h)

knO\'l. Variation in the state of generic nouns had howe\'er certainly been normal for c enturie.s . and th is is the pauem ioto which the \'a riation in the state o r (~)iiJ (~) 1~ in i1s idiomatic usage could now be fi ned.

This book seeks to c.arry forward all this work to a complete sohnion of the Son of man p rob lem. In the process. I hope to have ausweted a ll the major c.ritic.isms o f this

approach. many of which ha\'e. been uncomprehending, or answered by subsequent re$earch. I propose however h) list some maio point~ he re. w ith brie f responses, to

make quite cle.ar what my overall response to these criticisms is. One se-t of c ririeisms result'> fr01H taking my d e!lcriptiOtl of the idiom using the ten n ·general statement' too literally, a nd treating my ~u ggesti NIS in Englis h or

Gem1an rather than Aramaic. For example. Hooker. apparently referring to my interpre.tatiOil of tvh. 8.20//Lk. 9.58. induded ·a n1an has nowhere to la y his head' among sayings which, if so understood, are 'manifestly untrue'.' 4 s. S he did not

however attempt lo interpret the-proposed Aramaic reconstruction, and interpreted parl of my English tmnslation in much too universal a sense. S imilar problems appear to lie behind the obj ections of those scholars who consider my exegesis to be wrong. For example, Ktimmel commented in general: Die cxcgctischcn Gcw:dtsucic-h..::, xu d~n sich CASEY ut\d LINDARS gczw1.mgcn schen, um Jcsu ROO\: ' 'Om ' Mc-llSChcn' :tis cine- bcsondcrc An dcr tlblic-hcn Vcrwcndung diCliC$ Wooc-s zur Um!iehrc-ibung, voo ' jc,b• zu crwcisen. ?.c-igc-n zussmmcn mit
This objet:tion was not fouode.d o n discussio1l o f 1'lly proposed Aramaic !\."Constructions. Ki.immel supported his assenion '"ith brief comments on four examples, \!Jhich he discussed e.ntirely in Gcnr..ao. O n Mt. 11.1 8- 19//Lk. 7.33-34,

he commented: Das ist nun :twcifdJos kcine al/gt'mt!irtt' AI1SS3g<: Ubcr mcnschlkhes Vcrba.ltcn. wie CASEY anniml. J~ood;.-m cin Tad;.-1, de-n m:.n auss~~hlic-Biic-lt gcgcn Jco;us. \'Orbringcn l:ooll!c-. 1 ~? Now that i.s unquc!'tionably no senemlltmirtrJal statc:mcnt aboul human behaviour. as Casey supposes, bul a reproach which pooplc could bring <:xclu.s.i\'dy against ksus.

145. M. D. l~ ook~r, · t ~ the- Soo of M:lfl pmblcm really Insoluble?'. in E. Bcs1 :.nd R. MeL. Wilson (c-ds), Te:t1 and lnlerpJYWiitm. S111dit's i11 lht' Nell' TeSlamalt presenlt'd w .t.Jutlhtlf Blat·k. (Csmbridgc: ClJP, 1979), pp. 155- 68 (158J. t46. W. G. KOmmcl, 'Jesus btrichte dt'r 1\'i'.fSI"IISchofilicltm Geullscltaft an der Joltam• l\blfgang GtJt'llte-Uniw•rsiliit Fnmlifurl tu/1 Main XX.3 (Stullgart: Steine-r. 1984). I)J). 147- 88 ( t59). t47. KOmmel. ' Jesus dcr Mc-nschcnsohn'.1' . ~'· 158.

71te State of Play

47

This is simply repe.tition of standard Christian undition. acc.ording to which all statemenls about 0 v'u)t; To\i O:vOp(.)rrou in the Gospels are supposed to be about Jesus alone. Kiimmel did not en£,age with the proposed Aramaic reconsrruction. and oonsequen1ly he did not even seek to discuss how a general level of meaning could be absent from it. His comments have in c.ommon with !.hose of Hooker that he has e..'(aggerated how general the geneml lewl of meaning needed lo be.1J8 For the supposed linguistic questionability of this hypothesis, Kiimmel referred back to some comments of Pitzmyer.'"" Fitzmyer•s original argument '''as that example-s of the idiornatic use of (~)iriJ(K) "U c.ollected by Vennes should not be accepted bec.ause they do not have the prosthelic K I have nmOO subsequent work SII0\\ ing that the semantic area l)f (~)lliJ(x.) ""lJ is om atTected by whether it has the prosthetic ~. and it is in any case entirely possible that the prosthetic x. was not pronounced by Galifeans. 1j" It slk)Uid also be note.d thou Fitzrnyer's original c-ritjc.iSft'l was a reaction to Vennec:• interpretation of the idiomatic use of lliJ 'U a..o:; a sirnple substjtutc for 'I', a "el)• large change from othervtise-km)wn usage of this term. and an inte-rrwemtion which excludes Sefire Ill, 16 frorn serious c-onsideration a...; ao e-xample-. frail examples are seen as gene-ral statemenls. and Se-fi ~ l11, 16 is taken into account. the shift is very small and one of the examples is early. An extr.~ordinary effect of the massive bureaucratization of scholarship has been a r~ umber or allegatioos 1hat I am re.ally discussing secondary literature when I ba\'e been ll')'ing to inrerpret primary sources. For example. in an artic.Je which explicitly discussed several attempts which I made to c-arry forward our uJlderstaoding: of this problem. Marshall claimed that in discussing my own proposed Aramaic. ~cons truct ion of Mt. 11. 18-19, 'Ca.o:;ey sirnply takes ove.r the vie'\' ofColpe-without apparently realizing that it is not the same as his owo'.'j1 1 wa...; not taking over 1he \'ie\\1 of Colpe-: I wa.o:; trying to explai1l how my prOJ)l)sed Aran1aic. reconstruclil)ll should be understood. The same process of bureaucratization of scholarship has led to the. prese.nration of my proposed hypothe-sis as if it were. really the same as earlier sc-holarship. For e.xample. Durke.u described my vie\11 or autheruic sayi•l£.S such as Mt. 8.20, and 1

148. S.x f1.u1her P. M. Ca.~ey, 'Mt1hod in our Madoc>S. and MadnClls in 1heit ~klhods. Some Ap(ll-oaches to the Son \)f Man Pfoblcm in Rcccm Scholarship'. JSNT 42 ( t991). pp. 17--43 (19-2t ). 149. Kllmmcl. 'J~"S"us Jil'S 'dtr Mcrudwnsohn'. Amm<Ti:;ti.fcht UnttnllclltfllSt'lt ;u dm J,\'IIOJJiisclle.t Mt'ltschttt.WHIInWJrttn Jesu (8\VANT tl9, = VI, 19; Snmgart KohlhamlllCI', 1986). p~l . 71- 3, 84; Casey. ' Usc of tbe Term -u (K)1Z;!(~) in the Aramaic rra.nsladOilSof lhCHebrew Bibk•• 151. I. H. Mars..b:\11. 'The ..Soo •>f Man" Saying,.; in lh<.' Uglu of U nguistic Stud)·\ in T. F.. Schmhl1:md ~t. Sih•:t (cds). T{} Te/ltht M.rsttJ)'. E.Jsaysotl Nt-111 Ttstamf!ltl Bclla/{}/Og)' ill HOJt
48

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

then commented that in rny view'the gene-ral refere1l<:e was mis-wulerstood as a title reft-rring 10 Daniel? .1 3•. The-1l, cla.'::sif)ting rne together with Liodars. Bauckha.m and Fullet, hede.clares, 'They have to assume that theAra1\laic has been mistranslated.••H We have seen what a serious problem the whole question of translation of this idiom

and the .shift from an Aramaic term to a Greek. ChristoJogicaJ title posed for all the e.atlier sc.holar.;hip. We have also seen that I lt)Ok a ditlerent view, and espec.ially that, io a 1995 article listed in Bul'ke-tt's bibliography, I l1Sed i1ts ighLJt from col leagues

working in Trnnslmion Studies and on the LXX to propose a new understanding of the translation process. Durken has ass.umed !hat I rnusl nonetheless believe '''hat dead profCs..~ors had wriuen long ago. I hope-this book will be read wilh more care, and that it will be.assessed in ito;; own right. Other auempts have been made to appn);lch this problefn frorn a li1lguis1ic perspective. The most notable is that of Keams. 1.u In the first of several exceptionally leamed ''olumes de\10!ed to this problem., Keams atgued thai :oin J is a four-letter word derived from Ugaritic. •s.a This is not a pn)bable derivation, in I he first place bee.aose all the earliest e.xamples M this tenn are of the IOnn W(1)lx 1J'. 11le tOrm Wru is first fOund io relali\ ely late l>Ou.rees which drop the prosthetic K Ji"01U other words too. Accordingly. it c.annot reasonably be regarded as the earl ie~~t form. Secondly. even if 1he usually acc.epted e-rymt)logy oi (K)tdl(K) -a as a combinatioo of h !JO word~;, IJ ' son• and (K)lV)(K) ·man·. were shown to be secondary. the eO"ec1 oi the-u:.~ual e-tymology would still be decisive. Keams agree$ that (K}'dJ(K) -u was understood as a combination of these two se.parate. words in the. Aramaic of our period. This etymology must therefore be taken into acoou111 in interpreting Aramaic texts from any environment where such an etymology wa~ perceptible. Kc.arns also argu~ that tdnJ had several ' Dedeuruogeo', including ior example 1 \ a.o;sal. citizen. smallholde. r, and Lord (Herr).m This \'iew involves confusion 1

t 52. 0. Buttcn.7111! SoJtojMan Drlxrle. :\History and Em{ualiun (MSSNTS t07. Cambridge: CUP. 1999),pp. 90, 93. t 53. R. Kc:ams. ltJrfragm ;11r Chri.stologie. \~1. I. Morpho{ogisclu- und S('Jnasiolt,sisclte S/t1Ji~ ;.~1r ttJrsescltidtle l!ilws dtri.'Stolosisrhen Hoheir.\"titei.'S (TUhingcn: Mohr (Sic~c-l:), 1978)~ VOl. 2. Ubt-ditiferwrg.fgescllidlllicl!e Lmd Rt>;l!plionsge.fdrichtlidre Studie ; tlf \~rgl!s
wul TraditimiSgcscl!ic·htlidre Stttdie ;Lw \'nrge.fdridlle ei11es d tri.'StologiJchen Hoheiwitels (TUbi.ng~n: Motu (Sicbc<'kt t982); Dos Tmditiunsgcfiig~ um Jm Mnr.w:hr11.mhn. Ursprii11glidru GehaiJ wul iiltut~ \'t'rc'i11dmm,~ im Urc:hri.dtllf/1111 (Tdbingcn: Moht (Sicbe.:k), 1986)~ Die Elllt'hri.\·u,ltlgi.fierwrg Jes MensdJensohm-;s. Die U1Nrtragu11g d~s Troditiotl.fl)t>/iises um Jm MttJsdrerut1hn auf Je'S/l'S (Tlibingcn! Mohr (Sicbcck). 198-&); Mwma}Jwrt;cn :,elf Chrismlosi('. Pan I. Der gewr furthe-r dcvdopment. esp. 0 viO; roU Ovbpt.)JTovuls lroheit.ftitllldrts U~rtgtbilde-. 155. Sec cl!pcci:ally K.::arns. Mo•·plrolngi.'Sdlt 1111J Semu.fioltJgi.\ dt Swdie. pp. 98- t82: 0 Wp101; als Huh~itstilel, pp. 2- 9.

71te State of Play

49

between meaning and n::ference. In all the (exti> cited by Keams, (~)lii~(N) -a makes sense met:miug ' l'uan'. though it dl)es refer to vassals, sma llholders and all sorts of olhe-r people. h is a result of this confusioo that the ~~umbe-r or propos.e.d rneauings is too great lOr the. expre-s...;ion h) function without additjonal qualification. Some passages also do not make very good sense when interpreted in this way. This may be illustratt"d fi'om IQa_pGe-n. XXI, 13.1u Kearns linds this passage problenlatic-al bec.ause he prl)pOSes that IUD!\ , J he-re should mean •sl'uallholder• rather than 'mtuf.m God's promise to Abra.hal-n, wlh).>;e seed is h) be like the dtiSI of 1he eaJ1h which In) mao cao nun1ber, is given in llebre\11 at Gen. 13.16, where the word lOr 'rnar1' is v'\'\. The author of1he-Ge1~e$iS Aplx:ryphon represe-nted~·~ \\1ith ~lJ~ ,J, a fac.r which sho"'S clearly that (~)Wl(~) 1~ was already a nonnal term for 'man' . But for Keams, the author has to be-supposed h) have God declaring that Abraham's seed will be like the dust of the eanh whkh no smallho lder can number. Keams docs not e-xplain why the h)•petbole ·uo marl can nul'nber• should be IX:!ldered so peculiarly 'llO smallholder can number' , when \dJ ~ and 1~ wen:: ~ad ily available to the midrashic.author. Kearns also oonstructs a number of traditions. most of which are no more convincing lhan the Son of ~'lan Conce.pt and the Primordial Man. These include. for example. the. tradition M the returning Elijah, rrom which Kearns derives !JtniTp~lt; fJ1..1Epac; in the Markan passion predictions.u~t At least in this case the.re. was a tradition or Elijah's rt lum, utilized by Jesus at r'-'lk 9.11-13 and Mt. I 1.13-14.U10 This did not howeve-r contain IJ~TCX Tptlc; it!Ji:pac;. which Ke.arns draws from vel)' late sources such as the. Gospel of Nicodemus and Lactantius. For the clouds of heaven, Keams goes right back to the formula rkb ·rpl from the cuhjc.mythic. Hadadtradi t i on Y~ Kearns suggests lhat Hadad might have lx~n translated into western Arart\aic. as :ziru rather than 7-:.•J.. I lc. takes 'll!i', quoted ff 0 1ll Dan. 7. 13 but described as the vehiC-le of the lord of the World ( wellenherr) in the apohdyptic Tradilimugefiige, as the equivaJent of ·rpt}f>1 The. problem with all arguments of this type is that they cmtJtrucr from diverse primary sourc--es extant centuries apm1 discrete traditions whic-h are suppposed to have been available to Jesus and the Gospel writerS. The strength of Keams' belief in the tt'.aditions which he- has C-O-nstructed is espec-ially well illustrated by his suggestion that ~~l k 13.26 is not depe-1ldent on Dan. 7.13, but ruther on Keams' tradil i oo.t ~ 6

156. Se-e pp. 61- 2bd aw. 151. Kc-.uns, MmpluHogischt- 1md Semasiulogi.w·he Studit, p. IJS n. IS I from J). 134. ISS. Ke-ams, 1iuditimugtfiigt. J>t). 146-54, 161-70: B:tchriswlogi.sieron,_$!, ,,..;~ ): Epiph<mie.

p-. 4. n. 10. 159. Casey; Aramaic SourccJ ufM(trH Go.sptl. pp. 121- 17: Aramaic ApJIIVOCIJ to Q. pp. 105-1. 125-9. 160. Keams, Rt-ligitmsgesdridulidft llnd Tmditimug~sdJidulicll~ Stctdie, pp. l-82: Epiphanie.pp-. 1- 2. 13- l(t. 161. Ke-ams, Rt-l(l!ionsgen'lrichllicht> 1md Tmdilimugeschkhtlicht> Srudit. ,,,,. 106- 7; 1huliriomsefiise, pp. 66- 7: Epiphanit-. pp. 13- 16. 162. Ke-ams, 1i·adiliMsgefi(fit'. pp. (>6-8. nn. 220. 230: EmchristQ/ogi.fi mms, pp. 67-&. n. 16: £pip1wnie. pp. 16-11, n. 47.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

50

Kearns also suffe.rs from some of the standard faults of traditional Gennan iilurliefcnmgsgeschichte and redaktitmsgesd tichte. For example. referring back to the work o f Colpe-. he supposes that the original saying beh ind tvlk 10.45 had an implicit or explicit first person pronouo Y.' hidl was replaced \Vith Wn:r during the

1\istor)' of ill> developme.Jll. This is as arbi triU) ' as Colpe's work on this verse.1M For all these reasons, Kearns' anempt 10 solve this problel'n should M t be

accepted. Throu~Jlolll

this period. traditional approaches also continued to be. reworked and presented afresh. Perhaps the outstanding anempt to argue again for the crucial iflflue.nce M Dan. 7. I3 was that of Ono Detz.IM Betz begins with a description of Son or man sayings as ' J lohe.itsl>ageu. die auf eine einzigartige Vollmacht \Veisen'. and he argues that 'de.ute-te-Jesu.~ mit der Selbstbezeichuung "dc.r Mensc.bensohn" seine besondere, singultire, Sendtmg ·und Vollmacht an·. • ~ This fits in with Be12's con"ictions about the-meaning of Son of man sayings in the Gospels, btn it is very di tlicult to rec.oncile with the usage l)fthe Aramaic te.nn ( ~)ii!J(~) -u. Jl.etz's di::cussion of Aramaic source material is "ery meagre. The bulk of the. book is de\'O(ed to discussion of the influeoce of Dan. 7. I3- 14 and .some other Old Testament pa.;;sages on Son of man sayings auributed to Jesus, \\1iLh a Jlnal chapte.r on aspects or the teac.hiog of St Paul. Detz presents his fi nal conclusions about Jesus ir1 a post~cript : Jcsu!: ha1de,, fomukn Begriff•~tensdlCna'hnlkher. Menschensohn' in Dan 7,t3 i.nhahlicl\ tiliher bestimmt. F..tlllt dies. inde-mcr ihn mit nlllkren Vorstellungen aus Sl'hri t\wortc: n verb:end. die llli seine Zdtgcnoss:cn widnig w:uen. so mit der ~tcssiascrw~nung (Oen 49,10: 2. Sam 7 .12· 14: Ps 110.1) und mit dcm \rOI1c-g;.nc~~ht {Jcs 42~ 43: 53} odcr mi1 Ps 103. Aull !Ink her Zu.~1mmc."nsc:hau ergab skt. c.inc At1 Dimstanwdsung fUr hdfelldcs Handdn. Dabd wurdc. die \•i>llmaclu des Mcnsc:hcn!OOhns.. \'00 der J)sn 1.14 StWic-ht. :ru ciner 8C\'OIInl:khtig:ung lilt dC'n GCM~ndten Gottes umgcm1ndeh. dcr die HC'i ligrn Gouc:.s. da.s Volk des Nrurn Sondes. bcrufl und sammelt und die helk nde. Gen:chtigkcit de$ Gotlesreiches uufrichtct. 166 With regard 10 i1s. comem, Jesus :l.o;c-ertaincd the ti>nnal <.'OilCC'pl. 'OfiC like a Son ofman. SOil of man• in O:.n. 7.13. He did 1hi ~. while he oombincd it with odlCt' eoocepts fi•onl sc:tifl'UI'JI passnges which v.-crc important for his <:ontcmpornries. so with the Messinnk C');p«'lal i on (Gen. 49.to; 2 Sam. 7. 1 2·14~ Ps. 110. 1) and wilh Lhc SctVam of Oo.:l (lsa. 42: 43: 53) ot with Ps. 103. From such a combi1l:ltio1l came a son of SCI'Vicc insuuction for hd pful u~. The~by the power of the Son of man. of whom O:.n. 1.14 .!l:pcaJ:s.. w:.s u·a.nsfomlCd i1110 an Cfllj)C)wermcm fo.'lt 1M One- Scm of God. wlto calls and gathers Lite H\)Jy Ones of God. the people. of the. New Co\'e.nant. and se.ts up the sucrouring righteousness of the kingdom of God.

This approach is n•ethodologic.allyuns.oUJld. lo the first place, as well as tAiling toollCr proper discus..">ion of the Aramaic tenn (~)v"J(K) 1:t. which was already well known 10 be an ordinar>' tenn for •man', Betz nevc.r deals with AraJnaic tecoostruc.(ions l)f Kcsms. Entchristologi:>ienmg, p. 74: 1,· 16 ai)C)Ye. W. Grinun and 0. Ben. Jesu.r wul das Danitllmt'h (2 vol ~ : Fr:illkfun am Msin: long,. 19&5): Vol. 2. 0. Bc-tz. Dit M~llstht>nschJIII'OJ'U' l tStltllld dit' Z•tlawftscNtlriiiiiS Jt>.r Paulus( Dm:iel 7./J./4). 165. Bctz. Mt>nsdmuolulhYJJU Jcm. 1,· I>. 166. tku. MtrudteJI.rtJhJih·orlt' lt'SII. p. 175.

163. I(J4.

71te State of Play

51

sayings of Jesus. This me.ans that he neve-r discusses the general level of meaning of authentic sayings of Jesus. the main point which cannot be reconciled with his convictions that the term simply refers to Jesus (Selb:ohe:.eidnumg), and that all the sayings are sayings M maj e~ty (Hoheitsau.,·.mgen) which poiot to a lmique power. Sec.ond l >'~ Be-tz's argurnents for t.he use of scriptural tex•s proceed by weak oonneetions and loose associative links. For e.xample. at the beginning of his di scus~i on, Detz c.onside-rS Mk 2 .10. He asserts: IXnn gcr:-.M die gl\"'lk Vollm:•clu, dk Jesus in den McnschcnMJtnwon~-n bckonckt, Ml ihr~-n

biblir.chcn 8e7.U£..'1punkt in dc-.r \'On D.:mic-1geschauten Ein~twng des r-.trnschC'nsohns in dk Wtln:lc- des Endzcilk&ig,>~. 11"1

For c--xocd)' the massi\-c. power, whkh Jesus be-ars witness to in the Son of man suyings. has its biblical

td~rc.ll:c

tx>im in the l)ltu.x~ment ofd1c Son of m:m iot.:. lhc

cn3jc~ty

oflh..-

eschatological king pictured by Daniel.

Yet, apart frorn the question as to what atl Aramaic reconstruc-tion of Mk 2.10 might mean, Dan. 7. 13 -14 cannot be seen as a t-easonable sourc.e M it for three rea.:;ons. Firstly, there are 100 few c.onnecting links. a l~lc.t obscured by Betz's failure to discuss the Aran.aic tenl) { x)~;J(X} 1~ a.'> an ordinary tenn li)r ·mao'. TI1is on•issit)n makes the use of :OJ~ -a appear to be a muc.h stmnger conne-e::tion than it is. Sec.ondl)', the man·like iigut-e of Dan. 7.13, and Saints of the f>.•lo~t Jligh symbolized by hitu, "'e1-e not given the. power to forgive.sins or anything of thm kind. Thirdly, there is no sign in the Ne''' Te~tament that aoyone placed the fulfihne-nt of Oao. 7. 13-14 at the time of JeSlL'>' earthly life. whe-~as there is very clear evidence that it was interpreted of his paro-usia, as most ob,•ioosly at tvlk 13.26// Mt. 26.64//U:. 21.27; Mk 14.62//Mt 26.64. I had moreover already made these points, in a discussion to whic-h lletz makes no reference. IM Finally. e'•eu the btief ~lln'lfllary which I quote.above contains itc.ms notoriously absem from the. teaching of Jesus. These include the Servant of God. the. people of the New Covenant. and the assoc.iation between the Son of man and the kingdom of God. These. Lhings are however ve.ry important to Gennan Luther.tn ac.ademics, and that loc:11es Detz•s b(X)k where it belongll. It distort.-.. the evidence frorn begi nn i t~g to end in the servic.e of the social subgroup of which Betz is a member. After the work of Vermes and myself which had alre.ady been published, this shows a degree of b liodn e~.s to evidenc-e and ar.gun~eut \\'hich the Dan. 7. 13 h)')X)thesis had not needed in earlier times. Despite the criticisms of the Son of f\.·lan Concept. it did not die out. For example, in 1984 KUnunel c-Ontinued to ba.l)e it primarily oo the Similitudes of Enoch.lf>'l He. dealt with this difficult text entirely ill Genllan. He added $0Jne discusllion of Dan. 7.13 aod ..f Ezra 13 . together with Sib. 01: V,4 14-6 and a saying of R. Aqiba at bT IJag 14a. Des-pite the
161. Bc12, Mensdttlt.rolrmmltt Je.\'11, p. t6. t6S. Cascy.SOJtofMan. pp.92- &, 165- 84. t69.

Klimmel, •Jcsu~ dcr Men~dtcnsoh1l'.1' . ,, ,, , 162- 6.

,_ "?

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

KUmmel's b1i er C.t.)tnfnCllL'> on those.who disagn.."ed with him consist of authoritative

contradiction rather than ge-nuine engagement. As recently as 2001 , U. D. MUlle-r took 1he existe-rl('.e oftht: Me~tschellsolmbegriff., or Menschenso/mvorstelhmg for granted.1m S~i ng that 'der fiijhj fidische f>.·le-nschensohn' (p.4) does not come with the d oud:::;M heaveo, a..:; i ndeed the Son or mao figure in the Similitudes of £11(x:h does not, he de.voted a whole anicle to

arguing tJ1at the Menschensohn was secondary to early Christian expectation of the second coming of Jesus. as this is found in manmalhll (I Cor. I6.22) and elsewhe-re. lie also cited Dan. 7 for 'das Stichworl Mensche.n.sohn•.J?fl He still has lk. I2.Sf. distinguish between ' dem lch Jesus irtl Vord er~(Z und l\•leuschensoho im Nachsatz'.17: tvlllller's fi.)otnotes are full of rete.rences (0 Gennan soooodary literature. bmthere is no mention of Vermes. Lind~us or m.yse.lf. or indeed of anyone else who does not agree with his presuppositions. This illustmtes lhe regreuable insularity which is increasingly affec.ting GemKtn scholarship. There. \vere however two changes to the Son of Man Concept among sc.holars rlh)l'e alfe.cled by c.riticisrns of it One was the demise of the Primordial Man, a.;; 1 have noted it in the work of ~. 2. 172. t-.MIIcr, 'Ptlrus.ic-und Me•lsch.-.nsoh.n'. (>. 13. 173. &c- t>l>· 23-6 3bovc. 174. J. J. Collins. 'The Son o f ~fan i" FirSl Ccnnuy Judaism'. NTS 38 (1992), t>p. 448-66 (449). 175.

Collin~, 'So" o f Man i" Firs1Ccmu1 y Ju1>. 465-6. 176. J. J. Collins, 'The OaoiclicSon ofM:m'. Ch. 8 of Tlu: Saplrt' and lite Slur (New York:

Doublcd!!y. 1995), ~lp. 173- 94 ( t89).

71te State of Play

53

that of Jlorbury in 1985. In an art id e e-11tilled ' TI1e rvtessianic Associations of "TI1e Son of Mao"'. l lorbury brought li)l'\\'ard passages including tOr example Tg. Ps. 80. 18. \Vhere -.dJ u is used with refe-rence to ~ii':x/1l107.o. and Ezekiel the Tragedian, where Mose$ sits on a throne in heaven. and llorbury suggested that Eze-kiel's presentation was in part fonned by Dao. 7.m There are. two problems with this kind or vie\lt. One is that it is ditlicult h) see how the 1trundane use or the Anlmaic tenn (~)'Ol(~) ,J can be n::t.OilCiled with such views except \Vhe.re the context makes d ear a reference 10 Dan. 7.1 3. The second is that the exegesis of many of the passages brought forward does not seem to me. to be convincing. Two such passage-S are discussed in Chapter 3., ;s A much olde.r tr.~ditionaJ approach which supposed that 0 vi&; ToU O:vep(.)rrou refe-rred l'O Jesus as •son of Adam• h.as c.ontinuOO to fi nd the-occasional adhen--..,t. There \\'ere two notable ones during this period, Col'tesand Gaui in 1968, and Marcus a..o:; re.cenlly as 2003." "' In discussing the. patristic vie\1/ that 0 u·.~ ToU O.v6p(.)rrou referred to Jesus as son of Adam, I noted that the Fathers we.re sin-1ply not aware of the nonnal usage of the Aramaic (~):xl'J(x) ,J.1110 Both Corte.s and Gatti and Marcus set aside out kJlOwledge of the use of this (enn, which was unsatisf.1.crory in 1968, and ahnost beyood belief in 2003. when \\'e ktu)W so 10uch more-about it. Tile-y e.ach make a number of other moves which the Fathers did not make, and which are. c-Ontrary to result;; agreed in this and other fields of study on the basis M a nlassive amount of e.\ridence put together over a period of years whh careful argument. For e..'(ample. both of them s1ress the second ankle, ToU. as if it should me.an thm Jesus was the son of a particular mao. hl so doing. they do not take proper accouot of the generic use of this anicle, and ignore the. problem of interlerence which is important for understanding bilinguaJs and doubly so in understanding the work of bi linguals as translators. They both also prefer to suppose that 0 viCe;- ToiJ O:vSp(.)nou must somehow m·e:m exactly what Jesus said. TI1is was culpable io 1968 when we had significant kno\'' ledge of iutel'fe-renc.e and shill~ in .neani1lg which take plac.e during the translatiOil process. In 2003, Mare-us had to cast a..~ ide all the knowledge of these mauers ac.hie\•00 by our C\)fleagues in the fields M bilingualism. translation srudies and the study of the LXX, evet1 though he had access to work ir1 which 1 had pointed out what the~c;e results are and what they might signify for tltis problem. We lllll'it oonclude that the continued presemation of this proposaJ is regrettable. and can only be underslood as attempted continuation of ancient tradition.

117. W. l~ orbmy. 'The Messi::.nic Associ:.tH>n~ of'"Thc Son o f Man'" , iTS NS 16 ( 1985), I~P· 3 4--55 (48- 9 :~nd ~2-3). I?S. Set' !)(). 112- 4 below. 119. J. B. CortCs. :~nd F. ~i. Galli. ' The S(ln of MM o r The Son o f Ad:.m '. Hib 49 ( 1968), 1'1~· 45?- 502: J• •\fan:-us., ' Son of Msn a~ son o f Ad:trn', RB 110 (2003). pp. JS- 6 1. 3 70-S6. ISO. SCi! PI). l . 9-IOabcwc.

54

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem 5. Com:lu:sians

The history of scholarship shows abundantly how and why the solution to this problem bas been so e.xc.ruciatingly diHic.uh to find. Two problems have been so

colossal that we are only now beginning to recover fro m them. One 1rtassive problem has been the lnltuenee-o f exboting traditions. TI1e notion

that 0 ulO:; Toii CtvOp~nou is detived from Dan. 7.13 is as old as TeJtullian. Every se-rious scholar who has espoused this \•iew has made refere.nce to some. of their predecessors. N01 only is 1his view traditiooal in itself, but Dan. 7. 13 is part M

scripture. and thus pan of the.traditional sacred textof the traditional religion to which these scholars have. belonged. Moreover. some New Testament texts which use the term 6 v'u)c; ToU O:v6p(.)rrou g:enuine.ty do make use of Dan. 7.13 {most obviously Mk 13.26//lvll. 26.64/llk. 21.27; Mk 14.62//MI. 26.64). so 1he u.<eofD
apparent origin of 6 ulOc; TOO CtvOpc.l rrou is also pa11 of the traditional sacred text of the tmditional religion to which these sc.holars have belonged. Moroover. messianic interpretation of Dan. 7.13 fit'i very well into Christian rnessian.ic interpre,tation of many pa.:;sages oflhe Old Testament. II is that ma..~sive '''eight oflradition whic-h bas !Je.eO S.0 diffku h tOOVefC.OIUe. Similar comments apply to the interpretation of 0 uiOt; ToG O:v9p(o)rrou as 'sou of Adam'. Though le-ss c.osnn.oo in the mode.n1 period than refere-nce to Dan. 7.13, this was also originally a patristic view, and this tradition has been of obvious imporlanc-e in its recen1 e.mergeo<:e. It originated ' "it11 westem Fathers who did 1101 know about the Aramaic (K}'.:iJ(~) "U. or late, hl)\\ CVer, it has booome increasingly re.tiant on rel'usiog to klll)W abou1 recent advances in knowledge about (x.):;b(K) 1~ and numerous other things. Here again we can see the importance of its being an old tmdition. The material about Adam used in this 'riew is also part of theological traditioo. and the theological tradition can be seen already in Paul's viewof Christ as the second Adam. These general traditions about Adam have-boenjus1as important as the more specific ones about the i11terpretation of 6 ui.Oc; ToU a-vepc.lnou. Here too the interpretation can be seen as part of ancient tradition whic.h goes back ultimately to scripture. This massive weight of tradition he-l ps to e.xplain why so implausible a view is still with us. A more modem and academic tradition is the Son of Man Concept This began in the nineteenth century. when the tr.1ditional Christian interpretation of 0 u·1 6c; ToU O:v6p(.)rrou was important in the-t·irst attempt<; to uJlderiotaod the tenns for •ron of ll1an' in lhe ditlkuh Ge•ez text of the newly discovered Similitudes of Enodr. This concept was funher developed and c.;mied forward during the twentielh centUI)'. It \1/as read into Dan. 7. 13, which we-have already seeo to have beetl scriptural, and thus part of the traditional sacred text of the. LraditionaJ religion to which most scholars have belooged. It was found primarily in these two texrs and in 4 E=ra 13. Both the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra were in some people's Bibles, aod they both bec.ame. pa11 of the sort M illfOm\al canon of works seen fit lOr detailed smdy by Christian academics. They usuaJiy studied them within the traditions of their own languages. leaving srudy in their extant languages. and translation into 1

71te State of Play

55

English, German and other languages. to a small number of traditional specialists who were Ct)tiSidered sofe to re.peat In the early to rnid-twenticth ce.JHury, the Son or Man Concept was amplified with the Primordial t\·lan concept This iovolved the use of sources which belonged to the traditions of religious .studies rather than New Testament sn1dies. so this is probably why it died out. One would like to believe that it died out because. of the criticisms made of it a~ a modern construct, but that should have led to the demise of the Son of ~·tan Concept itself. whereas this has continued to the present day. esped aJly in Germany. l11e second .nas.~ i ve problel\1which ha.~ made the Son of man pl'oblem ditlicult to solve has been scholarly ignorance. especially of Aramaic and of bilin£ualism and translation studies. I have observed 1he lack ofktu)\VIedge M(!':)iilJ(K) 'U among the western Fathe.rs. and how it was not seen as a OJristological title-among the Syriac Fathers. bec.ause 0 uiO:;- roU O:v9pc.lnou was translated into Syriac with ~:oiJK1 :nJ and other terms which did function as a Christological tille. When serious study of the Semitic. backs,round to 0 u't 6c; ToU Qv6pc.lrrou got unde-r way with scholars such as Grotius. and(~)~)(~ ) 1J with Bolten, scholarly ignorance was still so serious that a proper presemarion of aJI the relevam evidence was not remotely possible. Nor did e.ithcr of them understand the translation process. 'This gready helped the comments of scholars who came in from a more traditional perspective to seem entirely reasonable. Even after Meyer and Lictzmann increased our knowledge of Aramaic and or how to usc it, t)Ur knowledge of (!':)iiJJ(!':) u was still insufficient to lead to a solution of this problem. Nor did any .scholar fully understand the translation process. This led to Aramaic evidence continuing to be ignored. not only by conservmive sc.holars who preferred a traditional solution to this problem. but alw by radic-al C-l'itics. or particular importanc-e \Vas the misinterpretation of Lk. 12.8 as di.stinguishi•l£- bctwee-r1 Jesus and the Son of man. This led IHMY .scholars tO argue. that an)' saying in which 0 u'1 6c; To\:i ((v6pc.lrrou C-learly is Jesus cannot be atnhentic. The sc.mioal pape.rMVent~es, published in 1967, was i1npetrtant in starting a OC\V phase of re~o;e~lrch \1/ith new evidence-of the interpretation a11d usage of (K)WJ(~) 1~. In itself, ht)Wcver, it did not oller an altogether torrect understanding t)fthe usage of (K)Wl(~) 1~. nor did Verme.s or anyone else fully understand the translation process. In the succ-eeding years, I made a number of contributions whic-h sought to bring to bear on this problem evidence drawn fro m more Ar.unaic sources. and the results or the work of our colleagues ill other fields. especially linguistics, bilingualism and translation sn..dies. Thus 1 have graduaJly sought 10 undenniue the de.ld erious effects of scholarly ignorance. on our understanding of this problem. Criticisms of my work ha\·Call sulTered froft'l the first major problem, scholarly membership of existing trnditions. Accordingly. this book is intended to be a dec.isive contributionto the solmiol'l of the Son of tnan problem. I propose to bring all available and re.levant knowledge to bear t)O this problem, reg.ardles.o; of the field of study from whic-h significant insigh1s can be gained. In this way, I propose to undennine attempted solutions which are essentially the cominuation of old traditions, and to present a proof thar my solution is correct.

Chapter Two THE UsE OF TH~ ARAMAIC TERM (~)11il(~) iJ

The main purpose of this chapter is to sur.,.e.y the idiomatic use of the Ammaic 1enn (~)~fJ(R) 1~. This lays the foundations for arguing in Cbs 4-10 that this is the idiom which was used by the historical Jesus in those Son of man sayings which he actually spoke and which have survived in Greek translation in the synoptic Gospels. For this PU'l'OSe I use Arama.ic or diOCrent dates aJ~d dialects, because hardly any Jirst century Galilean Aramaic has sur~o• i ved. Til iS is legitimate bcc.aus.e Aramaic was such a stable language. the vocabulary and syntax of which c-hanged relatively sh)wly over a pe-riod of many centuries. I therefore begin by illustrating this.

I. 71te Stability of the Ammait• Ltmguage

Aramaic was a panic.ufarly stable language afte.r it was spread in standard form by the Persian bureaucracy} Even before this. it had features which are found late-r in the Talrnuds and in Jewish 1t1idrashim. For example, the Selire insc.riptions. throe steles set up c. 750 DCE. contain words still found more than a millennium later in Talmud and midrash, i1'\Ciuding J~ . 'fiuher\ rJ. 'bel\1/een', 1~, ·man'. u1(~). 'blood', and "1:i, 'to be'. Liogui:o.tic fe.alures in use fOr more 1han a mille.nnimn ioclude 1he c.ctnstruct ~late. The tern'! (:o:)Wl(~) -u belongs he•-e-, for it occurS already al Setire 111,16 Md il was still in use c-enluries later. Suchevidence reJlecH the fact that Aramaic was lhe li~tguafrallcn of the Assyrian empi n~ as early as the eighth ce.JHul'y DCE, especially in the provinces 'Deyond lhe River'. It superseded Akkadian as the main language l)f C·l)lnmunic.ation e.veo intemaHy during the.period of the Babylonian empire, when many Jews were exiled to Babylon. Aramaic was aJso the lingua franca of the whole Persian empire. This is the cultural bac.kground of the replac-.ement of He.brew by Aramaic as the normal language.of communication between Jewish people. By the time of Jesus, Aramaic had for a long time bee.n lhe. lillguafranca of Jewish people-in Israel and round the fe11ile crescent 10 Babylon. I. On the emerge-nc-e of di ~tiocli vc Anunaic f~"SI'Ur~'S, :ltld l!l:.ndardtza1ioo 1hrot1gh Otlki::~l Atamaic. sec cspceially J. l·luchncrg3rd, 'Wh31is A1amaie·.••. Amm 1 ( t995), t)t). 261- 82.

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

57

l11is situation continued for cennu·ies. TI1is is refle<:ted in the filet that rl'lany words found at Qumran before the tjme of Jesus were still in use in the Talmuds and

in rather late Jewish midrashim. As well as those aJre.ady mentioned. suc.h words include •seed'. 1~fi. •compaoioo', nv. •to cover ', :71', ' to kmw.•'. and 7J. 'all.

c;•.

every'. Syntactic ffarures common lOr ce.nturies include the narrative usc t)f the paJ1iciple. The te-111'• {~)~:(~) 1~ belongs here ti>O, for it oc.curs at Qurnmn in both

singular and pluraJ. and it is quile nonnal in more extensive documents of later date. Similarly, many words found in the Qumran texts are.aUested abundantly centuries later in Syria<.'. As well as those already mentioned, these include x.r,, 'nor', 1?.0, 'king•, 7:>J •to ran ·, :")10, 'end'. and 77li, •e.JHer'. TI1e- p l ace n~ru o r a suffix on a tu)un before the particle 1 or '1, ·or•, IOIIowed by the no un anticipated by the sunix. is also li.)und at Qumran and common l n Syriac. The term (K)lVJ(K) 1~ belongs he re too.

for it occurs at Qumran in both singular and plural. and it is quite normal in more e.x!ensive Syriac docun..ents of taler date, just as iola!er Jewish sources.

As far as the development of Aramaic is concerned, the importance of the.Qumran discoveries is lo make this stable situation clearer. This also means that, as far as it goes. Qumran Aramaic can safely be used in the reconstruction of sayings of Jesus. not hl)we.ver go far e no ugh., ftw the Dead Sea ~rolls do not c.ontain t oough Aramaic to fonn a language-. If there lOre we confine ourselves to them., we. do no!

11 d oes

have. enough Aramaic to reconstruct the. whole language of anyone. Accordingly, we

l'nul\-1

rnake careful

e.xample~~ from

use

o f later Aramaic som"C.es 100.

I

illustrate this with son1e

the synoptic Gospels.

A• Mk 5.41, we ha,•e .Jesus' words in the o riginal Aramaic transliterated into

Greek letters. and translated into Greek:

T he tirsl " 'o rd, Kn~J, is properly aue-s ted both in later Je,,•is h Ar::unaic and in Syriac. h is io the emphalic state becau.se- it is a fi>rm of address. ove.rliterally translated with 1he Greek delioite a rticle. Would anyone serious ly suggest that Je.sus d id not say th is because s.n~7o is not fo·und in the Dead Sea sc.rolls o r in earlier Aramaic? One hopes not: it is straightli.)l''''a rd evidence that Jesus• speech included words no!

found in earlier Aramaic because there. is so little earlier Aramaic extant The words oo1 Aiyc.l are simply explicitative. The next imeresting point is the form KOUJJ. The. ...el'b OlY is w idely attested both be lOre and afte.J' the time of Jesus. Its 2 .f.sg:. imp. is wriuen 'llli' (e-.g . Dan. 7.5), to which some MSS orthis verse ha"e correc1ed it. There is however ample evidenc.e that linal vowels after the 1011e syllable, including this

one. were quie.scent in Syriac and in Christian Palestinian Aramaic. though they are written down in standard texcs and textbooks.:- This is accordingly straightforward ev idence that Jesus• idiolect. a nd the-reiOre surely his Galilean dialect. had this

panicular isogloss in common with these later dialects. 2. Th. N31dd:e, Cmnpmtlious Syri(IC Grammur(u:tnll. J. A. Crichwn: London: Willhuns & Norg_s1c, 1904), pp. 35-6, I 03--4: F. SehullhCllll, Gramnwtiktle.s d erist!ich·paliislinisclem Aramiiisdr (Tilhing.-:n: J. C. B. ~toh r (Paul S iebt~'k), 1924), PJl. 16. 62.

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

58

At t>.•tk 7.34,<'U!Od!Cf or Jes-us' words is trans literated a.tld tra.n.slated:

I Jere the IOnn ~tO
was frequently susgested that this fonn was Hebrew,

Jl ()(

Aramaic. More rec.ently,

Wilcox has shown that then o f the 2 nug.imp.llhpe'el o f nn~ has been assimilated

to the fOIIo\\•iog :>. j ust as io the late-r source Vat Ebr.440 of Gen. 49.1:' It fo JI O\VS that J e~us• Galilean d ialect had this feature in co mmon with some. later Jewish

Aramaic. An imponant loanword not found in the scrollsorinearlier Aramaic iscxp•oaiol, re.preseoti11g r~,,~ or rtrln:>. h is abse-1H from earl)' soun::es because there were U t) Pharisees before the-se.cond centur:' DCE. II ill ahseot from a few Dead Sea. scrolls for the-same reason and from the others for two differe-nt re.asons. f\
3.

M. Witeo:.., • sc-mitis.:mJ~ i.n (ht' New TC:itan~m\ ANRW 11.25.2 (1984}, pp. 978-l029

(998-9).

4.

5. 6.

See furthc-.r Casey. Aramaic Smur:es ofMarkS G(1spd, 1>1). 42- 3. 53-4. Sec furth<.':rCascy,Aramaic Somr:n ofMarkS Gospel, 1)1>- 233-6. Sec furthcrCa!ley, Aramaic Approodt to Q, W · 5?. 12- .3.

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

59

Although the tenn (~)iriJ(~) 1J i~ auested in earlie-r Aramaic, ili> frequency belong~

with this class of evidence. ·o uiO;- roU O:vOpi:llTou occurs no less than 14 times in

tvlatk, and 8 times io Q: there-are 69 occurrences in 1he synoptic Gospels as a whole. and when all para ll el~ <11-e discounted1 this slill leaves no les~ than 38 iodependent sayings. h fo lll)WS •hal (~)tOJ(~) ,~ wa..:; as nonnal in first ceoruty Galilean Aramaic. a..o:; il i~ in later Jewish sourees and in Syriac. h also follows frol'n the stability l)f

the Aramaic. language that we are perfectly e-ntitled to use later sources to help us unde-rstand how it was lL~ed .

2. Ge11erk mul Optimwl Use of the Empltmic Stme

Like all Aramaic oouns. (K)iiJ(~) ""C' may be used in lhe emphalic t)r defi nile or detenniJled slate, ~~;(N) 1~. or it may be i11the absolute or indefinite slate, 19J(~) 1~. To some extem this is related 10 dialecL In Syriac, and in some late lexts in Je,llish Aramaic. the difference betwee.n the slates broke down. This breakdown took the.

form of increased use of the emphatic state~ so thm in Syriac 1his is the normal form of the noun. Equally. in generic and some other uses. optional use of either state is found throughout the whole Aramaic c.orpus down to the time of Jesus. and in some later doc-uments in Jewish Aramaic. 100. This is central

ft)

the lL;;e l)f (KWJ(K)

1~,

because it is a generic tem1 in aJI its uses. including the panicular idiomatic use of it employed by the historical Jesus. We must therefore consider ne:\:t the optionaJ lL~e of the emphmi<.· state in generic expressions. as well as with some unique items such as the he.avens and the eanh. whe-re also the meaning cannot be :.\ffee-ted by whic.h state of the noun is employed. Some variation is found even before the Persian period.7 For example. in a letter or 605 DCE, we l'ind ~Y'IKl N"?.lti for 'heaveo and earth' in line 2: one line later. how·ever, r.o\7 is used li.)r ' he.aven'. This sho,vs 1he e-mphatic state already in use for

the eanh. and optionaJ for the. heavens. Among abundant examples of the generic use of the emphatic state froft'l before the tjn~ or Jesus, we lind in the proverb..:; of Ahiqar ~no1m S:ll'i lOr •gnlin and '"heat', N!T'IY""' for a ge.Jlerically wicked person, and ~1 · m• fOr a generically rich person (Ahiqar lines 129, 171, 207). l ike'''ilie-, in biblieal Aramaic the ,,esse Is M the h olL~e or God were ~!:OJl ;iJ;n ~,, •or gold and silver' (Ezra 5.14), and befOre he se.nl for thern. Nebuchadnezzardrallk K"\-':lil, 'wine' (Dan. 5.1 ). Similarly at Qumran. \1/e find ~ill' for the sea at IIQTgJob XXX,6, where t\IT (Job 38.8) has the bare o•; ~ill~ li.)r the earth at IIQTgJob XXXI,2, ,vhere MT (.lob 38.24) has the bare f "\.''\; 1\!i/J, 'the eagle', at IIQTg.Job XXXIII,S, whe-re MT (Jl)b 39.27) has the bare 1i/J; ~J!:J , · t~ltn i11e' a1 IQapCien XIX, I0, which is based on Gen. I2.1 0 wh~re we find the bare J!n; NHn fi>r a vil>it)n at IQapGen XXJ,S; 1\.l\?15 , 'righteousness· at 4Q542 I i 12; and ;iOOii, 'violence' at 4Q En• I iv 8 (/ En 9.1 ).

1. On the origin of the cmph:llic state. or I)I)Sipociitivc sniclc. s.:-e J. Troppcr. 'Die HCI'ausbildung des bcs1ilnnucn Anikds. im Scmili ~c-hcn '. JSS 46 (2001). pp. 1- 31. with biblioguphy.

60

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

The e-mplw.tic:: state was howe"er optional for such expres.o;ions. Sl) \\1e find io the pro\•e.rbs of Ahiqar 171l ti.w a ge-neric. king, and v·u for a ge•lerically righteous pe-rson (lines 107-8, 126): and at the end of the fifth century BCE, :1:11 and ~o~ ll)r ·gold' and 'silver• (Cowley 30, lioe 28). 5 Similarly io biblical Ara•naic., we find J ;'11 and :>rCJ- lOr ·gold' and 'silver' (Dan. 2.32), and ;iy>T;; for 'righteousness' (Dan. 4.24). AI Qumran, Noah's vineyard produces 1lln ( IQapGen XII.U), and :1<'D ii is used in

the absolute state for •wisdom · (I IQTgJob XXX.2. MT Job 38.4 ;ll'J ) .

As far as we can tell. usage changed over time, with increasing use of the emphatic state. This does not however mean that the emphatic s:tnte lost il~ force. in all kinds of expressil)TL nor that it became necessary even in generic e-Xpressions. h is espedally impo11ant that there are documents which haw. similar usas.es of both emphatic and absolute states. some of them in dose. pro:\:imity. This leaves no doubt about the optionnJ nature of the- lL~e of the emphatic and absolute states in some kinds of expression. For example, both :n., a1~d ~J1P are used ror 'war', •battle'. in the opening lines of ll1e Ararnaic translation M the Disitun insc-ription of Darius 1; ifl a letter of 407 BCE. we find pillars l)f KJ JK, •stone>, and gate\.;ays of p~ io the very next line (Cowley 30. lines 9- 10). In biblical Aramaic., \~e find~.,, 'gold', and Wm, 'broJlZe' at Dan. 2.32, aod NJ ;11 and ~Wru at Dan. 2.38-39~ even more strikingly. in Daoiel 7 the first bea.:;t was given lOiJ~ r i7. a hunHHI heart (Dan. 7 .4), whereas ll1e little hom was given eyes KWJ~ ~J '!rJ. ' like the eyes of a man• (Dan. 7.8). Similarly d 5) for ~u;h (Job 38.25) and li>r ,uo7 (Job 38.28); r?o-w ( IIQTg.lob XXX,7) lor;,,, (Job 38.9) and x?o1> ( II QTg.lob XXIX,S) for o; 7iw7 (Jol> 37. 18); nn[J (I IQTg.lob XVI,4) lo r nnJ (Job 30. 15) and
8. A. Cowley. Aramaic Papyri ofIll<' Fifth Ctnlllt)' B.C. (Oxford: Cl:trcnd\'Hl. 1923). J. B:tn·. "'Oo."l ~mlill:Jiion"and 11tc Oo."Rniu.' Ankle- in Bibl ic:~J Ho."bn.'w',JSS 34 ( 19&9), pp. 9. 307- 35 (325- 33).

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

61

All this eYidence shows that in generic and some other expressions. the-use of either state was optionaL It is therefOre natural to find that (x)i7l(X) 1~ may be ulled in eithe.r state. since. it is a generic expression.

Being \\'riuen in Greek for Greek-speaki1lg Christians, the Gl)Spe-1:; use-0 viOc; ToU O:vOpc.lnou in sayings of Jes11s. There should be no doubt th.at. in authentic sayings of Jesus. this represet1tS his use of (x)JOIJ(X) 1~. The IOIIo\lling reaso1lS slu)uld bere~,arded as decisive. Firstly. there are abundant reasons for supposing_ that Jesus spoke Aramaic.1'1 Secondly. the Greek expression 0 u'uX; Toii 0:-v&pc.lnou is not normal monoglot Greek . .and could be understood as a literal translation of a Semitic. e..'(pression. Thirdly. the. Greek uiO:; O\'erlaps greatly in semantic area with the Aramaic , J and the llebrew p . lt is extensively used in the LXX h) render p ., in both literal and ligurative senses, including ex.pressioo.s whic-h are 1101 nonnal monoglot Greek. but literal translations (e.g. v'u)v Ouvci~E~ for ,.,,-p, I Satn. 14.52). 11 Fourthly, 1he AraJnaic (x}~IJ(x) ovel'laps extetL~ i vely in semanljc.area \\1ith the Greek 0:-vOpc.lno;. FiiUlly. the Jlebrew 01!\ p , lhe philological equivaleol of lhe Aramaic. (x)~l(~) 1~, is nonnally rendered u'10c; O:vOp(o)nou in the LXX. by several differe.nt translators. Sixthly. the Gospel expression 6 uiOc; ToU O:vOp(o)nou evidenlly did nol cause diflicu hy in understanding at the. time. It n~ u sl d1erefo1-e represem a normal Aramaic expression rathel' than an unusual one. This requirement is satisried by (~)iifl(x) u. Seveothly, some Gospel saying:; (notably Mk 13.26; 14.62} rnake use of Dan. 7.13, where ~:R\ , J is certainly lhe uod erly ingA r~una i c e:
10. These have bee-n rcp~-aacd !y sun-eyed. s~ cspcd.slty J. T. Marsh:tlt, 'The :\r11m:.ic Go;.pcl'. The £~posilor, 4th series. 3 ( IS9 l). ()p. 1- 11. 109-24. 275- 91: r..kycr.JI"S/1Mulltrspnu·lrt. .:-sp. W · 35- 72; G. H. OalmM. Die \\brte Jrs11. Bd I. £inldtwrg ;me/ widtlige Begnffe (l.dpzig: liinrichs, I &98). pp. 1- ?2: idmt. Tht U~n1.r ofJ~sus. I. lntmduclitm and Frmdammtal /deus (lrans. D. M. K.sy; Edinburgh: T&T' Cl:trk. 1902~ 2nd <:dn, 1930). pp. 1 -88~ icltm. l e.\'lls·ltschua. Die drd Spmdren JtJ-11 (Leipzig: f-l inrichll'sehc, 1922). pp. 6- 25: idem. lel·us·ltJ!ura. S11tdies in rh~ GoJpt'ls (trnns. P. P. Lcvctaolf : london: SPCK. )929]. pp. 1-27: J. JCI\"mi;ts, New T~s.tamenl111e(}lug.v (trans. J. Bowden: l.o1\don: SPCK). pp. 3- 29: J. A. Fitzmycr. 'The l:mguagts of Patr~1inc in the Fil"$1 Century A.D. •. CBQ 32 (1970). pp. 50 1- 31. tc\'. Uiwdtrillg :\mmeun, t)J). 29- 56: G. Schwarz. Und Jrs.ru sprcrch. UJtttNitcllmiStJI ~~r aramiiis,·hrn UrgeJtult der n~rll" Jesll (BWANT I I & = VI. IS. Saungan: Kohlhammcr. 1985. 2nd cdn 1987). e.s;p. pp. 5-18; Casey. Aromaic Solirt'e.f of Mark's GOl]Jd. CSI). p(). 76-9, 83-8: CCIJ~Cy.Aromaic Approach ltJ Q, J)(). 53-6. Sec furth~:r W · 256-61 below. I I. 12. Casey. S011ofMan, Ch. S: pp. 2 15-6, 242- 5 bdow·.

62

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

l lc-re the l~lC.I that IYuK ""IJ represents the JIt-brew ld•:.: OIUlit mean that it '"as fell to be especially suitable for a genera) statement This would surely not be the case if (K)lY;(K) 1J also brought to mit!d a resplendent heavenly ii gure, the Son of Man

Concept beloved of too much scholarship.u This pa~sage was wrinen as near to the time of Jesus as we can get with Arrunaie- source material. Sinc.e the. term (x.}oiJ(K) iJ ,~,~as a general tenn lOr ·man', it is used in trawnes about humankind, and in the most general refere-nc.es lo the composition of human beings and the. variety of our life experiences. This is illustrated in passage 2. 2. Bardaisan. Th~ Book oftl!d.oh'Hiftht Cowllries, p. 559 1i nc~ 11- 14. .mcm -nm.11'! ;:n 11:1 Ul 'fJfiJ ; :n '"K ;:. 'ty;n Ti'l!i'l w:~:J l::WoJ~;;1 i'rnn ·;;; l(l~;J-o; :u'? This is the ll:Uurc M {the soo of} nl:tn. th:u he should be bom Mli grow up :11\d •~:.ch his t>eal: and reprodutt and yow old. while cal.ing and drinking und skC'ping and waking. and that

he should die'.

Passage 2 is the oldest ,genera1discussion of humankind exrant in Aramaic sources. This is the only rea.'lon 'vhy it is the earliest ie-xt in which (K)tOJ(K) 1~ has all the lhl)St basic human experic n~es. including demh. h is nm ho\1/ever true or everyone. When it was writte-n, many c-hildren died before they were grown up, some people had no children. and relatively few grew old. This was n04 considered relevant to this generaJ description of human life. Death is such a natural pan of life that the death of the son of man is found in Jewish Aramaic li-Oun:.-.es a..:; S(>On as they are. sullicicntly extensive-. Pa:.sage 3 is a general statemerH inserted into the story of how· J.laninah ben Dosa wa...:: bitten by a snake when he was praying, with the result that the snake died. I quote MS Leideu Or.4720: those-te.x•s whi~h traosntit ;ziJ ""lJ ifl dte iodeti•tite state do not offer any djffere-nce. in meaning. 3. y. lkr5. 112(t (9a). .n··..., :o;;;!J 1:! :-; ·.~·, O"o/ K1Y on l'Kl n..IJ l'>.in:!n. X'7:J? 0'1~ :-;;:!: -o r x :-;;;!: "'07 n~ mr.o ;:~ if ll>e (son ol) nun reaches (the) water titst the S!~Ske dies. snd if the s:n:.kc rct~dles (the) water fi rst.lhc (son ot) msn dies. Wh~:n i1 bites a >'IlK: (!<00 of) m:1n,

Since (K)t.9;(K) -.J is a nonnal •enn ror ·.uan'. the minimal r('()uireme.nts for ils use are that human beings are referred to. and that there is a general level of me~ming. We have however already seen lhat it is not necessary for son of man statements to be literally true of all people. This is funher illustrated by passage 3, which is false and refers only to people who have bee-n bitte-n by a snake. It is conspicuously not true or l_laninah beo Ot)sa, who survi\red through his prayerful re.latio•tship with God, not by making a rnpid dash for the. nearest pond. Passage. 4 further illustrates Lhe kind of limited referenc.es which are quite nonnal in the use of son of man stalements:

13.

See- funhcr pp. 1(>--1&. 12- 30 ahm<:~ pp. 82- 1t.S b..-low.

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

63

4. John of Dnlyatha. Lerters 49, 13. 1'\1.:!1 ;;rn'.l7 ~:;r..~, :;';;., n~J il:! ~,u :-;;;1;,::7 :;? KV! ?; :o;;,n K K~ 7>1;;;! :nn:l Xi'IK :o;~iom;;# N :> ~ y.. .;:,h~'7; ~,U ;:;? jK lQYI..~ 1(1;.;)7 Km 'i? :i:l i:i SC;l"U "\..'\l'ii After Lhi ~ lrnnsf\'M'Ol3tioo. dl«C followll snothcr wmllfOtiMtion i.n "''hich tir~ clothes t.hc (soo ol) m:tn from th<' sol e~ of his feet up to his brsin. so l.bst when Lhc ( !100 of} man looks lll himself he docs not sc.- his contpOSitc body, btu only !ltc fire with "''hich he i ~ elothe
This is JXU1 of an account of an experience of ascetic visionarie..~. not pm1 of the normal experie-nce. of e\'eryone. The term (~)!z':J(K) 1~ is also used ifl the plural with re.ference to people i n _general. Thill is illustrated by passages 5 and 6. 5. Dan. 2.37-38. K""' nTii ~:5:::-; ·•:o j'il':i '1 7 J:ll j'7' :l:T K1i?'i X~i?i'li 1'\lO!. KiiU';;: K"<:C! ;;?K: I 1'\'J'n:- 1?.'l KJ7~ ;;...-a.'( .N:l:n '1 ;;Jli.;, K t.-;:-."'lJK . j1:>'7J:l 1 l:hi:l:t> 11:! :l:O K:"<:ch; r ••

You. king. king of kings. to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, power. mi..;hl and glory. 1Uld Ms gi\'cn i.nw )'OUr httnd the sons of m~n. the bc:tS~s M the field :md the birds of the air, " 'hctcvct they lh•c, :md hall given you power over :.II of them - you sre th<' head of gold.

This is the opening or Daniel's interpretatil)r\ of K ing Nebuchadne.zzar's drean~ . !Jere. K'tl~ 'D is a general term tOr people, in coturast to anil'nals and birds. At the

same time. the s.latement containing this expre.ssion is not true of everyone, bUl applies only to people. in d1e Babylonian empire. This doe$ not maner. for the. four kingdom theory forms. the gene.ral context. within which the s.tate.ment is. perc.ei\'ed to be true. 6. I EntJt:!r 22.3. Nt.:.1lN ·::l ~ l'I{L"~l

the soul Js of aUlhe son:sof men

The context of this smaJI Aramaic. fragment is supplied by the Gree.k and Ethiopic. wrsions. This is a place where the souls of all people are kept afler the-ir deaths until •he final judgemellt. This time ~IVJX 'J~, combined with 7J. really does refe.r to everyone. It is closely a..:;Sl)Ciated with death. one of the maj or ractll or li fe. These two passages exemplify the fact that. given the generic nature of the expression (~};fJ(~) .,~it has some overlap in semaotic area with it<; owo plural, ~WI(~) •:o, but thetwo forms are by no means interchangeable. Naturally, the tenn ( x)Wl(~) 1J, being nonnal in tl
A.nd 1h~ Lord st~id in his hell-ft. ' I will 1\C\'ef ngaio curse the gl\'lund bCCllUSo.1 of (the son of) m:ll\, f.:~r lhc indin.atioo of(the- soo of} m:m 's ltcan is <'Vii from IIi:> youlh.'

Here 01~:1 .

~;ziJK

-a ill used l\1/ice lOr people as a whole, rendering the equally _geoeral

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

64

&. Tg. J CI'. 51.4.l: MT o; x p . • .. a land in whiC'h no m.nn li\'CS. and which no son of mun p:asscs Lhtough.

I Iere ldJK 1~ is used with the negative x.7 to mean no or1e, a standard us-age with Sl)

general a tenn fOr people. II renders its ne.aresr etymological equivalent in Ile-brc!\1/, DIN p . II is io parallel with the simple iliJK, which translates the Hebrew ~hK. TI1e 1-e is a mas.o;ive-ove-rlap in ~n1ant i c are-a beh!Jeen (K)lii;(x) 1J and the simple (x.}Vl(K). In the most straightforward usages, the decisioo be.tweeo them is oflcn a 1t1atter of sociolect or idioloc-L l\•lany authors used both. II is all the more striking that the idiomatic usage of (x.)l!f:(N) -.J which is the li.)CUS: of the next sec1ion of this chapter

has not bee-o recorded with e-xamples of the sirtlple (K}Wl(K). Two examples of :o.iJK -u in translation Ara1\laie, rendering the Jlebrew U'n\ lJ. ha\•e been found in the Job Targum fro m cave I I at Qumran. These are presented as pa~sages 9 and I0. 9. I JQTg.Job IX.9 (MT Job 25.6 U.K j:). );;7;;~- 1:/lXi(~}

How mucb lcs.<~ :1 .non.sl. :1 msggot, :.nd :. s}o1l of mM, a wot( m!

I Iere. ahl1ough just enotlgh t)fthe tern\ survives at the OOge of a small fragment. it is evident that !VJK, J has been used to tr.utslate D1K J~ ill a very gene.ral c.omparison M people to wonns. io c.ootrast \Vith God. It ha.'> been w·riuen a.'> a single \\'Ord, as often

later in both Jewish Aramaic and in Syriac. 10. I JQTg.Job XXVI.2·3 (MT Job 3.5.8 e n;.~).

. .. -.,v u !l'll(. -o7; Tim - ( ... Your sin Lalfecls a mun like yoJu. nnd your righteoustK'ss a son or man.

I k re ldJK 1:1 has been used h) traoshne Oil\ pin a Ycr y general c.om.nent t)ll the effect of Job's behaviour on other human beings. The broad range or (K)WJ(K) 1J in natural Araruaic. is rellected in the diO'e.re1H Hebrew words which it is used to translate in the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Dible. In addition •o Oi K p as in passages 8-10, I have noted it used (Wice fOr D'n\:1 it'l passage 7. and in place or \if'K in the very fl'lidrashic passage I. Passages 11- 15 funher illustrate its range. I I. Tg. Ps. I04 .14 · 15: MT 01!\:1. i'UK. 'L''Ul\: l\,:UX? NdJ 1:11 ~...,

'101)1 ~,llnl x;.-,Kill ~n'7 y-;~-;o:.? NC'J 1:11 ~..;7~7 'i'!l ' 1-:~:h ~Oll ~i.'='i

.1~·o• ~~ -o; ~n•? xr.~,,., No;;k:. p x-.;x Who in~'fC:lSCS tile grass ror Lhc caul.-. and g1\."enS rm the sc•' 'icC' of(th<' son of} m a n , w bri.ng fonh brc:.<~d from the C'tlnh a.nd win" which gladdens the h<.'::u1 or (lh(' S<m ol) man, to make his face shi.oc with oil. :uld bread satislic..~ tho: lleart of (lh<' soo of) lll:tll.

l lere 1\'liJ 1J is generic in all lhree examples ofthe de.finite state. As well as rendering in passage 7, il re.nders
D'R\;i as

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

65

12. Ps-1 Exod. 31.14: MT ;;'~:;;. ;;·o!.-ol\;;;; :-;;;:: -~ ·:;-W; ~:;o :r'l' :1:! n~-, iN1! '; j

. .. whoc\·c-r do~s wOt'k on i1. thai (son ol) ma'' shall be destroyed from his pooplc.

! Jere the context is wotking on the Sabbath day. The l lebrew il:>J;; is cO'ectively used (0 mean any person. The trans lator l'bund ?\;;iJ ""lJ a suitable-rendering, becauseit is a general term lOr an)' person. The--traoslator naturally also used K \,1;'1 10 render the llebrew ~1.1;1. TI1e-result is 110 special idiorll, but a nornw.J anaphoric. use l)f ~ l:l:i, so that Kl;i;i s.:ziJ 1:l refers back to the per.oon who works on the Sabbath. TI1e next verse-makes il d ear Lhat he is to be put to death. so this is anoLher of the many example-s oft11e association of (K)V:(K) ~J with death. a11as.~ociat ion which re-llec.ts

the universality of human mortality. 13. J>s.J Lev. 13.24: MT i~. •• • i1:1 ~1·j ;1');ir.Q ':i' C·l ,K !f.! -c 1:0: Or if a (son of) man h3s a fiery bum in his skin . ..

Here- !he context is one of various kiods of skin disease-. The Ilebre\ll text u.~es "'li.9J bec.ause the symptoo1is fl)und in 1he lle~~b of d1e body. The 1rans lator hs. 88.5: MT -cl.

The- Jlebrew 1~ is usually reodered with the Anunaic. (K)1)J , because this is 1he same \YOrd. In this ease. howevet. lhe psalmis1 has made a complete-ly gene-ralized

comparison of himself to people.who are we.ak to the point of death. This comparison to anyone of a particular kind. or anyone in a particular situation, explains the. translator's d1oice oflhe ,~ ery ge.neral lenn

~J

-u to re-rlder 1~. The context shows a

close, if metaphorical. association with death. In vie'v of the normal use.of(K)\ifl(K) ""C' both as a general tenn ifl narural Anunaic., and to rende.r severaJ different terms in Aramaic translations of the Bible. it is natumJ that we-should also find it used in chose Targums -whic.h add pieces to the translation ol't11e llelm~w 1ex1. This is i lllL~tr.Hed by passage 15. 15. Ncofl, in t ill i ns~ni oo :u Gen. 49.22. .NI'!'n' ill :o>.li:: ""0? ruv:n iil"K •o? -,m-,; 1:i:l :o:'n :;:•-.; ·;m iro 7;K K7; K1~r. :o:.u. ·1or K"':i r+ This is Joseph. the. pious man who has not gone after the impressions of his eyes nor all ~ r the i mt~gi nmions ofhis h-esn . Thcs~ ar~ what dcslmy a(/th~ son ol) m:.n from 1he world.

Here. following on the description of Joseph. 1he targumist has added a general statement abou1 the- etlf:c•s of certaio human f3ults, a11d has used s.'WJ 1:! because it is a nonnal term for people in general.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

66

As a tenn fOr human bein_gs, (K)Vl(l'\) -u may also be used in the singular for a single indi\'idual, whed~er anonymous. gene.ric or specific. This is illustrated itt passages 16-19. 16..v. Demai1. 1/ 11 (22d). .-?Jo ,:: ?In:'-.; j":l'i~y. :;7~ x;n •n-N 'tJ -u ;n A (son otj man brought :1. ba.ik,..l of leeks toR. fsa.."'C son ofT:~blai.

This is o ne of l)ver 100 s1ories in the Ye rus halmi whic.h begifl :;JJ 1:1 1i1. lls poitll is to set up a situ:tlion so that a legal d ecisiotl can be taken. In this c-ase, a decision has to be taken as to whether some produce is liable-to be tithed as doubrful produce-. It is

to be considered whether the nature of a given load c-.an lead the matter to be settled. on the ground that such a load of produce would or would not be likely 10 have been produce-d locally or out~ ide Israel. h mauers who the rabbi is. but it does not matter who d1e. pe-rson bl'inging the load is. h does have-to be a pe-rson. however, so that a decision on his case c-.an be taken. Hence il is appropriate to use a generic term for ·person' which could n011ethele.ss relh to anyone. t7 ..v. Shabb. 1.11t0(3cJ•

•ri7~'> ;;? nW<: ;;;;; ;;·nv? '7t"ns :~; ;j; -c ·~:n ;;t,; 1:0 1:1;; ii'U' .,_ :.;; p Thu~ R. Jon:llh:l!l u:;ed 10 US(.d 10 !'C'od him a gift.

do. Whc" he :;aw M imponanl (son of) 100" ~meti ng hi ~ 1own, ht.'

The generaJ context concerns relationships with Gentiles on the Sabbath. and this shifts into this anecd()(e about R. Jonathan. The resuh of his behaviour is said to be that he found favour when a c-.ase invol\'ing an orphan or a widow c-.ame to ooun. I !e-re- Vl 1J is a gene-l'ic indefinite expressioo. and qualifiOO by J1 il refe.rs to any

important person. I&. Na~i. 1/omi/.um thtt Tumslcrtion of Enocll <md Elijah. line 75. ~'7:m; N'n

He t>n."S.CI"VOO one (son

x-.·:;;-::t ;:;.:: K't3-c

;~;

of} man ~C"Uicly withOtu comrpti\'ln.

llere God has bee11 clearly set up in the preceding oootext as the subject. The explanation of this sentenc-e follows immediately, with Enoch being mentioned by name in line 77. TI1e s~-neral backgronnd is the drastic c.orruptioo of most people at the-time. Accordingly, NlZiYU 1n is in the lirst instance ao indefioite geoeric.,

h)

indicate that when everyone else was corrupt God preserved one being of the same species without corruption. At the same. time, the context unfolds a reference to one single individual. Enoch. t9. Na~i. llomily 011 thf' Trmulaliort of £Jwd1 <mel Elijah. line 425. OOYJ-? ;;·, '7;; il'T. NnW s;;rc or. 0 1l1: {son ot) nlsn. lhc Mc~sisb. who i ~ of us. cmercd i1firs1 .•.

The. context makes clear thai this is Jesus. s.honly after his death and 1\.<>surrection, e.He-rifl_g the garden of Eden. where Enoch and Elijah already were. lie then went on

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

67

up to heaven. The-re is no problem in the collocation of son of man and Messiah. The Arart\aic term ?\i1'I.Vt3 c.ould be used h) indicate-Jesus in the Syriac-speaking churc-h it1 a. \\1a.y that was not pt)SSible during tlle minisu y l)f Jesus. This i.:; bee.alL:;e of a major cultural c.ltange. At the time of Jesus the high priest was the most imponam anointed figu.re. as a king might aiSl) be. More would therefOre.be oeeded than the simple ten'tl ?\iiVr:l to refer to a. ti.gure who might be tiH:>'IJglll of as anointed metaphorically becauseGod had appointed hirn fOr an important pn)phe-tic task. In the Syriac-speakiug church however, ?\i'T'IV.O had beeome a terril ror JeslL:; alone. translating the Greek 0 XPIOT0;-, and there \Wts no othtf significant anointed figure i1l view. In these-c-ircum:,.tances ?\nV;:) c.ould fUJlC-til)n perfOCdy as a. title, rnuc-h like 0 XPLOT0:;- in Greek ·n is figure is refenx:d h) a_:; ?\:dJ1~ 111 because his humanity v.·as impormnt. Til is ,...-as also fnuc.h less likely to bappeo during tlle historic mioist.ry. \\then Jesus• tfumani(y was taken ror gr:.mted by e.vei)'One. and no thought of hjs divinity had yet bee-n emenained. In geoeral, therefOre-, (K}oil(K) 'U was a genera.! term fOr hlli\130kiltd It could be used fi)r everyone in geJlera.l, or for a. more restricled group of people-. h could be used in the sio.guJar of a ~ingle- individtt
4. The Particular !diomalic Use of (.'9ri:(;")

i:J

I now present the known examples of this parriculat idiom. It \\1ill be noted that (K)\9~(~) 1~ may be in eithe-r dle-definite. or indefinite state. This is especially dear in Jewish Ar.tmak:. where it is due to the more general custom that generic expressions miglu be in either state. Tile Sy1iac e:<''"~f\1 s.uch a pl:tn., 111)(5 if yoursoo.•s son thinl:s ofldlling my son ·s son :uul put-> fMvtltd such tl J)l!ln, or if your dcSCCilcbms think of killing my descr-ndants and put forward such u plan. and if the kings of Atpad think of it. in any case- tl\31 ll (son ot) man die~. yoo have- been fa lse to all the gods of the lt~aty wltkh is in this inscription.

This example, with :o!J?\ -a in line 16, was wriuen c. 750 GCE. in the name of llarga'ya.h, king o f K i trik.l~ h uses \:IJK .,J in a. general statement. In view ofdle cuhural t4. E. Lipift~ki , 7111! .o\mmaeatJJ. 'Tite-irAncie-111 Histor;.; Cuhw\', Rl!ligim1(OLA tOO. lcuvc,,: Pee1.::rll, 2000}. Ch. IX. 'Kinik or Bet-~ullul ' .

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

context it is most unlikely that it was intended to refer to the death of anyone other than people on the side of the king of Kitrik, and it probably refers only to the. king and his descendants. Precise de-scription is not pan of this idiom. the. effectiveness of whic-h depends on the plausibility of the general le\'el of meaning. When this passage is t:.tken together with many later passages, it should be obvious that dying is a universal experience characteristic of (~)v"l(K} 1:r, and that this wa..~J

a l re~tdy

so

Ions before the time of Jesus. 2 1. y. lkr. I .5110 (Jb) Vly. Shabb. IJ/14 (3b)). .;;·~,1:> '7-1 :r-7 •::;.+ 1m N,-;1x:: "li? :n;; 1n .r1:1~ J'1:l Kt'J u 7 •-c..••• ~.;:;;, 'l'Y¥ ':>'2"'11! ~J"l:+ . .. I 'A'Outd h:wc :.skcd the Mcrcifutthat lwo moulhs ~tll>ul d be erc:.l.:-d fot ( Lite soo of} m:.n.. ooc 10 s1udy the Law and one to sec h) !Ill Jljs (OLhcr) needs.

This is the first ofse\·eral exarnples from the Yemshahni. In all cases I quote Leiden Or. 4720 ftom the sym)ptic. edition of the Yerushahni, and c.ornment on significant \ 1ariants. Here. where Leiden Or. 4720 has x:WJ 1-J'. the olher extant MS which is neithel' oorrupl nor motila!ed, the London MS BL Or. 28 22, has the indefinite Shlte WJ -u. This makes no dillerence. The saying is auributed toR. Simeon son oi'Yohai, who flourished in the firs! halfof the second ct'1Hury CE. The general level of meaning

does not refer to all people. for most Gentiles did not study the Law. and R. Simeon i.s not likely to have asked for an extra molllh for them for such a purpose. Rathe.r) this sll0\1/S that the general leYel o f meauiog of (K}WJ(K} -a io lhis idiOI'l l rna)' apply to a social subgroup to which Ote speaker belongs. Equally. R. Simeon will have had himself especially in mind. so this is a straightforward example of a general statement nwde with reference to a pal'ticular pe-rson. The parallel at y. Sh.abb. I,S/ 14 (Jb) has ~~;J ""lJ? F;i7. This changes the retfrence-of the-•enn ~nil 1-:r. It is here a referenc.e 10 R.

Simeon son ofYohai alone. and no longer has the ge-neral lew I of meaning. Anotl1er example or the idiomatic use of a general s1a1ement with (K)Vl(K} 1:r

made to refer especially to the speaker, or the spe-aker and someone else, is attributed to R. Sil'neon son ofYohai in passage 29. 1t is significant thar two examples siKYuld

be.attributed to an early rabbi, who lived some of his life in GaJifee. 22. y. fkr. 2.8/3 (Sb).

The disdpk of a (1101'1 of) m:.n i ~ :111
Vat. Ebr. 133 has ;,~) "'IJ.. a diO'ete-IH spelling of the emphatic state. Thus all four manuscripts haw Lhe emphatic state in

In this paslUlge, two othe-r MSS have Ki9J

"'IJ:

this e.xample of the idiom. It i ~ a general statement i n which ~:ziJ 1:1 1-efersespecially to R. ~1 iyya bar Adda. In ils context. it explains why he was so de-ar to Resh Laqish that when he.died Resh Laqish received condofe.JlC.es lOr him and did his eulogy. II is ob\~ously not true of everyone, for most people do not haw disc-iples. and some people do not have sons. This does not in any way inhibit the u.:;e of~;;!J 1:r, which is

freq uently used like this with reference to a limited group of people. t\'loreover. this general tettn does provide a genuioe refertfl<'·e to R. ~I iyya bar Adda. since without

Lhis the passage would not make .sense.

69

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1 23. y. a..... 2..81to (Sc>. A (soo of} man whose .oothcr dc,.pi ~cs him and a(nothcr) wife of hi ~ where shall he: go?

r:11h~'f

honours him,

This is a general statement referring espeeially to the speaker, R. Kal"\na. h is an

unusual example in that it might re-asonably be described as ambiguous, or perhaps rnther deceptive. The ambiguity in this deceptive statement is produced main1y by the alle.gorical conc.eahnel)t oflsrael by ·mmhe-r '. and of' Babylon• by •a wife of his fillher•, rather than by the tL~e of~J ""0. TI1e result is quite dilTerent fn)tn the result of any son of man saying in the Gospels. R. Johanan answered the question m the. level of a purely ge-neral statement. and when R. Kahana acted by app1ying this to himself and going to Babylon, R. Johanan made it clear that he. did not understand why he had gone. Accordingly. from the perspective of the speaker. R. Kahana. the

general comment re-ally did apply to himself, even if R. Joh~man did not realize this. Johanan•s disciples then explaioed the self-l'ei'C!tX."nce to hi1t1. TI1is is the nec.essary

resuh of the kind of ambiguous sentence that this idiom c-an be used to produce. and it is not ~ reactioo fOund i1l the Gospels. h is the only anlbiguous exaJnple so far recorded from our Aramaic sources. and the Gospel evidence also does not imply ambiguity in the usage of Jesus, which therefore corresponds to normal Aramaic. usage. 24. y. a ..... 2..81t2 (Sc>. .i::O,'V ;n ;rO, trit''i ;;; i~li'i Kil:'ry d:l U 7'~K :-;7; :-;,_:i1K:o.'U':• ;;!•:z ...._, ,jl::-, 1hc CUl>IOnl of 1hi." land. that s (SOil of} man caMot c:u a pound of meat until they have givcn him a l:J:ih!

Rabbi ~, how C\'il is

This is a general statemt-tH referring especially to the.speaker, R. Ze'ira.. The general C-Ontext is that M a group M Slt)ries about rabbis whl) i1runigrated to 1sl'ael frorn Babylon, a situation in which anyone is liable ro be unaware of loc.al customs. R. Ze'ira \Vent h) buy a pound of me-at fn)m a butcher. \Vhen he asked tl1e-price, he ' "as told ·so minas aJld a las h'. lie oft'ered more and rnore rnoney to get his pound of meat without soft'ering a lash~ but wt~e•l his one.r of 100 n1inas '"as still reftL~ed, heS.""e ill with the \IJOrds 1::.-"lPOJ T'Jli, ·Do aec.ol'din_g to yourcustom' . Passage 24 is a

comment whic.h he made to his colleagues in the e\'ening. R. Ze'ira.'s colleagues did not acce-pt that this was a custom in Israel, and made enquiries as a result of which it eme-rged thm the butcher was alre:.\dy dead. R. Ze'ira re futed ~oy idea that he was n--spMsible fOr divine vengcanc.e Oil his behalf by sayiog that he was lh)t really angry with the butcher bec.ause p ~;;->Ji'l1 n,Jo. •1 thought that the custom (was) like that'. IL is clear ti'omthe reactions l)fR. Ze'ira's colleagues, and frorn his own final adn1ission., that he- ' "as the-only person who

was lashed by the butcher when he bought his pound of meat. bUl this does not diminish the generaloature-or the state-ment u.'iillf; the.ge ner~l tenn VJ ""0. In rclatio_g a humiliating inc.ident, R. Ze'ira deliberately used a g.ener.al statement in Ol'der to avoid referring directly to himself. His three refe.re.nces to loc-aJ custom show that he did not belie.\'e that he was the onty person to be treated like. this. Since however

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

70

he was wrong about the custom in a place with which he was not familiar. it is clear that he feh able to use-a general statement by generalizing from his own e:\:perience. At one level, tJ1erefore, this is on an extre.me wing of the use of 1hese. statements. in that the maj o1i(y of them are lrue at Jeal!t l)f a social subgroup of people.

Although this example is in Jewish Aramaic whic.h has no particular Babylonian teanu~s, and in particular do~ not have the Babylonian spelling ~J'K 1~. it should be noted 1hat il is a uributed to a n1hbi who had j ust come from Babylon. 25. y. lkr. l . l/12 (6a). ,;;..,:r;? I ::!I 'tJ .,:: ~K .ill1 ,f7 .,llK

He said to !hem:

Rabbi.~.

docs a (~n ol) man tr~l his collc:1gu~ like Litis?

This is a saying o r R. Isaac. his difficuh •o know which R. Isaac be('.ause oftexh:tal

vari:.mts: most probably he was son of R. Hewa the scribe. The situation arose when R. Isaac \1/as bereaved of a close relative, so R. Mana and R. Judan \Vent to c.a ll on him. And there was good wine. and they drank a lot and laughed. This was within the par.uneters of permissible c.ustoms in cases of bereavement. with the obvious intention of trying to make the bereaved person feel valued and a litlle less miserable. Next day, however. R. Maml and R. Judan wanted to call on R. Isaac again! It is this which led R. Isaac to make the above conunenL I le concluded by reminding them that the previous day they had done e.verything but get up and dance. Clearly) therefore. the. above question is a general question expecting an answer on the lines of ' not really', or •t)ne shouldn't' or the. like. The tentl tilJ "U has a general level of meaning which doe..s not however refer to all people, lxn rathe.r to rabbis with c.olle.agues who are also rubbis. A• the same time, iJJ 1:2 reiCrs primarily to R. Mana and R. Judan. as is obvious from the conte~l. 26. y. lkr.

~1.1/ 11

(12a).

7;; 1?:1~ N7i jli"ir ":!-o ;~s :n:o x:..,:t:J? rrm :r:< i"Jl N;·.m ·~;j ,~;; :n;; ;;~:;;;7 '?""lN :n:<

n

1;-.n;. -~,

\Vhc-.n R. Abbahu w~m to l.llc soulh.. he- .:lid acoordi.ng toR. J~a.ninah. :l.nd when he- w~m 10 Tibcd!t!>, he djd 3C"Cll1XIing 10 R. JohaMn, so I.Mt he might 001 differ from 3 (son ot) man i.n his pl <~ce.

I te.re. tL;J -u refers especially to R. J.laninah and R. Jol)anan. The natTaror makes a general statement which presupposes that one should follow the haJakhah of the loc.al rabbi. whic.h also c.ontOnhs one's behaviour 10 that of the. local Jewish community. ·Thus the.general level of meaning is central in providing an e~planmi on or R. Abbahu•s behaviour. TI1e general level of rne-.aoing does not rete.r to a ll people, bur rathe.r to rabbis in c.harge of communitie.s. 2 7. y. Kjl. 9.4f4 (l2b)/ly. Kct. 12.1/4 (35sjlllkr.R. 100,2. ·nx Nm 'T;x '
711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

71

The edilio princeps IOIIo\1/s Leiden Or. 4720 with the llitbylonian spelling or the absolute stne :oiJ•K MS Vat. Ebr. I 33 has :11VJ 1J . a western spelling M the emphatic state: Paris Bib.Nat.l leb. I 389 has !YJ "U, the Sl
idiomatic us.age is simply not dependent on spelling. and not altogether on dialect. The s.aying is attributed to Rabbi. He is recorded to have. been buried in a single sheet on account of his use of this saying. This means thai the gene-ral stateme.m was applied directly 10 hirn. h is t)ne or a llUmbe.r of sayings about burial, and our

sources show so gre.n an interest in the gene.ral level of meaning that they contradict it: 'i1X Nl:1 'r:x :Y:. -u• :t':·J l'"'l')l;. r ;:1-.· And the rabbis s:~y: ss a son of man goes so will he come (:~gail\).

This express interest in the general level of meaning is quite unusual in extnm sources. It io no \1/ay undermines the practical \\'a)' in which it was .appl ied to Rabbi

in particular. 28. y. Kil. 9 .4Jt9{32c)fly. Kcl. t2.J/ 19(J5b)f1Bcr.R. t00.2lib. Suk. Sl:~.

n 1. 1: Xl:11 ~

.,j:m<:!y"'l!?

;;~ 'i'T·: !ill ~~ -o1 ...; .n

The feet of a son of man are his sur<"t)' to bring him to wherever he is wanted.

The-Dab)•lonian version, which naturally ha.;; 1he Babylonian spe-lling ix/rK .,~, is 1he clearest, so I begin with it. 2Sa. b. Su\:kah .S3a. .rr;;' r?~•t~ wn •s:!n,.;.; ~m6 ;;•'"- P "\ll lil'K c" l'X -o; -:n?;.-, Tile fed of a son U.t<:t)' for him. To the plaoe whC're he is wanted. there they take him.

This saying occurS twice. In the first instance, it is attributed to R. Jol,lat~an, and it appears 10 be quite general. It is followed by a S-tOI')' ofl,\10 Ethiopians who auended

Solomon. and who died when they reached the appoimed place. The-story ends with Solomon applying this general statement to the two Ethiopians. This is accordingly another example of the Aramaic tenn 'sou or man· io a gc~:uera l statement appl ied to people made obYious by t11c-context. It is the only ve-rsion in which this is absolurcl>'

72

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

d ear. In bmh Yerushalmi versions the c.onnection is more temtous, and Ber.R. I 00,2

doe.s not have this story. to the. point where the saying in these versions c-an barely be regarded as an e:\:ample of this idiom. It is therefOre especially useful to have this llabyloniao example, which is clear

and which indicates that the idiom was more widely used than has sometimes been tl1ought. It is also ilrtp\)rtant that, ho \~ever gene-ral the sta.teme-r)t rnay be perceived to be, il really does apply to the two Ethiopians. At one level. it is on the extreme

end of this idiomatic.usage, in thm it is clear from the parallels thm the saying could circulate independently. 29. y. Shcvi. 9. J/12 (38b)f/B.:-r.R. 79.6 .

.svJ 1:! J:;.i ~ .~u· :-;7 s-r-"!t -;!."'T.ll:l ,~~·i A bird doc11 OO! Jm ish willtoUI Ihc will of Hc:lvcn. How much less a (t\hc son ol)

man.

This is from the stOJ)' of R. Simeon, son of Yohai, holed up in a cave on the run fro m the Roman authorilie$ after the Bar Kokhba war. He was wondering whether it was safe to come out He saw some. birds bc.ing hunted: some were.c.aptured. while others escaped, and the fate of all of them depended on the j udgemetH of a heavenly voic.e which he. heard. He made the above comment. and then emerged from the eave. It fOIJo,vs that he intended to apply the staremenltO himself. A tlhe same tjme, each of the sentences is a genemlsratement. The comment on the birds is obviously a general comment on the fate of several birds. Equally. the son of man statement whidl balances it cannot Jose its gene-ral level of meaning. which would be entirely acceptable in R. Simeon's culture. This version of the story ultfs the definite state N:ziJ ""0. Among 1he variants in the parallel at Det.R. 79,6 are the use of the indefinite stale ldJ LL This in no 'vay atlt<:ts the meaning. TI1e. parallel at Ber.R. 79,6 also tells the story some''' hat dille-rendy, in that R. Simeon h.as his son with him. Thus the general statement applies both 10 R. Simeon and his son. who emerges from. the cave with him. This illustrates the flexibility inherent io this idiomatic usage. the re l't1~ nc.e being de-tennined by the conlext. At the same time. the eme.rgence of R. Simeon and his son from the cave shows that, in this version of the story, R. Simeon really did intend the stateme-m lo be about both of them. 30. y. •Et ub 9.3JI(25c)t/y. Ycb. 4.114 (Sd). Is th.:rc- no (son \)I) man ,vf'lo hc3rs So."'ltndhing which his coUcagt~e docs 001 hear?

This saying occurS at y. ·Erub 9,3/1 in a cornplex de-bate in \\•hich dillt rentopinions

are expressed about the liability or otherwise of someone who carries from one domain to another if a courtyard is breached to a public way. R. Ze'inl and R. Jla offer a different opinion from R. Zeriqan and R. J;.tcob bar Bun in the name of R. IJaoinah. R. Zeriqan says that he spent a lot of time with R. Jacob bar Bun in legal disc-ussion. but never he.ard 1his matter from him. One oflhe othets replies with the above saying. I Jere W'J L! is the spe.aker. \\tho did hear this fro m R. Jacob bar Bun,

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

73

and his colleague is R. Zeriqan. who did not Thus this is a geneml statement. in which VJ ,:l reft1'S especially to the speaker. The parallel at y. Ye-b. 4 ,7/4 has a very similar eonune1H auributed 10 diiTerent rabbis debating a different topic. bUl with a very simihu disagreement alxnn the. transmission of an opinion. th.is time an alleged opinion of R. Hoshaiah. R. Johanan comments th.at he sat before R. Hoshaiah many times and never heard this from him. The response is a similar .se.Jllence-to the one given abMe-. TI1is time iiJJ ,:l refets ewec.ially toR. Abbahu and R. Elea-zar, and :i""1J.n refers especially LOR. Johanan. At one level this is on an extreme end of the usage of t:his idiom. in that once. il was being transm.itted the saying could be reapplied to different rabbis in the same situation. 31 . y. P~s. 6 ,3Jl (He).

.'J-7n lK ·~;? -r:.x VJ , :: n·K~ And doc11 t1 (son ol) man say to hill masto.'l~ 'Or the opt)OSi t~! '?

This is from a complex discussion of whether aspect~ of Passover celebrations override the-sabbath. A dispute between R. Elie.zer and R. Aqiba is taken over fro m the mishnah. It seem.:; clear from the-c.ontext thatiOI-J ,:l is om aoy person, but an)' rnbbi. and that Lhe general statement applies especially to R. Aqiba. 32. y. Ta'an. 1,1/ 15 (ldd). .i1ll~ '1:> KU'T.l l\lii"' ~d"J 'U -.;:: X'7 .l'U:'K 7.1 x-:t'll ill>" ~::;!; "0 'l'~

t\ (Jlhi: soo o l) man a~ks s • any 1ime thalthc dc:.d

should rise. A (/the son o l) n\Sn docs not

ask at any lime that the roin should come down.

IIere are l\IJO examples of the definite state ~:VJ 1~ in sayings of Rabbi Jose. Tilegeneral conte:tt is one of fasting for rain. The prayer for min could be included in the praye-r for the. resurrection of the dead, so there are comparisons of the. coming of rain aod the resurrection of the dead. R. Jose objects to one of these 011 the grouod that they are not comparable events. I I ere N:ziJ ,J refers to obsel'vant Jews rathe-r than 10 all people., and R. Jose can hardly have excluded himself. The general level of meaning is more imponnm here than in some examples. 33. y. MQ 3.5!40 (8.2d)!fficr.R. t00,7. . >'S'i i>! ; :: lll l'>1::-t:: r~7· x"; We do nm lcam dtc Mdsio•t from an inf~rio•· (son o l) man!

The-<"·Ontext is a series of stories about what lesser figures did on the-sabbath during the se ...e.JH lay fasting period. II ends with R. Yona saying toR. Ciuryoo. \!Jhat do we Jearn from you about such a thing. and the answer to this is nothing. and Lhe nboYe saying is give11 as the reason lOr this. It is accordingly a gene-ral statement which has especial reference-toR. Guryon. The general level or meaning of :oil 1:l c-Oncerns Jewish rabbis rather than people in generaJ.

74

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem 34. y. Ter. 8,9/5(463~1/y. Sh:.bb. 2,.315(-ldVly. Shabb. 19.3/4(11b)'ly. P~'S. 1.8/ ll(l&i)f/y. Sukk. 1.2fl (S2b)h)'. Sukk. 3.412{53c)l/y. Ycb. 8.1/2 1(911)1/y. l:l:.g. 1.1112(76:.)/fy. Gin.

9.715(50<). -~"··.::;,y '7¥ '111l ~;;'j; :-;~ :u-N 11'!K 'tJ u Aod M (son ol) 1nt11l say~ 1h:u's not ttl~ Cilll~ unk11s Jtc sgnxs with 1M fir.il (opi.nioo).

n·,~n

All the versions of this saying have an identical Sit:; im Lebeu in rnbbinic.aJ debates. In eac.h case an aucrupl is made to deri\'C a nlbbi's opinion from his other known opinions. A general sratement like this concludes the argument. whe.ther with the lle.gative ;'l:I'K, a..:; hc.re and at y. Pes. 1,8/11(28a), or in iB place 1he positive 11K (y. Shabb. 19,3/4( 17b); y. Yeb. 8, 1121(9a); y. l,lag. 1.1112(76a), or'''"" (y. Slwbb. 2.315(4d); y. Sukk. 1,212(52h); y. Sukk. 3,412(53c); y. Gin. 9.715(50c). For example, .'\, i.9J ""'J relb's ellpec::ially to R. Eliezer. At y. Shahb. 19,3/4{ 17b )// y. Yeb. S.I/21{%Wy. !:Jag. I, l / 12(76a). with I)K, ::/J 'U refers especially toR. Judah. At y. Sukk. 1,2/2(52b), with i',-~K. WJ 1J refers eSpecially to a cenain elder be lOre R. Zeira. At 'l GilL 9,7/S(SOc), with 17'~t\, ~J 1:'! refers esp..:.,cially to R. Meir.

At one leveL this is an e:ureme example, in that the general statement is applied in ditTerem passages to diffcrem rabbis. This is instn1ctive for understanding the nature of" the idiom. Orlthe one hand, lhe general le\rel or meaning i llustrate~ what all the examples have in common, and indicates withespecial clarity that the.general level of fneaning of rdJ .,~ may refer to a :>acial subgroup, t10t to everyone. On the other hand, not one sin~Je example makes sense unle-ss Lhe point of using the idiom

is to say something quite precise about a panicu1ar rabbi. Even in these examples. therefore. the panicular reference.to a single individual is essential to the use of this idiom. 35. y. NOO. 5,413 (39b). .~-::or•Jy:: x>n; 1:::. &'l ;

:: 1=1

And a (son of) man docs !VO 1h:.1he may noc ~ 3 g;~mblcr! The di~tt.;;sion or vows has turned to the case of a man (Wl u 1n) who VO\Ved not to make a pn)fit. He came before-R. Judan bar Salam, who responded with the above

general statement. The generaJ leve.l of meaning concerns observant Jews who \'OW not (0 tllake a pro1il. The. panicular rere.re.nc.e of 1.!7l

'1:1

is to the-anonymous subject

of !he story. 36. y. S3n. 7)/3 (2-lb). .nW r n?ro m~ 't3 u 1.w 1?:i:: ~Y, xu;;; Nn-.·:-; rr?

his not 1-h\.' w:~y of 3 grc:.1 m:1n 10 walk wi!h a (soo ol) man who is less than 1hiny y<:ats old.

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'" )vi:;(.''\) 1::1

75

The general context is that of capital punishment. and the discussion has come to the que-..o;tion as to how you burn a person. This proceeds with the story of R. Eleazar bC1l Zadok riding oo his l~llh er 's shoulders and seeing a pri est \~ daugluer burnt. It goes on to say that he was more than ten years old at the time, and adds that he was not less than thjrty years old when he left home to study with his master. The above

general statement is given as an indication of his age when he saw the eve.nt. Thus it applies to R. Eleazar in panicular. 37. y. San. Thi ~

10.2/47 (29a).

is whsllhc ptOYerb !1-ays: a (:;on o f) mMl ~cds to ~careful o f hi~ msMcr·s curse~. C\'Cfl.

if in vain.

The context is a series of stories aboUI people who have. no ponion in the world to come. and lhis saying ends a story about Ahitophel. David is said to have dee.fare.d that anyone who c.ould have stopped up a 1lood aod did not do so would in the end be strangled. Ahitophd stopped up the flood. but died by strangulation anyway. This leads R. Jose to apply this proverb to Ahitophel. This example is on the extreme

wing of the use of this idiom, in that the.genernJ statement is e.xplie-itly said to be a prove1b. E"en so, 'Ill 1:! in this context d early applies especially to Ahitophel. 3&. Gen. R.

7,2 (I JNum.R. t9,311Pcs..4.30). .~"llli1l'

-p? N1.,iK-. :i?~ "'C.X1 Z'J U

Shall a (son of) man who imc-rprct~ 1hc Wllrd o f Torah be be3tcn'?

This is fro m a S-tOI)' in which Jaoob of Niburuyya was ordered by R. Haggai to come and be be-aten for t'ul ing 1hat fish should be rirually slaughte-red. The-son of mao saying i.s Jacob's first rcspoose. I Je used a general staterne.nt be.cause he '"as in a very hunl il iating situation. It was at the same time irnpon:ant to him that it reall)' applied to hitu, so that he could try to a\'oid being beateo (he did not succee-d). A second example follows. in whic.h he gives another mling, which was. deemed equally inadequate, and his first response is the same son aM man saying. With so many examples of this idiom to be found in natural Jewish Aramaic., it

was to be expected that some examples could be found in tmnslation .A.ramaic. This involves some-what di iTercnt problems of method. l n leng1hy speeches. exarrtples

of a genernl statement applied to the speaker himself might be unconscious. and appear with IL;J 1J in translatioo because a parci cular translmor c-Onsidered ~J ! J to be the most natural translation of a gi\reo woni fOr 'man· in the l lehrew Dible-. Accordingly, otle or two examples are less than certain. Others are straightlbrward,

either because they are unambiguous ttanslations, or because the rendering with (K)iifl(K) 1~ is not h) be cxpec.tcd, especially not when it is a renderiog of 1n (:1). 39. Noof I Gen.

1.26-27: t\.IT Q'nt and o;x;;.

... ;;•m·:.-n ~~J u n· _,, :n~~ ;-;u1 .•. lnt':-1~ ;1.: ; :: K-o; ... , ,~Kl And the lord ~aid, ' Li:l us c-tcal c (a !000 o l) man in our image .. : and lhe WMd o f the load cre-sted (the son o l) mw in l'lis image . ..

76

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

This is a somewhat doubtful, or perhaps better, extreme example of this idiom. in that God created bodl Adam and thereby hwnrutkiod at •he sanle tin1e. I propose.it as

an example, however. because God clearly did not c.reate the whole.of humankind at once. Accordingly, while the statement has a generaJ level of meaning. it does refer to a particular person, Adal'n, s.o I proJJOSe that it should be regarded a:; an example of this idiom. This probability is increased by noting the efforts of the other written Aramaic translations of this ver5>e: Onk, Ps-J and Pe.sh all have O'iK. and Sam has D'R\:1. All li.)ur translatioos t1ave gone for the obvious fact that God created Adam

at the time-. This increases the probability that, in using KIVJ 1J , the 'n ~· KT:O .:-;; n"'-u.i:-> ,:u 11: ern:->;;;-:-; ;;·;yn:·? This lime ~md not :.gain a WOOl3tl. i ~ ercat<."d frotn :l (/the son of} man. As this OO<." Ms been e1X"::ltcd from mC". she is bone ofmy bo.)(l<." a.od tlc>Jl of my flesh. So it i:s fining thtltllhe ~hool d be called woman. since she was cn:t~tcd from man.

This is p<~rt or a speech by Adam. Most or it is in the f'irst perst)tl. like his speech io ~·lT. The opening pan of this insertion is a more general statement. as is d ear both fi'omthe setl.Se and from the use of the.generalizing expression Kilh 1~. Thus Ne.ofiti I has a geoeral stateJnetH about what should nm happen. aod one. which has especial reference. to Adam. who is in this version the speaker. 4 1. UningrMI. Saltykoo-Sdtcdrin, MSAmooio Ebr Ill B 739v, :11 <'~
t'l-u7 ,t;~" n.., 'J1X 1~•_, tm~G~,x '~~'> ·1'n' ill iT.i ;;~::;• ·n· m,i:' x;; Look! Yot1h:l\'~' ba.ni ~hc-d me thi ~ d:.y from u.poo the face of the e:.tlh, and from before you.. Lord. it is not poo.s.ibk for a (son ot) m:snto hide. .:;""\>.>:1!?

Here the. meaning of the Hebrew text was not acce.plable to some Aramaic translators~ for they believed that Cain could not be hidden from God because no one c.an be hidden from God. They therefore expanded their translations to me.an the opposite of what the. text said. 1' It is useful to c.ompare he-re the lranslatiou found in Net)fiti I. -I Is. Ncofl. Gen. "'1 .14. .:1~0ll7

''7 ,;:;~'\ ;r? i[')lliji l~l X:O-,l\1

Look! You have bsn i~hcd roc this dsy from it is ool possible for me to hide.

I.IJ>Oil the

~K '"h'":ill j'1 ~;· 'n' i11T<) x;;

fscc of 11le c-ardl. and from ~(Of'C you

Here the Targumisr has ahered the text simply to say lhat Cain himself could not hide from God. With iLc; use of~) 1J.. p
711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'" )vi:;(.''\) 1::1

n

4 1a. therefore. passage 41 is an example of the idiom which is c-entral to this

chapter. ll ha..;; proYided us with a general statement, in which ~J 1:1 nonetheless refers especiaJiy 10 one i ndi ,~du at. Cain. 42. J>s.J \.en. 40.14. lnscr1ioo• tl! "'01 :i'liiM t:)i!1'7:;l';; :O!l:i>'l ;.· 'iC1' ji'::!d Joseph abandoned his uus1whkh is from :.hove a.nd pu1 his tntSI in :. (son of) man., t~nd said to the chief of the buders ... •. . ~nHll ::!;, 1llXl

IIere the Targumist has inserted a general statemeot, in which i.9J -u re fers especiall>' to the chief butler. TI1e c.ootrast \Vith ' fi\)tn above> iJHensilies the genernlle.\'cl of meaning, \\1hile Jol>eph·s speec.h 1llakes the partic-ular reference ofljJ 1J to the chief buder equally unambiguous. 43. Ncofl Gen. 40.23 (~, from Jcr. t 7.5). ,~o:: ::·., .Jo :->:!1-o 1J.X x7; . .. T ::l!: -.'L':::l::! :;~u~ :r<::! r·m:T:->1 . . • ;,-,'n x ; o m 7¥7; K>:..• 'i.01' ii':l: t ••• K1b::l:l j"ii"m ·; XV! 1:: •r.· : .•ry . .. '"'1 Kf.-,~­ Jose.ph ab.:1ndoncd the gr.Ke which is from obo\-c: Md the gmce whic:h is from below ... and he put hi.Sll\llll in the i!h.ief of the butkrs.. in flesh which pas~ll :.way . .. a.nd he- did 001 rcmcnlbct lhc scripture \\thich is wriucn in lhc book of the Law of the lord ... 't\tr!led bethe son of ma.n who ,,uiS his U\lllt in llcs.h ... '

Here Neof I uses ~JL;J 1~ to rende.r 1~1 from Jer. 17.5, thus inse.rting a geoeral staternent which applies partiC\1Iarly to Joseph. The rendering M 1~1. oonnally rende1-ed with (~)"U:. in the Aramaic. translations of the Hebrew Bible.•P with the. generalteJ·rn x~iJ -u indicates the Targumist"s deliberate intention •o make a general Sl:~7 '7:n ~'7 You .:3nnot se-t my face bccauJ~e a (soo of) m:.n i:atl.OOI ~c me and li\'C.

I Jere the tviT ha.'l a general statement using

refen·ing partic:ularly to Moses. who is told not to look direc.tly at the face of God. We cannot be quite ce.rtain thm the-Targurnist deliberately ul>ed :;iJ t:l to bring about the idiomatic usage central to this investigation. because this rendering is nonnal for him. However, the fact that there is heavy editing in this context because of the sensitivity of the Targumist to the central issue of whether one can see God. together with the fac.t that like the. marginal gloss. the Targumist has used the indeJinite state despite the preseoce of the anicle in the. ~·IT. makes it more probable that the Targumist was thinking carefully about '"'hal he "'a...:; doiog. This makes it more pn)bable that the use ofldl u is due to deliberate.use of this idiom.

17.

DIN;'l

Sre C;LS.Cy, '(x)i'l{N) -a in 1hc Aramaic Tmnstmi-o•ts•, pp. 113- 16.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

78

45. Tg. Job 16.2 1. MT -cL Ca.n a (J>oo of} msn rcbuk~ God. C\'Ctl :.s tllllal) (n~-buk<:s) his fellow?

IIere I leave aside the second half of the verse, in whic.h D1K- p l appears to ha,1e been 1-endered '''ith WJ'KT il"!._ whether this was d ue h) corruption M the text or diniculties with (he sense, or more probably both. TI1e importarH point is the reodering of,~ with iLrJ 'U. This is similar to the rendering of ""Q):i '"ith N
pointed out i11

that passage, the nonnal renderiog or 1n in the Aramaic

translations of the Jlebrew Bible is with (K)1~. This is so marked tl1atthe rendering of 'Ul with :;iJ u is sutlk ient 10 indic-ale the de liberate use or a general statement

which has especial reference to the speaker. Elihu. -16. Tg.. Job 33.29·30. r-.n -u::..

.~·ro ~·;;·u K"!:ilXi K>im~' it: t ::; ~1x"r'm.XO:· .:f.~ -u o;; n;m i'J')i 'iii x:frx ;·~· r'i~ 7~ x;; Look, God docs all these thing!' 1wo times :.nd thl\.~ wi1h 11 (son of) m:tn., 10 btin,g back hi!: soul from l.hc pit. to 1ighlcn him with !he. light oflife.

As in passage 45, the re.nderiog l)f,n with tifJ ,J is suftieie1U to indicate the deliberate

use of a general stateme.nt which h.as especial reference to the speaker. Elihu. 47. Tg. 2 Chron. 14. 10: MT d;Jx. C;l t~ l')S iii~" x 'i NK Xl:i'iX •-

Lord, you 31\" our Ood! lei not a (S(lf'l of) m:m t>n.''il!lil 0\'CJ you!

This is from a prayer by Asa, King of Judah, direc.tly to GtxL The context is an attack on Judah by Ze.mh Lhe Ethiopian with an army of a mi llion men and three hondn."'d chariots. The u::e oftfJ ,~ has a general leve.l of 1\leaning contra.o;ting people with God himself At the same t il't~e. :;JJ u refers especially to Zerah and his anny: As.a prays that they will not triumph ove-r God. his interpretation of what would happen if they won the forthcoming baule with him and his army. The re.ndering of the l iebrew

;z.i'\J~

\Vith (1\)l
the Hebrew Bible., but this is the only Targumic example outside Job and Psalms.' !I It is therefore very probable- that d1e-Targumist \\'as makiog delibenue use M this known idiom. I have also found a thv examples of this idiom in Syriac. ot&. Tcl!latllC"ll.l of Et,hraem. lin..-:!' 121 -U. xmJ~ 'iY:i xmJ "'' :->?:<':i ·;.~ .ry c:o;o; it: ;;? 1<>1~· :o;'r. Nt!r u.? IG7'"'1C xro;V ;;no:: :->T. ~:J"fl J:i' 7-l\1 n·N~,!i Vl-u ; j ; \\~\'ct l:l)'S me in lhc church, may he oot ~e the Church of the kingdom! For empty pui!'C is no usc to the (soo. of) m11n who ill 1lOI wonhy of iL

For ever)' (son of) man g,'l<$ in naked 11nd give!' an iiCOOUI\1.

1&. For a n')()rccomplctc prcsemation ofthe e\·iden«. sec c:.sey, ' (:o>};t".(x) ""0 in the Aramaic Ttan!'lations ofthc 1-lcbrew Bible'. ()p. 96-8.

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

79

Lines 12 1- 2 belong to a whole sec1ion which uses the first perS4>n singular. ft is c.onsequently clear that the son of mao statement in lines I 23-4 also refers to Ephrnem. writing<.'. 370 CE and contemplating his forthcorning death. Jle asks not to be buried in church because he is unworthy of empty praise. At the same time. the use of~tilnJ ensure$ that a general level or meaning is retained. Similar rernarks apply 10 tlte-S4>n or marl staternem in lines 125- 6. The use of?J witlt !YJ -.:~ shows tJ1at the general level of meaning is intended to be true of absolute-ly everyone, and this: makes good sense in Ephraefn's c·ulrure. whe.re-people belie\·ed in a Final Judgement for evel)'One. At the same time. it is used because. Ephraem applied il to h i1tL~el f. Tite ull-e of the delillite state ~iL;J 1J.. 1he normal state of d1e-noun in Syriac. in lioe I24. and Ihe indefinite s-tate ~J ""C' in line 125, following 7:~. makes no differenc.e to tJ1e meaning and use of this idiom. 49. Testament of

Eph.t~m. lines 29 7-.~0·t X~i'l1K K'JC·j K 0~1 I(;;~ OS ·7 ;n.; ~:l?.:n 29'1- S 'Jl"..':-'0 ·~ l'tii!S ~ ~;1'7 :o;d !i:!'

ji;".r'I'OK l'\lK ~'lOOK 299--300 om ;;on? K~l;; 7:1; 30 J- 2

K:!'? 'T~i l'l'Ki ~,.; 'lll1YO r ;: ;:•y:! 303-4 an undcnaki.ng to ('rod that I be buried

29'1- & I haw given shall wilh the suangcrs. 299- 300 I am a suanger like them : put me with them. my bt~Lhrcn, 30 t- 2 for every bird loves iL~ s~lccics. :l.1ld a (/the !lOll of) man lo\•es hinl "'hOi ~ like him. 30 3-4 Put me inlhe ce-metery "'here the rep.-nt."'nt Mhc-sn :u-c.

As in passage 48, the conte.xJ tllakes it absolutely dear that d1e general Slatement of Iine 302 is made because of the particular refetenc.e to the author hit'tlsel1: with explicit instructions abou1 him in the preceding and following lines. At Lhe same. time., this does not wtdermine the _geoernl levd of meaning of line 302. As ln pas.c:age 29. the _g.e-oeral statemetn about birds uoderlines the general nature of the son of man statement. As- well as these three examples in natural Syriac, I have noted four e~amp l es in lhe Peshitto. 50. P~'Sh Eleoc!. 33.20: MT ;::;:-;;;. .N'm Kt'J-c ·'? xm K7i '7u'l ·~:.; ~mld7 ruK ;-~;;;: ~'? 1
Artd hi." sttid, ' You cannot s~-c my lh·o:. '

f:.ec. bcca~ a (/the SOl) ol) ma.n dOl'S tlOI sec me and

11tis is ve-ty similar to pas.c:age 44. The MT ha.~ a ge-neral staJernent usiog OTI':i refe rring pMicularly to Moses. who is told not to look directly at the face of God. Again \VC cannot be quite ee11ait1 Lhat the Pe~~hina deliberately used ~\9ru to briog about the idiomatic usage centrnJ to this investigation. because lhis rendering is found elsewhere. Howewr, il is a relatively unusual rendering for the Pcshitta, so it is more probable that this is a delibe-rme use of the idiom \vhich is ce-.ntral to this chapter. 51 . Pesh Job 16.2 t. MT "'1::.. .:0"'1:11? K-m TX ~;;'i~? KVJK '"C 00! j"i '1?

Would thai a {son ol) man miglu repmve God, a~ a man (repmve~) hi ~ t)Cighbour!

so

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

This is vC-f )' similar to pas.c:age 45. 11)e-ver)' wlusual rende1i og of-a::. wilh ~
reference to the speaker. Job. 52. J>csh Ps. 405. r-.n -u:.o • . .. 'T~ K.,o:!i ;;:.'t ~1 ~;;'Jl;. -a? "':ii:!':r 8 1..-:~ is 1hc (son of) man who 1tu~111 ill dle n:mlc oflhc L.otd.

Psabn 40 begins in dle-fi rst pe-rlhln. 11liS is used again io vv. 6-7, and the subject of vv. 8-1 1 is also in 1he tirs1 person. h is natural lO mke v. 5 as a general stonemerH which refers especially h) the speaker, and \\'C IIIUSI infer from lhe rendering of ,JJ.1 with KiJJK ,J that the Peshitta ha..c; done Ihis. 53. P.c11h Ps. 94.11. r...rr ~. ";~7:\ 10l'XI ill' X"11! ;m;. ".11'i"'U"'i ~<'~;:b •:roo Blessed i~ the (son oi) msn whom you chaste-n. Lotd, :llld t.::ach from your l aw.

The first few ve.rses or Ps. 94 arc about God, and in vv. 16-19 the psalmist refers to hinLc;elf in the firSt perSt)ll. It is a reasonable perception that v. 12 is a geoeral SHttemeot which refe•·s especially to the speaker. and '''e mu.c;t iofer from the renderiog of'1JJ.'1 with ~IVJK '1J that the Peshiua transhuor took this view.

5. Couc!Juiam

The following conclusions should therefore be drawn. Aramaic was an exceptionally stable language in its development over a period of centuries. While in most usages. nouns in the deliuite or determined Shlte '''ere used in a signilieantly diO'erent way tfor" those in the indetinite or iode~ennined or absolute state. in generic. and some other cases the mauer wao; quite. different The. use of either state was optional. for the very good reason that the use of one state or the other cannot affee-t the meaning of nouns which are being used generica.lly. nor can it affect the meaning of some unique items such as tl1e-sun and the moon. 11le te-nn (!\)WJ(K) 1~ is a ,rery general term lOr man, $0 man)' general statements u.c;ing (K)WJ(K) -.J may have it in either the definite or indelinite.state. Sinc-e (K)'Ol(~) -u is a ge11e.ral tenn fOr human be-iogs as a whole, it may be used with refe.rence to all basic hufnan expe-rieoces, including death. (N)!VJ(K} 'U may also be used inde.finitcly with reference •o a particular individuaL TI1is u.~>e- is not ho,vever recorded with refere-nce to the speaker. and the only general level of meaning is that the individual is a human being. which may be of cenrral importanc-e or somewhat incidental. I have- round over 30 exarnples of general statements using {!\)Vil(l\) 'U with reference to the speaker. or a group of people including the speake.r, or someone else made obvious b)•I he context The majority of example-s are io Jewish Aranulic

711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1

81

from Israel, and most of the.se c-Oncern rubbis who have some c.onnection with Galife.e. There is al::o one very early example (passage 20 above), which is important

bec.ause it establishes the use of lhis idiom long before the time of Jesus. There is also one Bab)1lonian example (passage 28a above), and a handful of examples have be.en noted in Syriac. h follows that when examples of this idil)matie usage

emerge from the reconstnlc(ion of Aramaic sources fro m our Gospe.l sayings. they should be accepted ns genuine examples of this idiom. This will entail that they have to some extent a kind of geuerul level of meaning. It dt)es not lh)\\'ever in

any way unde.rmine the fact that most of these sayings are obviously and primarily about Jesus.

Chap1er Three. THE ;S oN OF MAN CoNCEPT.

We have seen from the history of scholarship in Chapter I that for many years scholars believed in a Son of Man Concept. or M i'mclwuolmbegr iff, or Men:rchen:roluworstelluJJg. Sharp criticism of Slid\ views began St)me 40 years ago, but some scholars still believe in it. The purpose. of this chapter is to show that no version of this \~ ew should be regarded as tenable. The foundational documents on which this view was based were Daniel 7, the Similitudes (if Enoch and 4 E=ra 13.

Acc.ordjogly, l discuss these documents lirst. Long after this view was considcted by some.scholars to have bee.n established. a numbe-r of other documenlS were brought fOrward as evide-nce or it. I discuss lWO of these to illustrate that they should not be

accepted as evidence of it either.

1. Daniel 7

I have di~lt.;;sed this document. and the history or its int~Tpremtion, at Jeogth elsewhere. 1 Actordingly, I repeat here only the main points necessary (0 detennine the correct interpretarion of it. Daniel? is an apocalypric.chafUe-r which consists ofa vision and its interpretation. It ,,ra..;; written in Israel. c. 166-5 DCE. In the visionar>' section of this chapter, four extraordinary beasts. each pan ty like a real ferocious animal but with features that make all of them Miscltweseu. come up from out of the big se-41. the normaJ tem1 for the ~·lediterranean. The most ferocious is the fourth. which is not said to be like a real animal. though Jews of the period would surely have. recognized a caricmure of a Seleucid ele.phant.: It has more fea(ures t11Wlthe ot1le•· aoimals, l'tll)St nl)(ably a linle horn, which puts down three of the te-n horns before il, and has eye.s like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking big things. The visio1l contioues w'ilh a judge.ment sc.ene. Throne$ are placed. and one Ancienr of Days takes his seat. I lis throne and its wheels are flames ofiire. and he has thousands of attendants. The court sits. and the books are opened. The fourth beast is irnmediately put to death, and its body destroyed. This is evidently the first I. Casey. SoJ1 t(M(m. 2. U. S1aub, ·oa~ Tier mil de" 382-96.

t-l ~mcrn:

Eilt Btiuag :ru 0:111 7.1f'. FZPT 25 (t978), pp.

Tfu!

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

83

m.aj otevent l)fthe judgement The otl~er be.a~t~ have their pO\Yel' taken a\\'ay, but are

allowed to live for a time. The next eve1U of the judgemenl scene i~ the one eenlr.'ll fOr p 1~sent purposes. Ofle like a son of man, !YJK ,~.is bn)ught before the Ancient of Day'S. lie is given

power and glory and kins,ship. all nations will se.rve him, and his power and kingship are eternal and indestructible. There is then a small interlude in which Daniel nsks one of those standing by for the i1Uerprel<\lion of his vision. It fo lh)w'S that the interpre-tation •akes place within

the vision, which is important for understanding the addition to the visionary pan at v.2 1. Otherwise. the interpretatiOil takes up the rest of the chapte1·. All the problems enC-l)untered by sc.J"u)farship tlO\Y itom not taking: th i~ interpretative section ~eriousl y

enough. problems c.ompounded by repladng it Christian tradition.

\\~th

tradition. most commonly

The tirst interpretative sectioo makes two main poinLtJ. TI1e. first main point is that the li.)ur big beasts are four kings (n7o)~ a nonnal eipher lOr kingdoms, who shall arise. on the earth (Dan. 7. 17). Tile. second is that the l loly One$ of lhe Ml)St High (fJ 1~7!>! ~v•1p) will receive the king.dom/kiug.o;hip (~n o7~:~) li.)r ever and ever (Dan. 7. IS}. As wa.o; customary io apl)Cttl)1ptic visions, the inte1·preU1tive section h.as

already made absolute.ly d ear the main points for conte.mporary Jews. The four kingdoms were already well enough known for their identity to be clear for Jews al the time. especially those who suffered under Antiochus Epiphanes and hoped for deliverance. The Syrian tradition preserved the original interpremtion of the. four kingdoms.) As Ephraem pul it, c.ooune.nting on the four k ing,~ of Dan. 7.17: .X'.ll'1 l'> 'V1~1 X'i.'Y. .r;Yi? ~; ;

i''r.i :->:'?r:

ThC'sc. arc the Babylonians who will arise:.•nnd the:. Mc:dcs and the Persians and lhc Gtc:eks.

That will have been obvious to everyone at the time. So will the interpretation of the I Joly O ne.~ of the. l\•lost I ligh as the Jewish people, whose hopes tOr delive.ra,,,c.e are.

so vigorously expressed in this book. The s:u r,~ ving authors of the Syrian tradition, writing muc.h later. tend to be quite specific aboul the. Jews or this pe.riod. So. lOr example,
He e;(prc-.SS<'s himself like this b«ausc he is rdc:rring to the. Hasmonc.ans:'

This is a little more specific than the l)riginal authors \1/ill have iotended, bec.au.o;e the Syrioln traditiotl sa\1/ 1he fulfihneot of Da.niel'.s predictions in the f\•taccabcan victory over the Sekucids. Otherwise, however, it is quite right. So1ne readers

may have imagined that angels on the Jewish side were included. but no one will On the Syrian uaditiOI). ~e Ca:>cy, Son t>fMaJt. Ch. J. For the !e;(l. sec:. Joseph Albo. Stpller Ha· "1/Jwrim. Book iJfPrinciplts. Critkally edilcd. wi1h a n anshli\"'Ml and not~'S by I. Hus.ik (:S vols.: Philade-lphia.: Jewi~h Publ ic~uioo Socicly of 3. 4.

America, t929-30), JV,42. 1,1,· 418- 20.

84

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

have imagined thal the Jloly Ones of the Most l ligh were really angels, bec.ause that would have- eliminated the Je\\•ish people rrorn the triumph.. \\1hereas God's

fonhc.oming de-liverance of them is the main point of the book. With the two main points of the interpre.t:uionof the vision settled by the summary interpretation.. Oaoiel asks the i1Herpreting angel lOr more details. ln paJ1icular, he homes in on details of the fourth beast, asking especially :.tbout its horns. :1bove all the additional hom. It is at this point that Daniel sees d1e additional horn rnak i t~g war on the Ht)fy One-s, and weari11g them down (Oao. 7.21}. This is a ver)' cle\·er piece

of arrangement, though it is one with which modem scholars have not generaJiy syrnpathized. Its enec.t is 1hat 1he authors can continue to use-their symbolism h) pOrtray the Seleucid attacks on Israel. To have done so in1he-main visional)' section would have c.aused proble-ms witll the symbol of the !llao-like- figure. which they kept as a symbol of Israel in triumph. Tile horn's war on the l loly Ones, however, re.presents theexistentiaJ main point of their curre-nt experience. The Syrian tradition

preserved this too. Aphrahat clearly set up the situation in the Maccabean war before alluding to this verse (Ocm. V,20)s: a:;.•~y 1011? mn: Nl:ll 1:0 .N,~l.U ;m l'~l' n

Ji~l' ·~« 7S ii:i ptro.•u ·rrnx1 :r n:-r ;:.1 . •.

. J1:>7;; n':i~iiXl x;;·;;

. .. a1\d when Judah snd his. broth~:"rs w~•~ lightirtg for thdr JX:Opk and Wi:'fl! living in l\C<.'I~I place~ (d. 2 Matt. S.27). At th:u time lh~:" hom 1N1d~:" war witllthc lioly On('S, a1\d thdr forocs ptc\•aiiOO.

The very end of this looks forward 10 Dan. 7.22, the tlf:xl staternc-nt of Jewish

triumph. Th.is me-ntions the c-oming of the Ancient of Days, so obvious to Je.ws who expected God to corne in j udgement that it was take-n lOr _granted in the fi rst pi tH.!~ ofj udge..nent at Da11. 7.9-10. We are then told that Judgement was given for the Iloly One$ of the Most High and, lOr ll1e-sec.ond tirne-, that they rec.eived the kio_gdornlkingship (AA1J7o). The interpreting anf!el c.ontinues with a much longer account of the interpretation of the fomt h beast as the fourth kingdom. concluding with a more detailed interpre4ation of the additional horn. He will be a king who will speak a.gainS-1 the f>.·lost l ligh, \Vearout the I loly Ol!el< of the Most lligh, a11d seek •o change times and Ja,~,~: they will be givetl into his hand tOr a time. times and half a time-(Dan. 7.25). This is evide.ntly the detailed interprt t
Lhe court sat, for Lhe sitting of the heavenly court is pan of reality, Jl ()( the kind of symbolism that we see. in the four beasts. The power of the king will be taken away, and he will be destroyed. There is then a third <"U\tu)uncement of the fina l triumph, this time of the people of the Jloly Ones of the Most Jligh who \\•ill have-etemal

kingship and who will be sen•ed by other nations. Here too an outline of the. original interpretation was preserved in the Syrian tradition. F'or example, Ephmem comments: 5. For !he fi:'XI. cd. I. Patis.m. set- R. Graffin (cd.). Putmlogia SyricT
Tfu! l"l:01

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

85

n ,l"ch;y, im':r.:'m;, M't'" '7~>:17 ·;; .~-.·l"rn .:-v.?:J; pV :;'m ;:. .jr.t rr-:.7~· pn: i1¥ •• •

1~ ;;7 .'=¥1'! n·:~, ~:::::7 i'Ul\ '"'(Oil

i..,K'i l"m:;; Kni' 01~>'im6 OJUl ~iU1i .K'Y'l'.n ;;ov.)j '-..: :; .IWYT IOi.r ylt :!:> r ;;7; ,K\i Jj O.,l'\ l"'nll? ' ... a time, times. a.nd h:•lf a tim~· (Dan. 7 .25). That ~. lltrec y~"!!rs :~nd 11 half. • And the <:Otu1 llat• (0:\n. 1.26). Th:~t ill, to cxa~'« \'cngc:~n« fM th~ sufl'c tirtg of th~ l'loly Ones, tha1 is. the

pricsiS who kept the Law of the ~lost High. nnd to destroy :.nd eliminate Antiochus. the lillie horn. who oppresstd and pcrsocutcd them. the i'..ea1ots of the house. of Maccubccs. Him. bttause of his wickedness, He remo\'od from life. and to them He .;ave dominion 1111d greatness.

Apart froi'Hoverprecise ioterpretonion M ahe-Iloly Ones, t11is transmit~ the original and correct interpretation of several main points of the most detailed part of the interpreaative-section of Daoiel 7. The end ofEphraen't•s comment referS brielly 10 Dan. 7 .27, which il' Ones of1he Mos1fligh', that is, Israel, nre the interpreta.tion of the rnan-like figure- (!VJK u~) a1 7. 13-1 4. In Dan. 7.13, the mao-like figure comes 01'1 the clouds M heaven and is brought before the Anc.ient of Days. This is simply pan of the-narrmive-of the vision, and c.onsequenlly it has no direct equivale.nt in the interpretmive section. In 7. 14. he is given 1J 7lll 1?"1 lti7
~i.

See futthc1· P. M. C:Jllcy, 'The Fourth Kirt_gdom in Cos.mas lndicOJlk-ustcs and the Tradilio•l'. Rivisla di 5Jmiu ~ Ll'lltraluru Reli,s:iosa 25 ( t9S9). PI'· 385-403 (396- 9}, wi1h bibliography.

Syri:~n

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

86 p;;.,m;

r:h~ '?J'n

10"''

r.s~;n lt:·V' l:O x:;:;n :m;.; i~K 1:. .K·o;:! •:;¥ ');; r d; 1:: TN; n ;; Nm .1\:i '1';;u;i;::., 1~~ :1~;1;:! K'?K.Kl."i ; ·a.,· mK

• I was watcl\i ng ooc like :. son of mc-.n. 0.11 thc clouds of hc:wc-n• (fmm O:ut. 7. 13). Tl'lst is, even if lhc significsncc of lhi ~ was shown fonh in the S01t.~ of the J'lC'>t)IC, who subdu\'d tbc Greeks and all lhc surrounding kjngdoms. its <'\'lnsurrml:.tion \11'3S pcrfcc1cd Lotd.

'"Ow

llc-re Dan. 7. 13 -14 has beetl interpre1ed with 1wo levels of meaning. One is the Ch ristian level or me-a ning . at \Vhid 1 the mao-l ike-tig ure is the Son of man, Christ

Jesus our Lord. however any exegete c-hooses to pUlthnl. The even older ttaditional level of me-aning is one which Ephrnem had no reason to invem, and must therefore have inhe-rited. This clearly refers to the Jews M the Maccabea11 period a..f) ' the sons of the people', and refers: to their Yicwrie-s over the Seleucids and others as the fUlfilment of the prophecies of Dan. 7. 14. The tenns ir1 whic-h thii: is put 1nakc sense only if the man-like figure-is a syntboiM the Jloly Ones of the Most l l igh, and they are the Jewish people. It w·iiJ he noted that even while Ephraenl 's eommeuu Cfuulot be il)terpreted in any other wa>'• he did not find it neceS$fU)' to \1/fite anylhing Oil the lines o f ·now one like a .son of men, this is the holy ones o f the Most l=ligh, ' "ho are the sons of th..:- poople'. No ancient <:·On'unentator shows any signs of difficulty over the fact that the ioterpretative section dl'>es not s.ay anythi11g l ike 'now on..:- l ike a soo of 1Hiln, this is the Holy Ones', nor does anything lead any of then\ (0 imagine d1at the ma1l-like Ji gure might be au angel. I have note-d alre.ady th..:- irHe-rpre.tation of the man-li ke figure found in Theodore bar Koni. who comments on r~U»< -u at Dan. 7. 13 : n·'r.:.~ Koi'~ jt'.l:! Flffil,'i"lii ~.,K K"Jii.'3 .,.,; p:OJ!\') l':'ll:!;l; 'JI':i j'J:\

In lhcir hjs1orical conlext !I\Csc- W
This hns the same two le.vels of meaning as the comment of Ephrnem. De-.spite its brevily, it implies withoul any doubt that the man-like figure is a symbol or the l loly Ones ofth..:- Most lligh. and that this term refers to the Jews M the Maccabl!.an

period. Some. exegetes were not happy with this interpretation, but their comments make dear that it was a nourishing traditioo to which they objected. For exa1nple, Aphrahat ha..:; some Syrian and some westem c.omrne.11tS. I have umed him setting up the f\•lacctlbe.an situation befOre quoting Dan. 7.21. lie was les..:; happy \!lith :.t1ch an interpretation of the victory of the l loly Orle~'> of th..:- ,._,lost High. a!'ld i 11 q-uoting Dan. 7. 18 at Dem. V,21. he argues agaiost such an irHe1p 1-etation: .r;m~ :;7 n-o~ :-;;:; ::-;·;.:17 ·n;; ,._, N,l': ~11:0 1':~7• ll\ .on ::-;o.,l':!o ~t.:;·:.';o ~~ .,.,,o,.. ·;~ ~n H:wc- the child•\'I) of lsrac-l re~-ci ved tile k ingdom of the M(~l High? c~~n.sinl y 001! Or ha.~

!hal people COillC' on the clouds of heaven? Thai ha.'i p:•sstd away from lh~~m.

The fore.e or the first obj ection is brought m1t by other exege1es who stress Jewish deJeats by the Romans. on acc.ount of which they c.annot have received the kingdom 1.

ScC (). 83bcwc.

Tfu!

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

87

' for eve-r ', so 1hat 1he Mace-abean victories cannot be the comet interpretatioo of the criu10phs set out io Daniel 7. It is tllt~- other objectioo which is more iruerestiog for present pmposes. h clear!>' referS 10 Dan. 7.13, ar1d toke~" it very littra.lly on che assumption that tl1e man-like figure might be the children of lsra.el.lt therefore be-ars witness to the-corporate imerpretation of t he man-l ike figure.os the people of Israel,

even as it turns this down. Anmher maj or \!fitness to the S)'rian tradition was the Greek philosopher Porpl\)"r)'. II is a g_re.at pity for scholarshijlthat all copies of his work •Againsl the Christiar\s• were destrO)'ed by Christians, with the res-ult that l1is comments have to be recovered from the seve1t- pOlemic M Jerome's com1hentary on Daniel. Thereslu)uld be no doubt about Porphyry's basic adherence h) the Syrian tradition. For e-xample. at Dan. 7.7-S. Jemme-c.ooune.nts: Fruslra Porphyrius cornu p<mulum. qood post dcccm cornu ortum est. 'E nc¢<M\vAnliocltum suspicalut . .. In vain Pmphyry imagines thai the liulc hom, which :thlSe after the ten hom:~. ill Antjoehus Epiphanes . ..

Again. at Dan. 12.11 . Je-rome comments: Hos mille docC'nlos oonugintu die$ Porphyrius in lempou· ,·uh Antiochi. C"-1 in dcsol:ttionc te:mpli cs~ compldos Porphyry "'ams 11tcsc 129(1 days 10 have been fulfilled in. ttl\' lime of Amiochus. and in the desolation of the te-mple .. .

Such comments are typical of the Syrian tradition. The dependence of the. Neop1atonist philosopher on Christian tradition is especially well shown by Porphyry's exegesis of Dan. 11.40--12. Jlere the book of Daniel leaves pse-udo-

prophecy of known history for genuine prophecy. oomple.te with the resurrection or the dead at Dan. 122-3. Porphyry and the re-st of the Syrian tradition, however, believed the whole ac.count referred to the linal eampaigns and ultimate victory of

the Jews under the Macc.~bees over Antiod llls Epiphanes and the Greeks and others. This is not the-mistake of an anti-Christian Neoplaronist philosopher, who \VOUid have-been ooly to happy to pOint out that this was an inaccurate pseudo-prophecy. II is the rnistake of the Judaeo-Christian tradition which he use.d. which inherited mostly correct exegesis. and which knew that the account at the e.nd of the book

must be true because it was the Word of God.11 Jerome- knew per fectly we-ll that Porphyry's opinions \\'ere held by othe-r interpreters. For example, he comfnents on Dan. 7.18: ~'l achab!ld s. inld lcgilut. docc.nt. qui ist11 <:omcndit. quomodo rcgnum corum pc.rpetuum sit. If 1hi:1 is undo;:rstood hl be abou1the Ma~-cabo.""ts. kl he who suh·cs fOr s uch an opinion 11how how their kingdom mightlx: ctromul.

Si hoc de

S. P. M. Casey, •Porphyry :md 11'lc Origin of 1M Book of Daniel'. JTS NS 27 ( 1976}, 15 -33: 'P\"lf j)h)'l)' and Syrian Exegesis of the Book of Daniel'. ZNW 81 ( 1990). 1)1). 139-42.

P~'·

88

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

This is anothe-r clear lndic.ation of the Syrian tradition, and

fill

obvious objectioo

which indicates that the Syrian tradition originated before the defeats of the Jews in whic.h C hristians took su ch delight. The •jr d ause. like the pej orative use o f' ista', is part of Jeromes pt)femic. but the-objection is a real one, from. which we. should

infer that Jerome did not know what representati\'es of the Syrian tradition would do with this pa11icular point. With Po rphyl)•'s mel'nbership M the Syrian traditioo in mind, we must rur n to Jerome's c.omrnc-nts on Dan. 2.34-35 and 7.13-14 iu his C.(utunentary at Oao. I 1.4445. Jerol'ue patiently eaut.logued the Syrian tradition's historical interpretation of

this pan of Daniel. together with his own western tradition which interpreted it of Antic.hrist io the forure. At 11.44, his patie1lce rarl oul. I quote in the first instance just a little of his pole.mic: Et in hoc loco Porphyrius tale ncscio quid de Antiocho somni:u ... pone enim h:K"c did de Antiocho. quid nocet rdigioni nostrae.? .. . Dimillat itaque.dubio et manifcstis hue.n:at .. . In this psss:.gc- too Porphyry dtc:lms I know noc wh:.t aboul Amiochus . .. for sup~lOSC' these things were suid aboutAntiochus. what hurm voould be done to ourrdigion? .. . So lei u.s put doubtfullhing.s on one side. nnd stick to what is clcur •..

The first of these corrunents shows little mot-e than Jert)me's impatience-, though he had more reason here thnn sometimes: it is precisely about here that the Syrian traditioo Jell be.hind hiS-torical facts in the guise of a pseudo-prophecy. atld wrongly be.Jieved that Daniel's. account gave a geouine account of fut1her historic.al facrs, when it was really a prophecy which was never fulfilled. Jerome's second point is probably due to his awareness that some Christians adhered to the tradition which he has treated 3 $ th.at of Porphyry. They believed that Daniel was a genuine prophecy \1/hich was already fullilled, and the Chris!ian religion really isjust a.:; easy to suppon with the Syrian tradition's view of fUlfilled prophecy, as it is with the western view that this was :.t prediction of whm would take place in the last times. This ma.kes Je-rome's third poim all the more intercsling. In the lirs1 place he admils that the difference between the Syrian and western traditions of interpretation is up to a point doubtful. Whm Jerome considered cle.ar m1her than doubtful leads directly to matters more central to this investign1ion: Qui sit illc-. lupis qui. ck monte absd sus sine munibus. crc,·erit in montcm mugnum c-t Ol'bern imptewrit et qu:.dritOrmcm imagincmcomriv.:rit? Qui ~it ille filius horninis qui .:-um nubibus \'Cnturus sit et st:uurus ante wtuslum dierum ct dandum sit ei rcgnum quod nullo fine el:u.tcb!ur c>n\1\o:'squc I)C)pUii, tribus :.e linglltle ip>;i scrvituri sim'? \Vho is that stone whkh. cui from the mountain without hands. grew into a grcut mountain and filled the W(lf ld nnd shsuct\"d the f,'ltlr-pan st:truc·.• Who i ~ that Soo of toon who will colllC' with the- d ouds and stand before the-. Ancient or Days.. and to whom a kingdom is to be gh'tn which will oot be compktcd with any ending. and aUproplc.s. trilxs and longues them.sch'C·S will serve?

The inte.rpretatiotlt)fboth the s-tone oroan. 2 and the man-like tigure of Dan. 7. 1314 as Jesus is taken to be so obvious that Jerome. ha\~ng said so in his comments on those passages. felt no need to repe-.at these interpretations here. He calls these

Tfu!

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

89

interpretations 'obvious' again in 1he nexl sentence, io which he rthlils the view of Porphyry: Hacc quae nlanif.:sta sum p1act~ri1. \'1 ck fudaci~ as."cri1proptl~L."'ri ql!O.'t I.ISQUC hodi~ s~rvite

cogooscimus. He passeso,·cr these points which nreob\'iOU$. and lll.'linlllins Lh.:1llhe prophecy concerns the kws. whom we know to be enslaved until the prcsc-.nl day.

Three pl)ints are crucial here. One is the d arity of Jerorne's evidence-thai Porph)'l)' believed that both the man-like figure of Dan. 7 .13-14 and the stone of Dan. 2 symbolized the Jews. A second major point is the nature-of Jerome's objection, that the Jews are eoslaved until the present day. This is a \'e·l)' good l)bjec.tion 10 the historiciz.ing interpl'thllion of the mao-like figure as a syrnbol or the Jews "·inning a vic-tO!)' for e.ver in the Maccabean period. The. third point is that Jerome accuses Porphyry or passing ove.r the main poiots which Jerome has j ust made. We lhll.O: t illfer that Porphyry did uot irtte-rpret the n\an-like figure as an iodividual. Before proceeding to Je-rome's <:·On'lments at Oat~. 7.1 4, we 1'1'1ust consider his c-ius Porphyrius. male ad I>Ot>ulunl rcferum lsra~l. qu~-m in fine s3C'c,u lorum \'Olunl esse. fotLis:;imum e1 omnia rcgna contercrc d rcgn:uc. in llC'tcrnum• .. . whkh 1M J~ws and wid:OO Pofph)'l)' wrongly refer hl th~ pt'Ot)le of lsm~l. wtwrn they imarinc. will be the most powerful at the c.nd or !he ages. and will shaucr all lhc kingdoms and reign for ever.

In the first place. this t ooune.Jll shows that Jerome ' vas perlf:ctly well aware that this tradition was held by Jc..-vish exegetes as well as by Porphyry. II is indeed Jewish in spirit. looking forward to the e\'entua1 triumph of the Jewish people. This e-schatologkal ioterpretatit)n is not at all n\et by Jerome's objection at 11.44-45, that the Jews are still in St"l'\•itude. It fo llows that it must be the maJl-like figure of Dan. 7.13-14 which Porphyry 1-egarded as a symbol of the Jewish people a! the time of the Maccabean victory. 'This eschatologic--al interpretation of the stone in Dan. 2 is in perfect accord with the interpretation of the Pe~.::h iua. ~'"'\ii~ Kn01' J.. and of the LXX, En' ~ox6:n..:>v Tc.lv hlJ~pc.3v. at Dau. 2 .45. We-must concltlde that while Porph)''r}' held both the stOJlC- M Dan. 2 :u1d the man-like-figure M Oao. 7. 13-1 4 to be symbols of the Jews, he interpreted them differently in this one respect that the stone symbolized the eschatological victory of the Jews, whe-reas the mao-like rigure represeoted the l loly Ones M the Most I Jigh, the Jews a1 the time of the Mace--abean victory. We are now almost in a position to interpret Jerome's cornment on Porphyr)' at Oao. 7. 14, a pOiJH m which his polemic. has rnisled 1\IOS-I sc-ht)lars. To do this. howevet, ' "e mi.L.::t also OOfL.)ider Jerome's l)Wn inte1·preta1iou. AI 7. 13, he refers back to the stone of Dan. 2, which he interpreted as Dominus e1 Salmwr. .. . nunc sub ~rsona filii hominis introdudtur. Ul assu.mpcio camis hu1oon:.~ sigt~ificctur in FilioOc.i ... .. . (h~) is now illlfOdtiCC'd under the n:.m~ llf th~ Son o f man. !00 th:u the fll!Slunt>lion of human tli.'sh in !ltc Son of God mig.lu b~ itldica!OO. ...

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

90

Jerome suppons this by quoting Acts I. I I. and for the reception of power from the Anciem l)f Da)•S he add.:; Phil. 2.6-8. He there.fOre-clearly and !'Cpe.atedly interpreted the man-like figure as Jesus, hi$ Lord and S:l\1it)ur, Son orman and Son M God. and

his c.omments at 11.44 show that he regarded his interpretation as obvious. II is in this light that we. must COtl!:ider his polemic against Porphyr)' al 7. 14: Hoc cui pott-!il convcni« . rt.spondcat Porphyrius. aul quis istc tam patens sil qui cornu psrwm - quem Amiochum imctt>rctalut - ftX'gcrit tuque comrivcrit. Si rcspoodcrit Amiochi princip~'ll

a luda. ~fachaOOoo fuis..;c

!l:IIJ">CI'ai OO., do~'\"1'1."


venial quasi filius homink et offo:-t;Uut ' 'clusto dil'rum. ct dewr ci polCS.tas ct reg.nu.m. Cl omnc$ popt1li ac tribus S«Viam illi. C1 potcst:~s cius actcrn:~ sit quae nullo fi.nc claudatur. L.c:t Porphrry lt'ply by tdling us to whom this l-an rrfcr. or who is !hat m.'ln who is so pmvcrful that he e11n brcsk and crush the link hom. which he intcrpi\'L" as A111iochus. If he replies !l13t Amiochus' gc.ncr:~ls were def~.ucd by Judas Ma.."'\Cab:~e•.s.. he must s.how hew; he

comes on th;:. lhc clouds ofheaYcn tikc a son of mnn. and is presented to thcAnc~nt of D••ys. and povtcr nnd kingship is ~;i wn to him. and nU p:oplcs and tribe-s scn •e him. and his power is ctc-.mttl and is not brought 10 nny end.

In a d ass-ic a11icle published in 1897, Loisy made 1he c l a~sie mismke-: II semble que P. :~it :~ppHquC 3 Ju
r-.•tost scholars have f\)Jiowed this. rl'lany of them apparently no1 reading Jerome's c.onunentary on Daniel, but llamac.k 's collec1ion of 1he rragmenL~ of Porphyry, whic.h lefl t)ut Je-rome's comments on Dan. 7. 13 made in his comrnentary at Dan. 11.44-45.Hl Thormtgh e-xamination or all Jerome's com.ments Or\ Porph)'ry shl)uld make it clear that this is qujte Y
A. Loisy. under Lhc ~udol\)'m of J. lalaix, •Le Commcmsire de s. J~'rOnlC sur Dsnkl'.

Rrmr J 'hi.\·toin· t't dt- liut ratw\' relisit-uJes ll 0 &97), pp. 164- n, 268- 77 { 16R). tO. A. \'On l·l:JtJ13c-k (cd.), Porplr.uius, 'Gegt-11 die CleriJtell ', IS Biidrer. ZeiiSIIilst.

Frasmentr wul Rcferatl' (Abhandlung~n d~·t k6nis tich pr.::u$s-ischcn Akadcmic dcr \\'i!1S.cn ~haficn. Phil-his1 Klsssc. Nr. I, 1916. Berlin: Verlag det k6niglichcn Ak:ldcmic dcr WissC':IlSChafl e•l}. csp. pp. 7 t- 2. Frg. -13.

Tfu!

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

91

from Porphyr y to the questio n posed by Jero me is in the subjunctive: n:sponde(lt

Porphyrius. Let Porphyry reply .... This must mean that Porphyry had not already ans, vered Jerome's question as lO ' "hich individual the n·w.o- like figure represented. We km)W why bec.ause o r Jerome's C·Oftune.nts at Dan. 11 .44--45: Po rph)'l)' d id noi believe that the !'nan-like figure ' "as any particular individ-ual, because he d id belie\·e that it was a symbol of the Hoi)' Ones o f the Mos1l ligh. the Jew·s . Je.rorne-. c.ert
up the most appropriate. :mswer he could for Porphyry in order to demonstrate thm the objections which he lhe-n oners are decisive objections to the Syriao traditil)ll. Thjs is why he. introduces his answer with a conditionaJ c.lause: si re.sponderil ... , If

he replies. This is because. as Jerome. knew perfec.tly well. Porphyry had never said anything of the kind. There is accordjngly only one reasonable conclusion. Porphyry belonged to the Syrian tradition. aod held that the mao-like-tig ure was a sy1nbol of the Jloly Ones o f the Most I ligh, the Jewish pe.ople at the- time of the t\
this document. as we know from the-dose correlation between what is said of the mafl-like figure io the visil)tlary sec.tion. and what is said of the Holy Ooes of tlleMost High in lhe interprera1ive sec.tion. l11e rnan-like figure. is

ever d esc-ribed in such a way tl1at he 1\light ba\'e

ht)\\1

been an individual rather than a symbol, and there. have bee-n numerous attempts to identify him o n the as..~;umpti on that he must be an individua.J re.ally. Two ha\'e bee.u especially important. One is the traditional Je.wish and Christian irHerpretation o r him as the tvlessiah. and so in the Christian traditiM more specitically as Jesus Christ. This is a traditional piece of eisegesis . The figure or ' the r-.•tessiah' had not

c-rystallized out at the time. when the book of Daniel was written. and consequendy he is not mentioned in the. book as a whole. nor in the. interpretative section of this vision. l11ese-points should be regarded as dec.isive. The other major intetprelati\'e gambit is more academic. This regard s the man-- like figure as an at~gcl. most ofie.n Michael. At least Michael doe$ oc.c.ur ln the book of Daniel, as the maj or figure who stand s up for lstae.l in the last times (Oao. 12.1). At the same time. h0\1/ever, the abseoce o f <111y suc.h figure from the interpremtive section of Daniel7 should beregarded as decisive. More0\'<.'1', it is dillic.ult 10 e.xp lain hil< absenc.e fi'o m the Syrian tradition, within which he was a well-known angel wlh) would have served perfectly

well as a type of Christ. 11 It fOllOW'S that Danie-l 7 itself d oes nm provide any kind o r evidenc.e

or the-

existence.of a Son of Man Concept in Second Temple Judaism.

2. 111e Similitudes(~( Emx:h In 1he- ni11eteenth century, the publication o r the recently rediS('.overed Similitudes af EmN:h II.

was of central jmponance to the formation of the Son of ~·tan Concept On thc11c intC'l'M'Cl:t1H>•lS. !>CC funhcr Ca~y. S011 of.Wall, pp. 24-40.

92

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

It bas not how·e ...e.r been suflicienlly realized that Christiao use of the tenn 'Son M

man' was of CC-Ittral irnportanc.e to lhis interpretation of the tenns for ·soo or l'l'lafl' in the Similitudes. For example, in the first English translation in 182 I, Laurence

expressed the opinion that this work repeatedly refers to the nature and character of' the Me..~siah', even though the tenn m a.s(h)ilpt occurs only twice (I En. 48.10; 52.4)Y This was because the ICn h ·tvlessiah' was so widespread in the JudaeoCbristian tradition that h was the natural renu for scholars such as Laurence to use when they sought to label this figure. Laurence also trans lated the rno:a impotla.nt

part of Enoch's crucial question at46.2. •... c.onc.eming this Son of rna11; \!Jho he was ..:. and likewise tllt~- opening or the anger s reply, 'This is tl1e-Son or '"an, 10 \Vhom righteousnes..., belongs ... • (46.3). In bod1 ca~es ' S011 of n1an' has beeo c-apitalized in accordance with Christiao usage. withoul any diltt.u~ ion of the tenn 'son M man' in Aramaic. Moreover. the second example has acomma put after it The combination or capitalizatioo and cor"ma creates a title. ' the Son of man•, \Vithout any anempt to consider whether a Jewish Aramaic text might mean this. Again, this is due to the influ<mce of Christian tradition. Similarly, in the first Gerrnan translation, lloll"mann rendered the most imporlant part ofEih)Ch's questil)ll •... in Betreff dieses tvlenschensohnes: werer sey. woherer sey ... ' (46.2): he comrne11ted on 'die Erscheinung des tvlenschensohnes' , aod on the limited occurre-nces of 'Oer Name Menschen:mlm': and began the angel's response ' Die$eS ist der tvlensc.l•ensohll, dem Gerechtigkeit ist ... ' (46.3)." The capitalization is doubly naturnl in German. a language. in which the capitalization of prope.r nouns is universal. Nonetheless. the c.ombination of capitalization with the comma gives the impression that Menschensohn is a title. an impression which Hoffmann carried through in translmion and discussion alike. AsimiIar impression permeates the classic editions.translations and c.omn1entaries of Dilhnann and Charles. both of which 1-emain inlluential more tharl a century aner they were written. Oilhnano 's opeoing desc.ription of the Bilderreden has in th-e second one. 'dcr f\•lessias' and 'das messianisch Gericht', and the 'messianisc.he Reich' features in his descriptioo of the d1ird parable-aod of the etldiJlg or the whole work . •~ Among the New Testament concepts now known to us from Jewish doc.u.nents, Dilhnann lists 'vorausgeset:zen De-g,rille de.s Hirnmelreiches, des r-.•tensd1ensohnes• .1$ Here the Mensc/um.whn is clearly a Be&riff in accordance with Gennan Christian tradition, and has little c.onnection with an ordinary Aramaic te-rm fOr 'man' . At the rnosl impol'tant paJ1of46.2. Enoch asks •ube-rjenel'l r-.•tenschensohn, we-r er sei ... ', and the angel's response begins, •... die~~Js ist der Men.schensobn, der die Gerechtigkeit hat ... (46.3). 1-lere again, the oombination or capitali:uuion \\'ith the comma reinforces the impression that Mcmst·hen:wJm is a title. an impression which Dillmann does not seem to have seriously questioned.

12. 13. 14. t 5.

lau.rtn.x. Book of £11odJ 1l1t' Pmphe1. p. :d. Hoffmann, Dus Slrrh Hemx·lr. pp. 346-7. Dillmann. Dus Such Htnodr. p. Ill. For Lhc t<.'lU.. Dillmann. Libu He11oclr Atllliopke. Oillmann. Du.s Such Herwdr. p. h•.

Tfu!

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

93

Charles we1lt further. In his standard 1893 ltanslation and commental)•, he ded ared that 'Christ•. or 'the At!Oimed One'. was oow for d1e first titne 'applied to the ide.al Messianic king that is to c.ome'. He was eotjreJy confide-nt that 'l11e Son or tvlan' was 'a definite-tjtJe', and ' the s.ourc.e or the New Testament desigt'1ation•.1" In his traoslation of the Mgel's question at 46.2 , he put ' ... concerning that Son or r-.•tan. who he- wa.$, and wheoce he was .. .': the a.nge.t's reply begins, 'Titis is the Son of Man \Vho h:u h rightel)u.sness, \Vith whom d\lfelleth righteousness ... ' (46.3). 11le slight differences fro m his predecessors indic.ate the- independenceof mind for which this great scholar wns famous. but the capitalization of Son of to.·l an expresses his view that this wns already a title. a view derived from Christian tradition. This view was reinforced by his extraordinary comment. ' the Ethiopic. translator c.an only h3\'e had one and the same phrase before him. i.e. 0 ulOc;- ToU OvOpc.lnov.'"This conjecture auributes a. major Christiar1Christo logical title to the author(s) of a Jewish \VOrk. Charles fOu nd nothing odd in d1is. On the contrary. he went furthe-r: •As the SimUitudes are pre-Chris! ian, 1hey furnish the first instance in which the deflnile personal tide appears in literature ... The Son of Man as ponrnyed in the Similitudes is a supernatural being and not a mere man ... This title with i1s supernatural attributes of superhuman glory, of universal dominion and supreme j udic-ial po,\"ers. was adopted by our Lord.' 1" This leave-s an obvious problen1 with Jesus' sulfe.ring and death, \\'hich O larles approached with aJ~Othc.r piece of Cllristian tradition. one for which there is not adequate historical suppon in the oldest lraditior1s or the synoptic. Gl)Spels. He argued that t11e 'title "the Son of Man'· assumed a deeper spiritual signi lieance• ir1 the ministry of .lesu.s, whe.n this 'traosfonnOO conce-ption of the Son of Man is thus perme-ated througho-ut by the Isaiah c.oncep,ion of the Servan1 or Jehovah.' I'.I There is however no evidence that there ever wns a Greek version of the Similiwdes of £Jtoclt. This notion seems to have got into scholarship because there. really are Greek versions of some other pans of I Enodr. At no stage did Charles explain how 1he Aramaic 1erm (x)W*' ) 1~ could have functioned as 'the delinite personal title•, oor did he on"er a proper explanation as to why it should be translated with the Greek term 0 u'10c; ToU CtvOpk of Ewdr: Transhtrtd from Pmfe:>St)J" Dillmmm S £1hiupic Wxt. t'mr.ndt
11. IS. 19.

Chari~. Hook of EntJch, p. 128. CharJ~. Hook tif F.Jwch, J). 315. C'tlarJ~. Htmk of Enoch, ~'P· 315- 16.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Son of Man ' Problem

94

Lhe Ethiopic translation of 0 viOc;- ToU O:vepc.lrrou is always precisely the same expression. wulda 'iguala 'imma/Jiicin:: Charle.s indeed note.d that ' it is found throughout Ezekiel, io Dan. vii. 13. and universally in 1he N.T.'!11 1t was therefore

natural that Christian scholars who were familiar with the Ethiopic Gospels long before. the methodology of reconstrucling original sources had made any signi1i cant prog:res~. should Jump to this condusion. and inter that as wa/da 'iguala 'immal)i!itiw represented 6 ul61; ToU <Xv8pc.lnov in the Christian Gospe.ls. so it must have done in 1 Enoch. Such a conclusion would be reinforced by any c.outact with Ethiopian Christian tradition, acc-ording to which EaH>ch's c.onuneuts on walda ·eguala 'imma~ i!iiiw were wonderful prophecies of Christ Je.sus. If this were so. however, it would be dillicuh 10 explain wh>' the Ethiopic trnnslators should ever have used walda .wb 'i(J En. 46.2,3,4; 48.2) or walda bi!'i!si( l £11. 62.5; 69.29 (bis); 71.14). Charle$, using Latin rather than E.thiopic for these two tenns. oonunented lamely: 'He.nce.fi/iu.;,· viri andjilllt.\·/mmini:~ in the Ethiopic text may be synonymous and the variation mat be due to thecare.lessnes.-, ofthe translatt)t'. ·~~This exemplifies the lack ofuoderstaoding of translators \Vhich was a rearure-ofschola.r.>hip until very recently. and it in no way solves the problems produced by positing the Christian title 6 uiiw; To\i Cxv6pc..)nou as the underlay of these three Ethiopic. tenns. Anmher major problem caused by this hypothesis arises from 1he demottsh-atives nonnally used with all three of these expressions in the. Similiwdes. whereas wulda ·egualu 'ilmma~1iifiw as a tmnslmion of 0 u'tOc;- roG Cxv6p(.)nou in the four Gospels does Mt have a demonstrative wit11 it once-. In the li..st English translation. l aurenc-e simp!)' put ' the Son of man' all lburtimes at the end ofCh. 69. 11o1Tmann, critic-izing hinl lOr ollen omittiog the de.noo.strative. announced that the demonstrative ·voo dem Ko:T' E;ox~v sogennanten rvlenscherlSOhne verstehen miissen', but he did not explain how any original text could be understood like this.:: Thirdly, at I En. 7 1.14 Enoch is gree-ted. ·vou are the son of man who is born to righteousness ... ~. If walda bif'i!si here. is taken to be a careless translation of the n1ajor tjtfe 0 uiOt; ToU Cxv6pc.lnou. this is quite impossible to explain. Indeed. it has c-.aused endless tJ'Ouble m scholarship. In 1893, Charles use-d this as an argument that this part of the Similiwdes was of different authorship from the rest and his comparison with I Eu. 60. 10 notably did not cau.:;e hitn 10 consider that M ylhing might be wrong with his overall unde-rstanding of the three Ethiopic phrases as re-pres.eotinga title of tnajesty.!.l Itt 1912, he-proposed a notorious textualemendatioo, producing the following translation: This is the Son of Man who is born unto ri&ftteousncss. And rightrousncss abides O\'er him. And the. rightcousneRS of the Head of Days forst~kcs himnot.!>I Chsrl.:s. Book of Enofh. p. t28. Ch.1r!e;s. Book ofEnorll. p. 128. lauttn~~·. BmH: (Jf E11och, :n his (>1!..26-29. subS\'(jUCillly lli.Unl>el\."d 69.26-29~ 1-loffinann. D.1s Budr HmtJdl. p. 5'79. 23. Charle;s. Book of Ent~dl, p. 183. referring ba.:k hlp. I56. 24. Char!e;s. Book of Enodr (2nd cdn. 1912), ad Joe. 20. 2 1. 22.

Tfu!

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

95

Thjs simply alters the te-Xt to what Charles thought it should have said. All these problems resuiiOO li'om d1e-basic notion that 'soo of man• was a lille. of rnajest)'. as it is io Christian !radition, both in Ethiopia and else.whe-re. Til is inllue-nce was so pervasive lhat scholars did not re-ally ll')' to explain how theAramaic (x)li!J(K) "'IJ could have functioned in lhis way, not evetl if lhey really belie.ved in an original Aramaic. text I have JlOLed 1hat at about the same time as Charles was working. the. dominam view was chalfenged by Lierzmann.:s This was primarily because of his exce.tlent knowledge of Aramaic. but neither he nor his critics were cornpele-!lt io Ge•ez, and this \\1liS ill least pa11ly why he made no impression on the. dominant view. In 1946. Sj3berg wa.:; learned enough 10 mounr a challenge 10 lhe dominant view. but he. did so only tentatively.!o For example. he noted the demonstrative in ~iku '""/d(l sab ·;at J Eu. 46.2. and c.omme.JHed, 'Hier ist der Ausdruck "Mensc.taeoltOhn'• selbstverstlindlich kein Tite.t.•!
This is reasonable in itself, but S,i5berg also onere.d a conjectural l lebrew ''ersion with O'Th<"J 1;1. and a proposed Greek with 0 ulO:;- Toll O:vOp(.)rrou! lie almost h)()k the major Slep forward which was needed when he c.ommented on the Ar.u'tlaic, 'Man kaJ)n ~:zil "'IJ als Titel. mao kann ~ aber auch als Appellativum, da.' dUJ'('.h den Rel
27. 28. 29.

Se-c 1>1,· 20-2t atxm:. E. Sjtlbc-rg, Dtr Mmschen.wl111 im iilhiupi.\·chnJ HtlltXhbuc/J (l und; Glc...-rup. 19<16). Sj~be-rg. Mf'lr.w·hensolm, p. 49. Sj6bcrg. Mmschrnsohn, p. 50. Sj.Sbcrg. Mtlr.w·hemtJiur. p. 50.

30.

Set' J)t>. 29-30 above.

31.

Ca~y. ' Uscoflhc Tcml "Son of Man'" in rh" Similiurdrs·.

25. 26.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Son of Man ' Problem

%

the language of the. extant frn£,ments. This demonstrates the fragility of arguments 10

the contrary based on one-word naughty tricks. For exan'lple, at 1 En. 6.6, the

Ethiopic is obviously oom tpt and the Greek text of Syncellus reads as follows: t.oov8! oVro1 S!o:l(6otot ol t::o:To:!kivttt; iv Toit; ~~ipcw; 'lcip<5 ... Now 1hc.~ v.-cre two hundrod who descended in the days of Jnred . ..

HaJievi 1\."C.onstJl tcted this in Hebrew. and argued that this must be the original language bet-.ause of the pun on the name Jared and the llebrew word 1'1', which 1heans ••o descend' in Hebrew. but not i1'1 Aramaic. and in this be Y.•as follf)\\'ed by C1larles:~

Now, howeve.r. 4QEn'' ltas provided a fragmentary but continuous text of the whole of I En. 6.4-8. 1 in Ar.unaic.~ 4QE11*' provides a fragmentary text of 1 En. 5.9-6.4 and 6.7-8. 1. and all the s-urviving fragment:; are it1Aramaic rather than l ie-bre-w. rvlilikn suggested the following reconstruction: [~i! ' i l'rnl! ~,.,;;:a..

t[\'n:i ~~1 '~ n· ·~·~

It \\•ill be cle-ar fil)m Lhis that n• ha..=: survived a..:; the narne- M Jared, but that the word fOr 'descend' has not survived. f\•l ilik has used the ordio.ary Aramaic. mm. This would mean that the pun. which will have been found in He.brew at Jub. 4.15,

would not have been used in the Aramaic text. That is emirely reasonable: the older scholarship was far too inclined to posit puns and wordplays whenever older scholars C.t)ufd ma.ke theln up, but the l'nere fact that they ean be cor~e<:tured never

showed that they were originally there. Knibb, on the other hand. noted that an occ.asional Hebrew word might have.been used in this Aramaic te:tt. ~ In general, \lie now know that Hebrew penetrated Aramaic at this time muc.h more. than we knew before the discovery M the Oe.ad Sea scrolls. and it is entirely plausible thal n~ was used in the Aramaic text at this point. The ifnportant poiot here is that an occasional conjecture about .a single word doe.s not tell us tJ1e original language of a text Moreover, the older scholarship suiTered from being understood to mea11 'Hebrew' ,vhen it really meant 'llebrew or

Atarnaic •..l!. Similar comments apply to the text of the Similitudes, where scholars 32. J. HaiiCvi, ' Rcchc-tchcs sut Ia langue do.' Ia r&bc-tjon primili vcdu Livre d'Eooch'.luumul .-\Jioliqltt. S i;~ it}mc- Stlic-. 9 (1867). !)f). 352- 95 (356- 7).. followed by Ch:.rlcs. Hm>k of Erwch. p. 63.

JJ. l. T. Milik. 11re 8 tx'ik.t ~)l £;welt. .-'11YJmaic FrPgmt>llb' (if Qumn m C.Cn~ 4 (Ox lOrd: Cbrendon. 1976). pp. !50. 152. 34. M. Knibb. Tht Elhiopic Btx>k of Emx·h. A Nell' EtlititXI i11 lht Liglu oflht' Aramaic Det«l Sea Frasmenls (2 \'Ois~ Ox lOrd: Clal\',ldon. 1978). vol. 2. pp. 68- 9. 35. For nl
Tfu!

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

97

have not produced any re..asonably convincing arguments for either a Hebrew original or for a Greek version. The Greek versions of some pans of 1 £uad1 are wry valuable. but there is no trace of a Greek ve.rsion of the Similiwdes. To give a detailed example. Black notes the. pec-uliarity of ya{mrri at 1 E11. 45.3. whic.h says thou the Elect One siuiug on his glorious throne \\•ill 'choose' their work..1).'* Afler a brief review of the older scholarship. Black posilS this as :.t direct translation of the Greek ixXi~Et, and seems inclined towards 1'U io a He-brew Gnmdschrift. But he notes older scholarship c.onjectu.ring a miS'Understanding of t11e-Aramaic ""111J , which mean.~ •choose ·as well as 'test, 1ty' , an entirely plausible e-onjecrure as to the meaning l)fthe-origin.al te:
36. M. Black. n1e Hook nfEtl
Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

98

.:#' o/1 ,,,.~ ';i"~K li> Kil:i :.:tllt r.;;:. 'ii'~l\i i'oil'> iil:~l ,~l i'::>'J ;;:.:.f:.;1) ll':>'' ~~ ;;'7; !'!Nfi i'~""l. I C¥ !'>1!7- K\i to jl!l ~;;; jO p; l'>C!JK ; :: '7:~,·;·;~ x,,-"iCi'! '?:.;·~::;; ?n-;; I\:; ,K"JKi
.:·":o 7;:-; K"t:i' ;:'x~ K"m. 71:.1 J:l' ;,o:o xt."¢¥1 ~ud;y ;'i7 -n•x; ~wJI.( -c ~;:; :m .·? ~"; :o;;:>Tl.J .dn'? :o:o;:~,~ :o;:;;n; K-c a;y "l?n ?1:-.':· ;;v.,.; ;;;nJ K;;;-,; N"'l.'l I. There I s:!IW one wl'l\) had a hc!ld of days.. ~nd his hcsd wa..; like 1>ore wool. snd with him "J ~'?;;• x1:. K.,~.,o~r•

wus another whose fuoe was like the appearance of 11 man. and his fnce was full of gf':tOt like a Watcl\cl' Md t1 Holy One. 2. And I t~skcd one of the Clngds.. he who wcm wilh me and showed me all the myst.:rics~ sbout th!lt (soo ol) man.. who he W:!IS and where he \\'35 f1001, why hi.' was going with the

Head of Days. 3. And he ans-wered a.od said w me. 'This is IMI (s.>•l of) nlal\ who ha.<~ rig)lu:'Ol!SJ\CSS. and righteousness dwells wilh him. and he. reveals all !.he trc:t.'iUt<.'Sof the mystcrk~s. ror the lord or Spirits has chosen him. and his lot is slrongcr than all bcrorc lk Lord of Spirils in 1tulh for cv~r:

The-expression 'head of days' has caused great diff'icully to scholars. h is g6ne.-ally agn."'d that it is derived fi'om the description of GOO, j"']:lP y~mr. at Dan. 7.9, and this should be accepted. The precise form of the description is simply due to an author who was bO\IJied over by the description of God in this vc-1y verse, X.7J ~;."J ;n9~-, 1!i'\:..1.

He thus had a vision of God with a quite rema.rkabtc he..ad, the head of a remarkable old man wit11 llowing locks. lie made use ofdtis vision of God again at I £11. 71.10,

where again he selected his head for particular description, and declared it white and pure like wool. This c.reatjve re-use of imag.e•y from a well-known te.x• explains why Enoc-h does not need to ask the. angel who this being is. he simply refers to him as ~'i'lP ~1\.., in the next ve-rse, ru1d subsequently. At the end of v.l, the ;zi"1pl 1'Y is obviously a gl)()d being, as so ofle-11 in this lite-rarure (e-.g. Dan. 4.10). The tran..f>larors sometirne-~" replace 1his expression with 'angel' or ' holy anger (e.g. I 1:.1 1. 93.2). Whe-n we reconstruct a possible original text therefon~ . we have to use our disc::retil)ll on a fou11dation of Intrinsic Probability, as I ha\'e done here. It is of c.oun>e possible-that I should have reconstructed mo1-e lite-rally ~""1V'1i' ~·=-~?ll to 1nJ. It is importaot that this degree M uncertainty affects

only this expres.sion. and does not mean that the rest of this reconstruction is uncertain. In v. 2. p1 ~WJK 1J is used with reference to the-being whom Enoch saw with God, a11d it is used before this being is identified. It fl)IJows that -~:oiJK -u ean.not be. a title here. because Enoch in asking the question is making clear that he does

not know who this being is, and Lhis question is not answered until the following \'e.rse. TI1us ~;;iJK 1~ is an ordinal)• •e-rn-1 fOr ll'IAO, as it is in all sut viviog Aramaic tex•s. The demonstnltive p1 is entailed b )' the Ethiopic demonstrative :;ikJJ. In each language. this demonstrntive is anaphoric., that is to say, it refen> back to the tigu•-e seen in the first vetse. This anaphoric demonstrative is necessary p~cisely because (~)1.92(~) 1:. is an ordinary tenn lOr •man•. h \VO'l1ld not have been neces...;a.ry if it had been possible to use (~)it'J(K) -u as a title-. whic-h alro would not make se.nse because it Y.•as an ordinary tenn tOr man. Jf the authors had wanted a title for the ligure .-nentiOiled afler God in the first verse. (~)liiJ(~) 1:. would acc.c.wdingly have been a VCJ)'

unsuirable c-hoic.e.

Tfu! It foJh)WS that

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

99

is not a tide in v. 3 either. TI1e following relative cla1.1.~e defines which (son ol) 1llan Enoch has seen. The folll)Wing description is a covert description of Enoch himself. seen from the perspective of the de.votees of Enoch who wrme d1is dl>Cumcnt. It would not be dear 10 outsiders. who would need thedenoument at J En. 71.14·17, a denoume111 which will have delighted audiences who we.re this interested in the-figure of Enoch. There are four poilllt;: :•ndJ~ ,~

I. Ri gh teo~.t..;ness is his otnstanding characteristic. \V11ile other rnajor figui\."'S ifl

Second Temple Juda.ism might be re.garded as especially righteous, in the Enoch l iteranux~- this is partjc.ularly true ofEtuX'-h himself. In the-opening of the whole-book, he is described as a righteous man (0:\16p(..)IToc; OiKau:ll; . bi!'b i .~·iidlq), and the oomext implies that this was necessary for his visionary experiences. At 12.4. when he is called by Gt)d'ii O\\··n Watchers to go from the divine preseoce.aod convey the djvine-judge.fnent to dlC-wicked \Vatchers, he-is addressed a.o; sc-ribe of rigl11eousne$S (0 ypaJ,JanUc; Til.; O!KOlooUvqc;, ~a~uif€ !idiq). At 14. 1, the account of Etu)Ch 's \•ision and re-primand ofthe Watchers has a tide which begi11S '11)e-book of the words or righteOlL<;ness/truth': the Greek has Bi~oc;: AOy.'; 'Ev~x Toli cS1Kaiou. and likewise T. Dan 5.6), and Judah is likewise said to hove read aspec.ts of the future i•l3il3-\o•<; 'E•wx Tou OIKaiou (T. Jml. 18.1). It fOllows that when a devotee of Enoch wrote the opening ptlrt of J En. 46.3, 'l11is is that (son ot) man who bas righteousness, and righteousl.es..r;; d\vells witll him'. other members of the group would have instnmly rec-ognized Enoch. long before-the recognition sce-ne at J En. 7 1. 14, which clearly picks up this description. 2. 'lie- reveals all the trea.o;ures of the lhysteries.' A major functiotl of Enoch throughout the Enoch literuwre is that of revelnrion, a func.tion in which he clearly exceeds aJi the other luminaries of Jewish tradition. A list of his revelations is also provided as early as Jub. 4.17·24. where it already includes a visioo of human history until the day ofjudge-me-rlt. It follows that. from the perspec-tive of the Enoc-h

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

100

devotees for whom the Similimdes were writre-n, the second point in the description of this figure would again identi(y hi1H as Enoch himself. 3. The reason fOr this li gure.'s pt)Sition is that God himself ha..:; chosen him. The

c.hoice of Enoch for the function of revelation is also explicitly mentioned at 2 l:.i1. 64.5. II is implicit in the whole of the Enoch literature, and io the co ntext of the Similiwdes it identifies hirn as the Elec.t 011e. 4 . • ... his Jot is stn)oger than all befOre the Lord of Spirits in truth fl)r ever.' T his

identifies the figure as the most outstanding human being eve-r. and from the perspective of Enoch circles this identifie-s him as Enoch himself. All these points will ha"e been decisi\'e in the social context within which this docun1en1 was wrinen. It also rrrnkes perl"ec.t sense or the ope.,~ ing description of him. •ant)ther \Vhose filc.e \\1as like the appearance of a man, and his face was fuiiM grac.e like a Watcher and a lloly One" ( I En. 46. 1). Enoc.h·~ tra nslation is rec.orded already at Gen. 5.24. It is describod more fully at the end of 1he SimiJi(udes. where he-h iltL~e l f says •aJI my ftesh melted and n'!y spirit wa..., transtOnned' (/ £11. 7 1. 11 ). At 2 blr. 22. Enoch is taken before God himself, and is giYen d othes of glory in place of h i~ earthly clothing. The-n he declares, •J JookOO at myself, and I had become like one of his glorit)lL" ones' (/ Eu. 22.10).~1 This tradition entails th.at some of the audience. will have recognized Enoch already at J En. 46.1, even the iirst time ~hat the document was read. The rest of this pas..;;age-expounds the role of this figure as e:;chatologic.al judge. Together with his role as the revealer, this is Enoch•s niOSt important role in the Similitudes. We must aJso 1ook in detail at the next verse. ~l"Cn1

i':i':>,n r.n~n ji:i'O"U 11: K':•on:

r;;~~ i'l X':l)ii"'l "«::}'1r.; KOO'

n..-;;; :m ~;:!::-;

,~l 4 •

.~·yn; ji:>;:Z: -en·; 4. And this son of mnn whom you have seen will remove the kings and the powerful from thdr bods nnd l.he strong from their sealS. and he-will OIX'O the Joins of the mighty and break the teeth of the: sinners.

l lere it is mosl impottaot to no1e the care- wilh '~hich 1his figure is de$cribed. Once again. the Ethiopic wa/da sab ·e. the same term as at I En. 46.2 and 46.3, 1hu...,1 represem the Aramaic ( ~)•IlJ(~) u . Most MSS have befOre it the Ethiopic demonstrative ~int1i. I have-accordingly rec·OI'IStructed the-Aral'l'laic de-mor.strative :in. Taoa 9 howe\·Cr omits this denK)IIStr.itive, so a S1t1all degree of uncer1ainty is unavoidable. It is all the more important !hat a rehllive d ause IOJto,I/S im.-nedialely. The Ethiopic ;.nr 'ika entails n•im. In each language, we have a straightrorward relative clause saying which son of man is referred 10. the one ' \vhom you have seen' . This is a clear re l'ere1lC.e back to the figure-seeo ln the previous verses. and Ibis 31. For 1 Enocll. I IOIIow lhc transltl!ioll of f . I. Andcf'S(''' in OTP II. as I rcgr~t thai I do not read Old Slavonk.

Tfu!

·s~m

of l'lf(m' Cmrcept

IOJ

IX:fC:rence is essential precisely becaose (x.}oiJ(x.) u is an ordinary tC-I'IH fOr ·ma.l\'. not a title. This is why we need to be told whic-h son of man is being referred to. The following verses clarify this tigure 's role as the esc-hatological judge. The eschatologk aJ seuing continues through the following verses to the next occurrence oft he tenn ·soo M man', at 48.2. x~1· ~, oov ~:¢

.1\0ilo X~ Oi j? .,y~ :V.· 't ,K·~;;o· ·~u .x:i?~ p

'J:t?

Inn-.;:-;-,•;. nn p; :o;d::o;

-a · ,yn.x K.i!l~ ;;:r .2

ml'nl\i o;y- p

,N'l11\: Xij'.'.li:l 1'-am;; .:::r.y l'lt . 3 x-co7 Ki;il N'D.':·lli 'll:'U7 l\;il j17~ ~(,; •:n?:; p ,"»'i K'Oo:ij?? XO~;:.!? :o;;;t.. l'\1:;'1 .4

X \'i;,; :o;;•;.; ;;~;,:.!';- li'mt'ir VJT~.. f li:Zij'" Kl~ ' 7;: ~~,-, ';:1 ':otl!iY jli.SI jl~' .5 .Kl:7:.~ i !.-1 ~?-:.~·•~• o; y il! ·;;1•;.;-~ ,"'l!o; 1l!"J :n;; :-u; '7~7 7j .6 xo·.-·r. ;,fin:-.;;;;:-; ' j x;;;,, K-,o; ~71/!:0i l\O'ij' ji7l X'Z''o/? ;u,..,,., .7a 2. And in that bout this son ofrmn wasdcsigrwted to the. Lord of Spirits.. and his name before the-Hcud of D:.ys. 3. And bdore the sun and constellations were. matod. bcfor<:.thc. stnrs of hca\·en werc made.

his name wa.<; called before the-Lord of Spirits. 4. And he will be a staff to the. righteous that they may lean on him and not full. und he (will ~) 11lc lighl oflhe Gc-ntjk:~ ~nd hoJX' to Lhc bmkcn-hcwcd.

5. Al t tl'lo:~e who five oo the dry ground will f:. JI down and do obci ~ance before him. and lhcy will pruisc ond blclU and sing to the nalllt' of the-lord of Spirits.

For lhi ~ rc:l.SOI\ he was chosen and hidden before him before the WOt'ld was ~~tcat cd and for ever. ?a. And tJte Wisdom oflhc Lord of Spirits rc\•C'Slcd him 101M holy and the riglucous, fM he has guarded the lot of the righteous. (t.

In the-opeoing of this passage, ' "e are given the-it\fonnation that io lhese lasttitues the son of man iigure whom we have met in Ch. 46 is natned to the Lord of Spirits and before the Head of Days, parallel e..'(pressions which have him named to God. The term fOr 'lW-n M man' is again wa/d(l sab 'i. the same te.rm as at I En. 46.2-4. and he-re again it rnust go back to the Aramaic (~)WJ(K) 1~ . As at 46.2, the Ethiopic. u·alda sab ·e is accompanied by the demonstralive :,i!ku. lOr which I have again 1\.'<"-on.structed !he Aramaic pi. llle function of this demonstrative is unambiguous. It is agairl anaphoric, M-d refers back to the ligure already seen and expounded in Ch. 46.

Verse 3 then con'>'eys another piece of infOnnation, !hat 'this soo t) f man' w·a s alre
In generaL so.ne kiods of paralysis eo10e \\1ithin the realm of illnesses '"hich ha\•e pSychologic.al causes and nlay be subject to spontaneous rernission and/or therapy. Hence this is within the area of illnesses which people in the ancient world mi~)lt think were curable by deities and/or healers. So for example Jablensky includes

·problems \\1ith mo,'ement, paralysis' among the World l leahh Authority's classification of •nal'rowly delined somatoli.)I'IH sympto•ns' ... Murphy likewise includes 'paralysis' as one of the examples or ·conversion disorder • which ·suggest

ne-uroh)gical dise-ase>. lie nmes that ·an episode of conversion is usually of short duration with sudden t)tLflet and resolution•.s lo discussing paralysis among 'disorde.rs of hysteric-al conversion', Tl>One notes thal hysterical weakness ' involves principally I he extremities, and the legs mo1-e than lhc arms·. Jl is ' usually n paralysis or rnovemerH ratl1er than a ' "eakness ofindi\•idual muscles•; in these cases, strength

is retained in the. muscles.' Hooker retails in anecdotal form the story of a woman who was paralysed fOr 1\11'0 yearS after seeiog a violent crime. ' Reassurance that she was in no way responsible for the crime resulted in a cure as instantaneous and dramatic as the paralysis.•, More. tightly controlled evidence is available from the occurrence and c.ure of hyste-l'ical paralysis in late-nine.leenth- and early twentieth-century Europe. Hysteria was a fashionable illness at tJ1e time. so il was a naturnl choice for people

who needed to be patients but who had nothing else wrong with them. Equally, hypnotism was a c-uhurnJiy acceptable form of manipulating people. Consequendy. we ha\'e a number of accounLo;; of hysterical paralysis,a some c.ases of which were curable under hypnosis. The culturally determined nature of these ca..:;es is especially well illustT'.Hed by those who could move their limbs under hypnosis. but who could no more do so afte-rwards than they had done before. All such ca.o;;es belong to the much larger phenomenon of somatized illness beba\~our. They should be c-arefully djstinguished from diseases, and their cure is not nec-essarily ace.ompanied by what western biomedicine would regard as a change in symptomatology! -1. A. l:lbk nsky, ·~ Concc1>1of Sonlalofoml Disorders: A Commcm on 1hc Mind·Body Problt.>m in Psyc-hiau y' in Y. Ooo t't al. (e~M. Somatofmm Di.sonias. A \\hrldwide- Pt>r.\'ptCiiw• (Tokyo: Spring..-r. 1999). pp. l--tO (7). 5. M. R. Murphy, ·ct.sssifi.cation o flhcSom;uorotm Oi~rders-'. in C. Bass(c.:I.)_.S.oma.fi:;:ution: Ph.vsim( S)7Jiplonu and Ps.w:hologirol Jllnt.~J (Oxford: Bbd:wcll. t990), pp. t0-39 (25). 6. B. K. Too~, ' Oisolxlcrs oHiystcrkal COil\'ct~il'lfl' . in B:tiS (cd.}. Somali;cttiml. PI)· 20734(2 11). 1. M. D. Ho.."'lkc1', Tlu• GoJJWI According lo-Sr Mark (BNTC. Loodoo: Black, 1991}. p. 85. 8. Cf. A. R. G. Owen, Hysfm·a, IIJPJtosis and llrolills: the wmt of J. ·M. Cllam11 (london: Dobs-on. 191 1). csp. pp-. 6S. 124tr. 9. Cf. E. M. Paujson, N. A. Lapins and li. A. Oocn·. •fsiLh Healing. A Smdy ofP..-rsonality snd Function·. J mtmal (}f NtJWISIS ami Mt-11/al Di:rtasc IS? ( t973), l)t>. 397-409~ A. Kleinman, P«titm.~ a11d H(·aln'J in the Crmte:a of Cllltw'l". An £rplormion of the Bmrledarnl btlll'f"tl1 :\Jiti!JvPQiog_v, MtdiciJie ami Ps.w:hiatiJ' (Bcrkclcy/ LA: Univ. of Califotnis, 1980). pp. 31 1- 74; R. Totman. Sod(l/ Cmt.ftJ tJj /1/tlt.f.> (l.oodoo: Souv~nir, 2nd cdn.. 19&7). pp. .l9-40. d!jng L Rose.• Faith Healing (Lonckm: Penguin. 1971).

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

147

Shorter has contributed a very useful history of psychosomatic illnesses in the modern world. lu his chap(e.r oo •Motor Hysteria• he notes that reeorded instanees or paralysis increa.;:OO gre-atly after 1800, and he give.s many tLJ;eful examples. ltl panicular. wh:u was known as hysterical pamlysis increased as the century passed. h could be vcr>' difficult fo•· c.onventional dl'>Ctors lO c.ure, and it wa.;: susceptible to other kiJHit;; l)f treatment.. Shorter quotes Osler declaring in I 892, ' Perhaps no singleaffection has: brought more dise.redit upon the profession. for the cases are very n::fTaclory, and finally filii intt) the hands M a charlamn or faith-healer, under whose touch the disease may disappear al once. ••o At this stage, the majori(y M c.ases were Victorian women. and the work of J.-f\·1. Charcot \\1a.J; especially impor1a1H in theclassificalion and popularity of this ilh1ess. As a result of this popularity, hysterical pamlysis was the. illness suffered by many men who could not e.ope with being soldiers in the First World War. This was pan of a massive increase in psychosomatic illnesses during that war. Much study ofp!>)'Chosomatic illnesses followe.d. In the light of this, Micklem wrote a cJa.;;sie work in whic-h he suS2ested that the paralytic in Mk 2. 1-1 2 s uiTe~d from hysterical paralysis, which Jesus was able to cure.11 Whe-n the First World War was: over. instances of hysterical paralysis soon underwent a drastic decline. with Charcot's particular fonn Mhyste-ria disappearing within a dec.ade of his death. This further clarifie$ the cui rurally oriented nature M this illoess. It is 1latural that this has also led to some criticism of 'hysterical paralysis' as a diagnosis or au illness. II is acc.ordiogly \ ery imponant that it is only (he extent and elas..o;ification M this illness that are culture-specific 10 the late nineteenth and early t\\'entieth century. The illness itself is much more. ''~dely auested Shorter has a nice example-of psychogenic par.'tlysis fi'otn 1682.1:- Adetailed repon on se.veraJ recent c.as:es: studied toge-ther was published in 1987: it ioclude~J; 01le paralysed man who responded to llleil~uoct i orl ·get up'. u Attemp(s to exph1i11 Jww people with psychosommic illnesses mimic diseases which result from neurologic-al damage c.ontinue.._. I !'espoud 10 all this by IJ'e.atiog Mk 2.1-12 as a report of Jesus' he.aling a fnan whose paralysis wa.;: of psychosomatic origin: I do not use anything spec.ific to the late 1lit1e1eenth and early twentieth century.u 1

tO. E. Shon.,..r, Fmm ParalysiJ UJ Fatisue. A Hi:>lory (if Ps.w-Jrosomatk Jllm~ss in tile Mtxlmr Era (New Yo•k: Free- Prc-s..'l. 1992). 1.'SP.,."'eially Ch. S. · ~to£or Bys1c-ria': on p.I2S. heMs 1-he t~bo,•c qu(l(alion frofn W. Osltr. The Pri11l.,..titalt)tltaplcgia', Jmmwl ofNetlrology, Neftro.m rgny a11d Ps.rr:lrialry SO {1987), pp. 375- 82. t4. E.g. P. W. I·I:.Uig:an atld A. S. OaYid tcds), CtHIW"JiUJt Hysteria: Toll'ards a Cogniti~y Neumps,rr:lrolttgical Accotmt ( li o~: Psychology Pre~>S. t 999). t5. For de1aili.'d discussio•t of Lhi ~ story in the- li&f'u of mode-m m~-dic:tl l:nowlcdgt, sec J. Kcit Howard. Dismse ami Healing in lilt> Nell' Testament..-\11.-\11alysis a11d lnltt]m•tuli
14 8

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Paralysis is a well-.auested illness io the anciem Greco-Rl)tnan world. rvtoreover, the cure of limbs is attested in pagan votive offerings. AI Epidaurus. for example, Hennodikas of lamP-•acus is Sd of body (aKpo:Tijo; ToU oc.l~-tcnoc;). lie was healed in his sleep. and is said to have can·ied a. large stone into the s.ancruary lhe. following morning. Kle.imenes of Argos was also paralysed (0:Kpcn i j.;). lie was cu~d after a night i11 which he had a visit)ll (~t~) of Asclepius.16 l le.aling '''as a well-known activity in the Je:wish world. Noah \\'as supposed

to have been taught heaJing by an angel, and transmitted his knowledge to Shem {lub. I0. 10- 14). Til is story makes sense only i f we ass.unle that this knowledge

was transmitted right down to the time. of this acc.ount. in the second century BCE. Solomon \\'a.~ also belie\'ed to have be.en a remarkable healer. and Josephus• acc-(null shows that his knowledge was still in use (Am. Vlll,45-9). Exorcism is prominent in both these repons. as it was in the life of Jesus. Healing was also a feature.of the Therapeutae (Philo. VJ"t Cont 2 ). Philo says that they cured nt)t ooly bodies, but ah~l) souls oppressed with various things. including AU rra l Kai ¢0{3ol. Whe.ther or not the word Essene me.ans ' healer', and whethe-r or not the Therape-utae were a branc.h of thel'n, some Es!leJles were certainly involved in healiog, and Josephus' re-port explicitly says that they we.re concerned with the. welfare. \f!VX~t; Kal oultJO:TOt; (los. \l~r II. 136). These reports indic.are-seriomo and prolonged interest in healing what is known in our cuhure as psychosomatic illness. IL IHts been tlh)ught signific.:uH that we ha"e no Je,,•ish reports of the curing of any kind of lameness or paralysis.11 The evidenc-e just surveyed, however, entails that a lot of healing was done, whereas we-have very few stories of at·.tual healing events. We simply do not know whelher. let alone how often. what was regarded as paralysis was perceived to have been cured by a healer. This is partly why we must auach fundamental importance h) the cross-cultural evidence that paralysis may be. of psychosomatic origin. and consequently curable at a healing event. There is als.o ample evidence that Jesus was the besl-known and most remarkable healer of 1\is day. It follows that he was able to cure illnesses which c.ould not be cured by other healers who were around at the.time. This is implied by Mk 2. 12. but perhaps C·O•Hradic.ted by Mk 3. 1-6. 1 ~ There are also a few passages in Jewish sources which indicate knowledge that some sort of paralysis might rt'$Uit from fe.ar. In Je.r. 6, God threatens ro bring a merc il es..~; people against Zion because so much wrong has been done in the city. The J'I('Ople's reaction to thi$ ne.,vs includes the li.)IJowing (Jer. 6.24) : E. J. Edelstein snd L Edclstd n., Asclepius. ..t Collt•c-Ji(m and l nlerprdalion of lite Ttslimmlit.~ t2 vol.'i: Bsll i mor~: 1-IO(Ikins, 1945}, pp. 224, 228, llO. 423 c=IG IV. t, nos. 121-2). XV :md XXXVIt: l..llcsc ~~~IS may be more readily :l.\'3ils bk in L. R. LiOooo.id, 11u• Epidaurian Mirade llt~cn"pli(}tiJ. Tt>xl. Tralrsla/i(m and Crmmtttllftl(\' (Sl~hol:us : AIJ:tnla. 1995). pp. 96-1 (A 15}. 112- B (837). 11. A. E. HatYcy.Je.ms and lht COIU'Iraim.~ of Hislmy (BsJ. 1980. londo,l: Du<:kwonh. 1911.2), p. 100. 18-. Csscy. Aramaic S<mrt·es of MarkS Gospel. pp. 116-SO.

t6.

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

149

U.V'>m :n:s ll"i' 1~1 napo).UEiqoav ol Xtip:t; liiJc:lv. 6).i~J~It; r;o-rioxw riPo:<

For 1~'\ the Targun1 has ~7-o.i-tn.'\, Pesh ~1m\. Both the context aod the parallelisn~ indicate that paralysis of the hands has resulted from fear among sinful people. A similar situation is found at Ezek. 21.12. where water is used for the state of the knees. so this is sorhe,vhat more extensive paralysis ofthe limbs. For the MT ·o1. the Targum has and Pesh 171Ihml. TI1eJ'e is a 1\U)J'e. perSonal example at Jer. 50.43, wheret11e kiog l)fllabylon cannot use his hand.'l (tv1T i!>1, LXX Jer. 27.43 nap~AU9r,oav, Tg. and Pesh 50.43 x.?tt-"1nx.), again in a context of fi!ar and anguish J()r political reasons. tv1ore personal still is Sir. 2.5.23, \!Jhe.re lfeble h.ands and knees are C
rnnn..

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

150

4. Getting to .Je:w.~·

The next remarkable C\'Clll in the Marean narrative is the digging through the roof. We must infer thm the.house had only one storey. at least in the part where Jesus was teac.hiog. II is d eal' from archaoological evid011ce that Capernaurn ho w~es c.ould not

generally suppon n second storey. The walls of houses were gene-rally constructed with pieces of black basalt he.ld together with clay. and these were not strong enough to stand the weight of a second storey.19 II was Mnnally possible to have a ladder to the roof. so, assuming that the paralytic was not malingering, the four men must have carried him up to the roof on his mattress. Roofs were. nonnally made from wooden beams. placed at intervals. covered with branches or reeds which we.re plaSiered with clay. This is a kind of roof which could be dug through. and the. gaps between the be-ams might well be large e-nough for a son of mattress with a man on it to be lowered be.tween them. There is accordingly nothing implausible in the story, remari>able though il be. We are no• told the mechanics of lo..ve.ring the man, just as we are not told how they cmTied him up the ladder. The digging of a hole big enough for this might well lead to debris descending on Jesus and others below. The Greek &m oTiyaoav T~v ot Eyrw ... Kal E~opU~o:vnr; hX)kS like a deliberate attempt h) a\·Oid this impi'C'$Sion. Tile-Aramaic which I ha\•e proposed makes this a colourful Greek tmnslation of more mundane Aramaic. For taking the roof on: I have propose-d l0'"1~, u;.o;ing a c.on-unon word w1lich c.orrectly describes what they did. Rather than go for the literalistic a'ip(.), the. trnnslmor h:.ts c.hose.n the more colourful but absolutely clear and unambiguous ci moTiyaoav. This verb is rare in extant lilerature, but this is surely because we. do not have lots of ancient Greek acc.ounts of people removing roofs: it is not likely to have caused problems to Greek-speakers fan~iliar with ci-rrO and oti)'l1. Similarly, I have used the mUJ~dane " 'OI'd "<1n~n. Of C<~.)urse, when digging: a nonnal hole the d e-bri~ has to be. taken up away from the hole. In thi~ case. howeve.r, careless digging: c.ould le.ad to the debris going do\1/11 and landing on Jesus and the others below. The translator has lc, !Y::C P. M. Csscy. ' The Ol'iginal Ar:m~i c Foml of ll:llus' llncrprcu!ionuf thc Cup' ,fl:SNS41 ( t990). t>l>· 1- 12. 19.

J. L Rttd,

(Barri~burg:

15 1

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

case., it would also remove details which would appeal to people who were close. to the original situation. but not to later Christians. as is illustrated by Manhew··s ornissioo l)f this process. and Luke's incorrect rewriting complete with riled roof. The-second mistake is illustrated by Wellhausen•s cor~ecrure that ci:rnoriyaoo:v n)v oriyfiV is a mistranslation of d1e-Aramaic 'schaqluht or 'arimuM legg(1m', which real I)' meant 'they brought him to the roof•.:• The.main point is thm we should not c.onjecture misn!adings in texts ' "hich a~ pe.rfectly intelligible. especiall)' not when we ourselves iind thern irnplausible because they c.ome from a culture unlikeours. We must therefore follow my proposals above, which fit the incide-1H iOh) its first..ceolUry Jewish surrounding.~. and make perlf ct se-nse of a ve-ry good translator making an explicitative. translation of a sound Aramaic text. 11le real importanc.e of this rernarkable episode-is that it show'S that the ti ve men had a vel)' strong investment in the success of the. healing eve.nt. The)' must have been determined to get the paralytic healed, and they would have suffe.red from severe.cognitive dissonance if this had not happe-ned. Assuming that they were not quite mad. this means that the paralyric himself was re-.ady to be he.aled. The nex1 pan of the Explanatory r..·1odel follows accordingly. The narrator tells us that Jesus saw their faith. Attempls to exclude the paralytic himself from this miss the point completely.::: It is precisely his taith which was most esse.otial ror the healing to take place. For it to be a pennanent healing, however. this extraordinary suppon from his friends would be very helpful. as they could subsequently suppon him as a healed pel'SOn,just as they had pre-viously treated him as a paralytic.

5. 111t' £.\1Jimwtory Model and Ihe Healer

Jesus; responded ir1 accordance with the first part M the Explanatory f>.·lodel of this ntan•s illness, according 10 which it was caused by his sio. Jesus did so by anm)unciog that dte •nan's sins \!Jere li.)rgi\re.n.. This ha.l:( caused endless trouble to interpreters. Some discussion is therefore necessary, beginning with the Explanatory Model which attributes sickness to sio. This is suflkie-1Uiy \Veil attested in the I Jebrew Dible. For example. Psalm32 has a man who wa~ ill when he did notoonfess his sins to God. and who recovered when he did. Psaln138 ha.~ a very ill-l>Ounding man con less his sins and ask for God•s help. Psalm 41 has a lftan asking God h) heal him, and he-attributes his need lOr healing to hil< sinning. Ps. I03.3 ha..:: God t0r_gi\ in_g a person·s iniqt1ities. and healing his disea..I:(CS. in parallelism. In a personal c.ase-, tlte-thanksgiviog psalm at lsa. 38.10-20 bas God ca..'lting Hezekiah's sins behind his back whe.n he \\':lS healed. All these pa.ssagel< \\'e-re. pa11 of the-sacred te.xt of all first-century Jews, so tltere should be no doubt that this part of the Explanatory Model, which attributed illness to sin. was ge-nerally a\·ailable. It is fu11her attested in later sourc.es. Si,-. 38. 1-15, wbic.h 1

21. J. Wcll.h.auscn. Dw Ewmgelium Murd. (Bc•~i il: Reimer, 1903). p. t 6~ •llictw:.ehtcl\ ihn :rum Dach hinaut: • 22. Taylor. M(lrk. pp. t94-5. tr:l.CI.'l' this v iew riglu back 10 Vic1ot :.nd Ephl':klll, bu1 t)leiCts to indudc the p:unlytk. with Lagrange nnd mo:>t mode-m commentators.

152

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

makes a strong plea for the acceptance of physicians. still associates illness and sin. and advocates prayer by tl1e sick and by physicians. This part of the Explanatory rvtodel continued into the rabbinical period. A saying of R. Alexandri in the name of R. 1Jiyya bar Abba pu(S il bluruly: 'A sick person does not arise-fi'Om his sickness until they fOrgive him aU his sins (rnuu• 7J ?:; 1? r7n 1DO.~ 1:.rY (b. Ni'd 4 1a). This is

fOllowed by a quotation tfom Ps. 103.3. The idiotMtic.-..,s;e orche plural participle musl be noted. It is of\eo lr.Ulslated with a1l English pa.r;sive. becalLr;e it is approxirnately equivalent to an English pas.r; i ~·e-. Thili idiornatic use of lhe. participle is not specific to the Babylonian dialec.t, and it is already found in the book of Danie.t (Dan. 4.22). It is noteworthy that the-C·01Hpilers: l)f the Talmud did not take this saying so literally

as to consider it inappropriate on the grounds that only God can for~jve sins. They took it for granted that only God could forgive a person all his sins. and used nonnal Aramaic idiom as a way of saying so. The tirst part or the ExplaoatOI)' Model is accordingly dear. TI1e man's illne$S

has been anributed to his sins. Jesus therefore began the healing process by reas.o;uring him that his sins had been tOrgiveo. The passive \YJnWK, like-Matk's

Greek, presupposes that his sins have been forgiwn by God. as always. There are some-detailed problem-l> over the exact word lOr this. I have resisted the tenlptation to posit '"VliVX, \Vhich is the same root as the word for paralytic. N"'11Il1l, because \Ve should not •nuhiply wordplays on principle. It is not howeve-r impossible. and we shall have to c-Ons ider its implications runher when we reach Mk 2.10. hl either c.ase, we should read the well-auested perfect ci
performing the ac.t of forgiwne.ss at that moment. The copyist may also have been h) r...tt. 9.2. The perfect ly:ml.VK reas:sul'e.o; the man that God has forgiven his sins. and in accordance with the Explanatory Model used in this narrative. it prepares the way for the healing. The next question is that of which human intennediaries may be. involved in a

a~im ilating

he.aling. The c.o ounonest traditional perSon in the Hebrew Dible is a 'prophe t' ~ for whom •he te-rm 'man or God• may be used." In G~n . 20. God appears to Abimele<'-h

in a dream, and tells him to return Sarah to Abraham. His life and the ability of his wire and female s laves to have children are said h) be dependent on Abrahartl's prayiog ror them, and God explaitl.o; this by calling Abraham a prophet ( N--:u. Gen. 20.7). h1 I Kgs: 17. Elij ah prays h) God, and the son of the-widl)w or Zarephath is

brought back to life. This C
when he. follows the proc.edure laid down by Elisha. He. is said to ha\'e done so lx""Cause he was advised by a Jewish captive who thought the prophet would <.';lire 23. For more deltlilcd discussion. see H. A\'alos.. lll11r.ss and Htallh Cart' ill lht' Andntl Ntar Easr. The Role oflht Ttmplt' in G~t"t:c, Mesopotamia <md !Jracl (HSM 54. Adanta: Schc>lst'll, 1995). l>t>. 260-17.

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

153

him, though nO{ before he had made the serious mistake of approaching the king of Israel illStead. The story dearly implies that Elisha had greater pl)we-.rs to curepeople than the l)umber or stories in the Bible would suggest In 2 Kgs 20// Isa. 38, J:.aiah is i•wolvOO in the he-aling of Jlezekiah, when Heze-kiah has prayed to God. At the time or Jesus, all these storie~o;; were part or the sacred text. It fOllows chat a prophet was an appropriate pe.rson to be involved in healing events. Jesus himself was known as a prophet. and performed many other healings. All this evide.nce is thus coherent and consistent. Regardles.c: of wheo they were wriuen down. all these stories are set irl the p•-eexilic period or e.veo e-arlier. In the pl)St--exilic pe-.riod, healing seems to have become the pnwioce of heak•.rs and/or exorcists. rathc.r than prophets. I have noted some e.xa•nples or both. In addition to these. a number M New Testament passages atte-st the. existence of exorcists. who were. favourably regarded by Jesus himself (Mt. 12.27//Lk. 11. I9)..:-'The expa1ldcd version of the story of the Pharaoh takiJlgAbra.n 's wire (IQapGeo XIX- XX) illustrates the overlap bew;een the IWl). h has Pharaoh aod his lk)USe-hold afnictcd by an evil spirit (Klif':a 011). It lists the Egyptians who c.ould not cute them as healers, magicians aod sages (~...,.0~1 7ul l\....~ISK1 K'C\'\ ?1~. I QapGe-n XX.20). Abram expels the evil spirit by prayer. and by 1he laying Oil of hands on Pharaoh himself. In the e:d ant part of the text. this does not calLc:e 1he narrator 10 give Abram any sped aJ label to indicate his role. The prayer of Kabonidus (4Q242) is of especial interest because it has a similar Explanatory Model of i ll ne~o;;s to Mk 2.3-12. The context of this very fi'agme1Hary document is evidently that of Nabonidus praising God by writing the story of his cure from a lengthy illness. At tJ1e crucial point. Nabonidus declares that a Jewish man IOrg_a,re/uodid his sins: 1D :-~7 pJJii ~x.um. Since the intluential work or DupontSommer.!s tl1e-man. here-called a 1u, has often been dlought to have beeo an e-xorciS-t, bul this should not be aocepted. The word 1n has a basic meaning of 'cut', and thl'Ough the pi'Oce$S M making decrees, il came to n.ean 'decree', or 'detennine'. This meaning is IOund at 4Q 197 4 ii 2 (Tob. 6.13). and it is comnton in later Ara.-naic. The actual ooun occurs fOur times in the-book or Daniel (Dan. 2.27; 4.4; 5.7, 11}, in a list of people whose function should e\•idently include providing the interpretation of dreams and of the writing on the waH. The.y are therefore some. kind of wise men, sages or djviners. This meaning is suitable for the. healer who pronounc-ed the forgiveness l)f sins in 4Q242, whereas •exorcist' is the wrong E:IId Ttmple Ptriod (NTOA 2 L FreiburgtG~uingc•l: Uni v~--r~i t!llswrlag/Vandcnho.."Ck & Rupttttu. 1992), ~lp. 149- 57.

154

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

inte-rpretation of this passage with so literal an understanding of the diffe rent ways in which forgiwne.ss might or might not be put. We should r.uher infer that the assumption that only God could forgive sins was so secure. that. in a passage del iberately written to praise God for his cure. Nabonidus could be presented as expressing an imponant facet of his cure by saying th.at a dlviner or the like forgave hjs sins. What he. will haw meant is precisely that the. diviner pronounced the forgiveness of his sins. This e-ntails the same Expkmatory Model of illness as Mk 2.3-12, by having a partic.a.dar illnes."> be-c.aused b)' sin. This more varied material does nothing to undermine the imponance of the material about prophets. This was still i n the sacred te:u, so the stories were told and retold. A prophet was basically someone who spoke the word of God and acted on it. It is eotirely reasonable for this to inc.lude a ministry of exorcisrn and olhe-r healings. l ienee the stories of Jesus' healing ministJ)' do not lead people It) give him a special label such as •he-aler ' or 'exorcist•. This \ !JUS rather subsumed under the geoeral 1enn 'prophel•, to which wa..~ added ' teacher•, a term denoting his other maj or role. One oegative piece of evidence is also impOrtant: priests were not it'!Vt)lved in the healing process. They l1ad two major fuoctions. One \\'<1..~ to keep people w ith some kinds of illness away from the Temple, or even out of society altogether. So, tOr example, i f a person has a cettaiu rot1 of :;kirl disease, the priest's la..<>k is 10 declare him unclean (lev. 13.42-44). The-person is lhen supposed to Jive alone-. ·ont.:;ide th-e c::unp' (Lev. 13.46). Sot'ne of the Qunuan doc·umeots have strict rules nm fouod it"l !he lle-bre., v Bible. For example, I I Q19 XLV, I2- 14 bans blind people ffo m the city of Je-rusalem fOrever. It should be obvious that where priests were involved irt incidents like the one at Lev. 13.42-44, they did not forgive the sins of•he pe-rson involved. Their purpose was to get the sic.k person out of the way. not to do anything to cure them. If the sick person was exc:Juded from 1he Temple. btU not fi'orn socie[y as a whole-. they would be c.ared tOr at home. So, for ex~l ll'l pl e, Pete.r 's molller-in-law was lying down witl1 a fever (Mk I .30), and Jairus' daughter was asleep at home when she \Vas 1akeo lbrde.ad (Mk 5.22-24, 35-4 1). ll)ere was no equi\•alent in Israel to the temples of AsdepilL'> in the Grero-Rornan world, \Vhe.re people rnighl go for Lherapy and c.ure.!1 At home in Israel. people might l) f might not be IMked after as well as was possible at the time. For example. Amnon trapped Tamar by clai ming to be ill and thereby gening her alone to prepare food for him i n his house where he wa..<> lyiog down (2 Sam. 13. 1-1 4), ar1d when Jesus raised up Jairus' daughter. he ordered th.at she be given food (Mk 5.43). Jo neither ca..'e-is there-M Y mention of aoything which we \1/0\tld recognize as medication. The authorofSir. 38 wa...:; d early concerned to make the case for having physicians at all, when this basic case might evidently be rej ected. Moreover, ancient ttledicine was M t al\\1ays very helpful. As ~
2 7.

cii.Aa pa~~ov 'i.; TOx•l pov iMoooa (Mk 5.26).

Sec fufltU.' I' Avalos. Jlillt'JS a11J Hmflh Curt'. Ch. I. wilh bibliography.

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

155

Even this level of care was not available to people who were thrown out of the comrnuoity alrogether. How olien re-gulations such as Lev. 13.46 were applied to ordinary towns and \tillages, and carried out literally. we have no ide-a. Whm we. do know is that we. have. texts in which priests declare. such people. unclean. The.y declared them unclean and were responsible for their being thrown right out. in so far as this happened. They did not forgive their sins or cure them. The second stage at which priests were involved was after people thought they were C-l.lred of sicknesses whic-h had made thet-n uucle.ao, and unfit to enter the Temple and perhaps other places. There is an example of this at Lev. 14 . Here a man who has h.ad a skin disease is brought to the priest for examination, and the prie-st linds that the disease is healed ( lll~;'l VlJWU;Ti!D ~~-u, Le\'. 14.3 ). The text then gi\'es detailed orders for the rituals to be c-arried out on such occ-asions. During these, the priest is said to 'cleanse' ("\.100;'1 j.1J ;;, Le.v. 14 . 11 ), and '''hen he comes to oiTer the sio offering at the end of these proceedings, he is said to ·make atoneme-nt' ("''~J. Lev. 14. 18 -1 9). Whe-n he ha.r; finished making all the ofl"erings and evel')'thing, the text summarizes iL~ re.gulations by sa)~ng_ that in this way the priest shaJI make ah)Oemellt on the man's behalf and he shall be cle.an ( i;iOl l;D;11'7!t "l~Jl, Lev. 14.20). Nm a single text ever says that the-p1iest fOrgives the. mao's sins. This is e-1Hirely logical. for IWl) reasOJL~ . One is that the priest's function \Vas nol to heal the patient. Or\ the conrraJ)'· his function was tt) send the patient away until he became well again. and, if the patient recovered when he was somewhere else. to carry out the necessary rituals to enable. him 10 declare the heahhy man nowd ean e-nough to enter the Temple. Secondly. the. Explanatory Model according 10 which illness is caused by sin is not explicitly mentioned iu passages like Lev. 14. lu so far as it is itnr)fied by the lL~e of DWK and nx.un. it is all the rnore striking that the priest il> not involved in pronouncing forgiveness. but only in lhe prescribed rituals to be followed when a person has rec...)Vercd. Equally, I have noted Pss 32, 38, 4 1 and 103 \\'hich explicilly use this Explanatory Model and do not mention the Temple. The priests were. concerned for the removal of sin only when they had to offer prescribed sa~ rific.es in the-Tel't\ple. There are e.xan1ples of this in Le,1ilicus 4. This de.als \\'ith the- removal of guilt for unintentit)nal sins. The iirst example is the anoi(l(ed priest, tOr \Vhom the text des-cribes ill detail the-sacrifice of a bull a..:; a si 1~~oO'eri ng (Lev. 4.3-12). The second e-xample is the C-t)tlgrcgation of Israel, fOr whom the.sacrifice M a bull as a sin-ollhing is also prescribed. ·n e text c.t)rlunents that with this the (anointed) priest shall make atonernent li.)r them and they shall be- forgiven ( 0 ;1? n7DJ1 1;1J.1 u;,?;; "l:>Jl, Lev. 4.20). The passive meaning of theNiphal n7oJ is clearly intended to rel'er h) their being fOrgiven by God. There is oo connection with illness. and the detailed regulations for the.priest do not require him to pronmuu:e the forgiveness of sins. Similar comments conclude. the. regulmions for the-sacrifice of sin-otl'el'ings lbr unintentional :;ins b)' a ntler (x•t•J), and then by one of the ordir)ary people (f"''l\.1 Oii), at l e-\·. 4.26,3 1,35. No such regulations de-.al with the cure of disease., and no such texts mention the pronouncement of the forgiveness of sins by the priest. We must infer that the priests made no such pronouncemenls.

156

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

It is thus entirely reasonable that wheo Je,;u.~ cured a mao with skin disease, he

told him to go and show himself to a priest and offer the pre~o;cribed offering (Mk I .41-44): he did not pronounce-the forgivene-ss of sins. Equally. at Mk 2.5 he begins the healing of a paralytic by reassuring him that his sins are. forgiven. After the healing. he •ells him to go home, which he does (Mk 2. 11-12): there is no me-ntion or p1iests or Temple. It fOllow'S that Jesus \\'a.' not doing anytl1ing to subvert the acthrity of priests in the Templ e.~* He was c.arrying out a healing which they never

had anything to do with. The Hebrew Bible contains one example of a prophet announcing the forgiveness of a petSor•'s si11s. T his is the stOI')' or David send ing Uriah lhe. JliUile into the ffo nt line or battle, and n'larrying Uriah's wife D:nhsheba whe n Uriah was; killed.

David was exposed by Nathan the.prophet. to whom he confessed that he had sinned {:11:1'7 'fl.'i:Oi1, 2 Sam. 12.13). T he penally was 1he death or lhe lirSI ~n of David aod Bathsheba (2 San1. 12. 14-23). h was not howe\•e r dte death of David \\•ho had c.o.nmiued th is sin. As Nathan put it, mon ~; 1n~on i'J!7;1 ;'ll;r Dl (2 Sam. 12. 13). This clearly lllt-a ns that David's 0\1/11 death would have beetl a possible-penalty 1\)r his sin, but that it is nm the-penahy be.cause God h im..~e-lf 0\'e rh)oked {i'~!O!;i) his sin. This cannot be- interpre led too litera ll)1, in \'ie\\1 or the death M David's son. T he limitatioo is nonelhe.less real a od important In pruc.tic-e. David was then able to go

back to make. lo\'e with Bathsheba. who in due course gaw birth to Solomon. What is imponant for prese-nt purposes is thm Nathan the prophet was the person required by God to deli\'e r these venJicts oo David's sin. They include bmh the pe-nalty 1\)r

this sin. and the. overlooking of it. J\.'loreover, this story was part of the sacred text o r a ll first-century JeY.'S. It fo llows thal the 1'e-u1ission o f llins could be- part o r a prophe-t's interpretatioo M the wili M God. j ust as 1huch as the aonounceme!lt M the destruction or a c.i[y, \Vhich Jesus is also C-redited with (e.g. l\!(k 13.2: Mt. 11.20-

241/Lk. 10. 13-15).

We now h.ave all the infonnation that we need to interpret what Jesus has done so far in the-story. He was oonfromed with a paralytic. someone who would not make proper use of his limbs. He could see from the extreme actions of the four men wiLh him, and perhaps from the man himself. that th-ere.was a ver) strong expectation that 1

he-\\'Ould heal the man. l ie belie-ved that, in th is p
to mo\'e his limbs was due to a sense of his own sinfulness. The Explanatory Model according to which illness was caused by sin was available to him fro m scripwre and tradition. He therefore began by reassuring Lhe man that his sins were forgiven. This \Va.:; a pro nounc-ement lhat God had tOrg ive11 lhe man's sins. Accordingly. this

pronouncement lay within the range of what a prophet might dec.lare. the will and judgement of God lObe.

2&. cr. e.g. J. Marcus. Mark /.S. A Nt•W Translatiml wifll fntrodiJC'Iiml Olld COi/llt/CIIIUIJ( AB 21. NciV Yotk: Doublcd:ty. 2000). 1). 216.

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

157

6. Objet.·tioll and R esponse

It is acc-Ordingly quite extraordinary that anyone should object to this. II fl)llows that, having sorted out the sto1y so far, we run irno eve1l g.reate.r ditlkuhies with the ne.xt part. Hooker put one of the main poinlS. and a possible deduction from it with clarity: The sOOckn imroduC1ion of th~ men into lhc SlOt)' appcnnt anifici31: \'<'hy shooM they be prcsc.nt? l11e fact that Lhcir critidsm is unspol:en suggecSts th31 it was mude on 11 later o.."Cas:ion.l•)

The u11spokw nal\lre of the criticism is surely vel)' strange. and it is severely exacerbated by the improbable nature Mthe objection. TI1e notion that what Je~~us has already said is blasphemous is barely plausible-. If, howeve.r, Mk 2.10 is interpreted literally in Greek as a reference to Jesus alone. then hostile opponents might well oonsider it blasphemous in the.popular rather than stricti)' legal sense of such terms. tv1oreover, Jesus' ministry did in tact suffer li'om exceptionally hostile opposition from scribes. hl the next chapter, we find scribes from Jetus.\len'l acc:using Jesus of be-ing possessed by the de.\•il and of c.asting out demons by means of his power (Mk 3.22-30).3" In the end, it was S(ribes who gathered togethe-r with chief priests and elde-rs to bring abt)Ut his death. It is noteworthy that the spec.ifie ac.cusation of blasphemy recurs only in the-quite unconvincing accmuH MJesus· trial be lOre Joseph Caiaphas (tvlk 14.64). This 10eans that it cannot have been a corrunon ace.usatit)ll during 1he historic ministJy. h fi.)IJows that it makes best sense as a genuine reaction to Mk 2.10, which has been wriuet1 up later because no t)bjcction was made at the time. as the. ~·tare-an narrative indic.ates. It would help if we could seule the origi1lal language of this patt of the stor~·· Canniguac ~ggested a Hebrew wordplay, D'Jllhm o•JJil"'', underlying Ka8~lJ~VOl Kat 15ta~oyt~OlJt:VOt."1 This is not re-niotdy sullicient. 11le crealioo of oc-e.asional wordplays in texts which are-not properly recons1ructed is a regrettable feature of tJ1e older scholarship. which underestimated lhe ability of scholars to produce rather than reoover them. Much more than an occasional wordplay is necessary before. we should believe in a Semitic source..' : hl the Aramaic. reconstruction proposed above-, I have 01nined v. 7. fOr reasons '''hich I have takeo from I looker and will shortly de-velop. It would however be possible to follow Black's de\·elt)ptuent of WeiJhausen's interpretation of the firSt half M Mk 2.7, 91ll'l 77ml FJ ~..., ;m .X~ This cao be traJISiatcd as idiomatic Aramaic, ·what is he thus saying. blaspheming?' I h)weve.r, this is not sutlicie.JH to show d1at there-was an Amrt\aic source-fOr this 29. .30. 31.

Hooker. Mark, ~). g6. For dc-lail,..d discus11ion. sc,.. C:.11cy,Aramaic Approoch w Q, Ch. 5. J. C:U'nlign;te. 'Swdics in th,.. Hebrew Uackground ofthl.' Sy•){)plic Gospd11'.

A.Sn 7

(1968-9). l>t>. 64--93 (70).

32.

Oiscy. Aromaic Sowus of Mark's Gospel. pp. 3t. 59-6.)~ Aramaic AppAArch to Q. pp.

10-12.

33.

Black. Aramaic Approach ('1967), pp. 65- 6, following Wcllhaull,..1l., Eillleillmg. p. 14.

158

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

part of the s.tor)'. Mark's Greek rn ake-s petfect sense of a slightly ditlf:rent kind, as traditionally understood: Tl oUTcx oliTc..:>t; AaAEi; ~Aao$r)lJEi. 'What is this nran sayitlg like this? He is blasphe.ming! • A h)t of cviderlce t)f idit)!Hatic Aramaic emerging like this would be decisive. The diOkohy of trying to nlake a dc.cisioo

about such a shon passage is gre.uly incre.ase.d by the fact lhat one such piece of evidence.could be coincidental. whereas the passage is too short for muc.h more to be realistically expected. Evidence or the opposite kind appe.ars at firSt sight in v. 9, whe~ there is no literal Aramaic equivalent of the comparmive EiiKorrWnpov. It fOII(W/S thm lraditionaJ exege.sis which tried to discover which Je-~o;us might have meant was easier. fOrgiving the man's sins or geuing him to walk. \1/.as based on a false premise. In Aramaic, Jesu.~ could not have posed the q-uestion as it stMc:l~. When there-is no literal Aramaic equjvalent of a Gospel term or construction, however. another pOSsibility must always be c-Onsidered: perhaps Jesus, or Mark's Aramaic source, said something which was ditlicuh to translate into Greek, aud our te.xt is the result I have accordingly suggested 7'7p. The word 7-?p means literally ' light'. Like irs opposite, 1i'llil,literally ' heavy', 7-?p was ulled nletaphoricall)' with ~~sard (0 c.onunandments, or legal judgements. It meant that they \Vere c.omparatively M les..'>er irnp011.auce. Thus the 'light of lights· (m7pJI.7 ;Tip) may be the prohibition of raking a nlOther bird at the same time as her young or e-gg.~ (Deut. 22.6-7: Abba bar Kahana at y. Qid 1.7/22(61b)). On the.other hand, a heavy commandmem might be an imponant one. So the heavy of heavies (m1,':lil;i ;nlilo li'l) may be 'Honour th)' fathe-r and mother' (Abba bar Kahana as above), or the conunandment isolated a.'> ~-.·on rnay be 'Thou shalt not take the n:une ofd1e lt)rd thy God in vain' (b. Shevu 39a). The word 7•7p is derived fro1n the Akkadian qrtl/ilu. which means 'srnalr, 'tmimpo!'tant'. It is 1herefore obviously old, an-d it is duly auested in early Aramaic. It is fOund in the Dea Sea scrolls. aod it is commor\ in Ja1er Je\llish Aramaic and in Syriac. The verb 7~ is com!'non already in biblic.al llebrew, which also has the adjec.tive 7p. The anestation or this te.nn is accordingly nm in do-ubt The se1llantic .area of7~pextends furdte-r to ' lenieot', 'insignificant' . It is iL'> legal u-::age which isM particular inte--re-st he1-e, partly because it makes excellent sense of Jes-us• commenrs, and jXU1ly beca use. after all the problems we have noted in what the scribes did 1101 actually say. it makes excellent sense of their presetru. Jesus used a conventional legal tenn to ask which of his proposed actions. pronouncing the. forgiveness of sins or telling the man to get up and walk, was ' light•, that is to say, a rnauer of no g.re.al significance. It will be noted that at the present stage the rorgive-ne.'>s of sins is still in the passiw: ciq,iwvTa:t oou at ci)JapTia:l, lOr \Vhich I have ag.aio reconstru<:ted TJm 1Y'Jt1.9K This is impor1ant, because the passive shows that Jesus is still pronouncing the forgive.ne.ss of sins by God. The answe.r to his question was, from hiS perspective-, •neither'. TI1e pronounc.emCllt l)f the fOrgi\'C-Ilel\S or sins by God was a matter of the. greatest impo11ance bec-ause it enabled the cure to go ahead in accordance with the will of God. The.c.t1re itself was of central importance. because the-he.aling minis[fy was at the-centJ~ of Jesus' ministry as a whole.

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

159

l11e trauslalion of ?•?p ;,o into Greek was diflicuh, bec.ause terminology of this significanc.e was not available-io Greek. The tran.,.; Jator must have thought of something like Ti iJ..acf>pOv. a rather literal translation which would have. proved d iflkult to uoderstand. It is useful to compare Mt. 23.23//Lk. 11.42. l lere- thetraoslators were raced with ~'1ll'lil. The l\' into English: •\Vhic.h is an easier task rather than a more important and diOlcult one?' This sets up the tOIIo\\•iog \\fOrds or Jt!$uS as he intended then•, the anS:\\1er again bting ' ne-id1er'. The translator is not likely •o have noticed that he could be interpreted to have. Je-sus asking which of these two things was easier than the other one. This is too far removed from the text which he. was interpreting to have oome to mind. We should infer that \Vith 7--?p in tvlatk's sourc.e, and with the d early pas.r;ive fonnulalion T Jlii lj?'JJ1:Z~. we have returned lO a real incident in the life or the historical Jesus. We. have fmiher reasons to suppose that Hooker was partly right about what has gone wrong: the unspoken words of the scribe.s are in fact spurious, and have been wriue.n into the story m :.t later date. We should however acce-pl thm scribe$ were prese.nt. Jesus' use l)f7•7V'. and the attacking. nature or v. 9 a..:: a wl1ole, c-.annot be explained without their presence. The next question is how far the secondary insenion goes. There have been many pre\•io·us sug&-estions, most Mthem more extensive than a shift rron1 v. 6a to 9. Wehave Ill)\\' however seen good !'e.ilSOil tO indudCthe fotgiVCIIC'$S Of SinS ill V. 5, and the presence-of the scribes in v. 6a, a,'f; part ofthe original inciderll. We have-al.,.;o seen good reason 10 keep v. 9, and we. shall see reason 10 interpret v. 10 in this lighl as pan of the original incidem too. The unspoken words of the scribes are secondary, for the Markan narrative tells us that they were unspoken, and that me.ans they mlL.::t be sec.ondar>'· Secondly, we have seen that the words of v. 7 are intelligible a,'f; a reaction to v. I0 in Greek, but not a,'f; a reaction ro the pro110unce.nent orCi(>d's rorgivene-sf. ofthe. man's sins at the end or v. 5. If v. 7 is second
34.

0.-scy. .o\ramak AppmadeJo Q. pp. ?4-6.

160

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

scribes are so hostile as to require explanation: this has been rationally supplied by an editor who alre.ady kl!e\1/ v. 10 in G 1~-ek. The Aran~ aie source. however, also makes excellent seose io its own tenns. I have argue.d elsewhere that Marie's Aramaic sources were. abbreviated. They will have been wriuen on Walt tablets. or single sheets of papyrus. or the l ike. I baYe also argued that brief ac.c.ounts were

possible because.these sources were of e.arly date. Consequently, many assumptions c.ould be taker! ror granted, both about tirst-c.entury Judaism in general and abt.)ul the

ministry of Jesus in p:micular. At an early date, everyone knew these assumptions: later. they would need to be explained. or Jewish things would need to be left o lll> as we can see with particular clarity in the editorial work of Luke..u The next question must accordingly be whethe.r we can rec.onstruct an assumption which the author of Mark's sou1'C.e mighl take tOr granted.. and which would make sense of Jesus' sudd0nly aggressive c.omments. I suggest that the-answer 10 this question is very straightforward: the extrnordinal)' hostility between Jesus and his orthodox oppone-nts had already started before this event took place. This is in no way irnprobable. As the Marx:an narn~tive stands. we fi r\d a plot to b1i og abotlt his d~th already at Mk 3 .6. This ' "as caused by lwo supposed violations of sabbath law so dubious that even these opponents turned to the secular authority of Herod Antipas rather than to a court of law.l(• After one supposed violation, they watched for anmher, and they were-suHicientl)' inhuman to count healiog on the sabbath as such a violation. They will have expected him to heal on the sabbath because. he had successfully done so already (Mk 1.23-3 1), in a comm\uljty obsetvant enough to bring othe.r people to him only w h et~ the sabbath was dearly over (Mk 1.32). They were-alr·ead)' complaining at his eating with ' tax-collectors and sinners•)< at r-.•tk 2.16. a behavioural ditlerence or the utnlOSI seriousoes.c:. Another behavioural difference is already indic.ated by the Marean nan-ator as e.arty as Mk 1.22. whe-re inhabitants of Capemaum were astonished at his te..aching in the synagogue: ~v ydp o.oOoK(.)Vo:Ut oUc; ~ (~ouolav Exwv Kal oUx oi ypa~po:n'i~. These diiTe.rences are such a..c: to fnake early c.onllic.t unremarkable. r-.•toreover, reasons have often been given for supposing that the Marc-an narrative is not altogether in chronologic-al order. Papias is supposed to have noticed already that it is not in an original order (Eus. H . E. 111,39,1 5). Mark does not appear to have known the length of the historic ministry, a defect which Luke the historian was unable to comet. If they did llOt k1ww the Jeogth of the ministry, they are not like-ly to have got everything in chrooological order. Several aspect-c: of Je$US' minis-try are acc-Ordingly arranged topically. rather than in an historic.al order. In Mark. the proportion of parables inCh. 4. and of eschatological h~.;tching in Cb. 13. cannot re.as(mably be regarded a..:; a relleclion ofrwo single oocasions in the life and teaching of Jesus.

35. Ca:>cy, Artlmuk Sourc:t>s ofMurk:., Gosptl: .--\ramait: Approocil to(!: Cross.Jey. Dute. 36. f()( delaiiOO discu~~i<>n of Matk 2.23- 3.6, !lee Ca~cy. AIY.Imuic Sow•t·~ of,Hark's Gi1sptl. pp. 138-92. 37. CM 1hcsc l~mls, sec C:.llcy,Aranwic Approoch to Q. l>t>. 1!7--42.

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

I61

l11e san'le has ofteo been remarked of the c.onllict-S(Ories <'H r-.•tk 2.1- 3.6. Too many of them are in a single place for us to believe both lhat they aU happened at once, and that the-1-e was relatively little conllict with his most serious oppOneutl. for the rest M the-n'l inilO try, wit11just the one more really se-rious incideot io therelatively t1ear fu(ure (Mk 3.22-3 1). TI1ere are l'tll)r"e<~.Wer some signs of concentric. armngemem in this collection. The collection begins and ends with the. healing of a par.-.1ytic, \!Jhich in both cases i11VOives argument \\'ith opponents. In the present state or the c.ollec.tion, the iirs.t story also includes an allegation of blasphemy (Mk 2.7), which as a technical legal offence carried the death penahy. a view of blasphemy which scribes might be expected to hold: the last story ends with counsel to put Jesus to de.th (Mk 3.6).

We now have enough to underswnd the. c.omposition of the proposed Aramaic. source. of r-.•fk 2.1-12. It was brier, because of 1he-conditions uJ'Ider \!Jhich it was wriuen d0\\1n. It explic-itly p011rays Jesus' extreme hostility to his mos-t serious opponents (vv. Sb-9). It does 1101 say that this is the beginning of this hostility. It was 11ot wriuen in its preseot position in Mark's Gt)Spel. Consequently, its author(s) assumed thm everyone would know about this serious quarrel, and took this quarrel for granted. 01'1C.e we dt) the sa1ne-. the presence M the scribes, and the shill fmm .... 6a to v. Sb, bOOt)!Ue intelligible-. The scribes we.J-e the-re to see what Jesus was up to. like the Pharisees at Mk 3.2. Their hostility was blindingly obvious. which is how Jesus came to let fly at them with vv. 8~9. We must now re-turn h) the contetlt of v. 9. We h.ave ah-e-ady seen that ?'7p, 'light'. was used to mean ' unimportant', and that it C.t)ufd be t1sed in a legal serL:;e a.o;; the opposite of , Olil. 'heavy•, of judgeme-nts whic-h we-re relatively le-oient, tW regulations which were of relatively less imponance. We have also seen that. from Jesu.:;' perspective, the answe.r to his question was ·neither•. The first poior is a repetition of what he had already done, pronounced the lbrgiveness/removal or the man's sins. l11e-pa.:;sivc lj7Jn ~Z~ is used indirectly or the ae~ i on of God. 1he autht)l' or lhe fOrgiveness/renltwal of the man's sins. I discuss the broader semantic area or this wotd in et)nsidering the original interpretation or v. 10. The second point tells everyone-. and most notably the. paralytic, what Jesus is going to do next. He is going to tell the man to get up, take up his maure-ss and walk. This prepared the. man for the centre of the healing event, when he would aclllally do so. The-pressure on the man to do as he was lold was now e-xtremely strong. He had been brought to Jesus in extreme circumstance-s, carried on his mattress by four people who dug through the roof of the. house. They must therefore ha\•e been c01winced that Jesus could heal him, and would now be.around him. e~pecting the healing to happen. The mao would hardly have agreed to I his process, unless he be-lieved this too. Jesus' assurance that God had forgiven his sins, which is effectively repeated in this verse, will have. raken the necessary we.ight off his mind. He now knew whnt he would have to do next: get up. take up his mattress and walk, when Jesus told him to do so.

162

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

The hostile scribes have also been told \\'hat Jesus will do next and it is this which explains the fonn Md mode of expre~.:;sion of v. 10. There is no very precise Aramaic equivalent of 'lva &&. r\trate that the man's sins have beet~ forgiven. At one leveL that is directed at hostile scribes. At the same time. this sentence is also pt)we.rfUIIy directed at 1he man himself. h tells him/or the third time

that his sins have been forgiven. This, in a drastically shon naJT'.llive-. underlines the profundity of Jesus' belief in the ExplanatOI)' r-.~todc l expounded abo,•e: he percei,red that this man was p::.rnlysed bec::.use he was overburdened by his sins. The w::.y that Jesus put it this third time has caused interpreters endless trouble. c.entrod on the •enn 'Son of man', generally treated as a title of Jesus alone. Ft)r example, Gnilka declares: ' Ocr Menschens.ohntitel rllckl dann deshalb hicr e.iu, \Veil Jesus an die Stelle Gmtes tritt und - vom Standpunkt diese-r Oberlieferung aus - g6nlic.he Privilegien am ehes-ten mit diesem Prlidikat zu vethinden waren. •Js This has often been re.ad back into the pa~si\o·e declarntions of the. forgiveness of the n1an's sins in vv. 5 an-d 9. For example. in showiog knO\IJiedge of the divine passive. ~·lnrcus seeks to undermine it he.re: But 'ate for&i\'cn' i ~ 1>robahty 1W>l jus1 3 di\•inc IK•ssivc in the M:.rksn comc:\t . .. the scribe~ imcqwt ' >·our ~i ns arc forgiven' 3~ a cl:.im th3t J c!ius hi m~tfh3s 1hc power of 11b!OOiu1ion~ s nd nn~·ily tcjcct 1his cbim . .. The Matknn Jesus docs 1101 dmw bscl: from the impticstioo of ncar-divinity 1ha1 gh·cs ri~ 10 Lhis obj t-clion.~'-'

The use of the Son of Man Concept has the funher problem that Jewish doc-uments whic.h use the term •s.o1l of rnan·of an exalted figure do uo t mention his forgiving sins. Scholars have frequently sought to meet this diOiculty by reiC1Ting h) Dao. 7.13.¥J But in this text 'one like a son of mao' is giveo authority as a symbol of God granting victory to the Jewish people and power over their enemies. There is nothing in it to c.ause Jesus 10 U.!:e the tenn (~)IV;(~) u in respect of the fOrgiveness of si1lS. If he had been so peculiar, no one would have caught the •-efere.nc.e, but as usual there is no sign of puzzlement as 10 what he said. This line of interpretation has also c.aused problems over the pOSition of this \'e.rse in the Gospel of Mark. It ha.:o ofteo boeo argued that it comes too e.arly in this Gl)Spel. This view pres1.1pposes that 'Soo of man' is a m e~ iani c title. II should therefore not be used before Pe.ter's coniCssioo at Caesarea Philippi, when some scholars believe that Jesus began to re.veaJ his mes..:oiahship to his disciples. It has also been argued that it is doubly problematic that Jesus uses the term here in public:- . Mk 2.28 is equally problenuuical for this view, and for the sarne-reasons. This view also generally presupposes tha• Peter's con fes.~io n was a real event. despite the problems which this entails for the use of 38. 39. 40.

Gnilk:.,McJrk11s. p. 101. M:.tculi:, Mark. pp. 2t6. 222. E.g. Gundry. Mart p. 119: M:ttcus. Mark, 1>1>. 22:2- l .

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

163

the actual word •messiah•. Similar c.oncems have led some scholars ro believe that this is not a saying of Jesus. but a comment by Mark to the reader:' ' This despite.the. fact that Mark never addresse-s the re.ader in this extraordinary way elsewhere (Mk 13.14. the nearest parallel. is infinitely d eare-r): and that vv. 9 and II are sayi1lgs of Jesus. and Mark g i ve~o;; no indic-ation th.al v. 10 involves such an abrupt change. All the--Se problems arise from studying this verse in Greek. in the light of Christian tnldition. From dtese habits comes the wlu)Je idea that 'Soo of rna1\' is a messianic title in this wrse. and refers to Jesus atone. All tJ1e other problems How fi'o n-1these assumptions. To rc.c.over what Jesus originally meant, \\'e rnusl set Christian tradition aside. and study the saying in Aramaic: , j'j;n ;J':!Li.':J'? N'"\"- ";;; Kt!JK 1::b iO'xt!i l'G1;:ro

.,.-r:h '?~ 101;; ";p~· .1'?

:;Jl( T.,'>

,Olji . I I

The sayin_g C-1H1s with Je~o;;us' orders to the mao to ge-t up, take up his ntallrel\S and _go home. where he had recently been c.ared fot as a paralytic. It IOitows lhat tl~re is a sense in which v. I0 rerers to the power or Jesus in paJ1icular. At the same tjme, \\'C have-seen that this idiomatic. use of (~)\73(~) 1~ also has a general level of meaning. This has been at the c.enlre of uaditional objections to any Aramaic. e::&W, "1W, aod ci4l1~vat. none of which is a precise le'-lltl equi\•aleru to the English ' forgive'. Firstly. then. the limited nature of the general level of meaning. We have seen that this can be very genera1, and that people. and texis may be inte.rested partially or primarily in this gene.ral level of meaning. 'This is however very unusual. Many e..umples of this idiom are primarily about the speaker. or about other people made. clear by the context. We have see.n that. at the extreme end of the spectn1m. a speaker may generalize. from his own experience, and imagine that what is 1.111e for him must be true for at least some other people too:u Tile majoril)' of examples lie between these two extreme-~.; . They are primarily about the speaker. and the.y assume a generaJ le.vel of me-aning which includes a social subgroup of people. not the whole of humanity. This example is nom1al. but heading towards one. extreme end of the spectrum. It is primarily about Jesus. a.o;; his healing or1he man demonstrates. h also indudes a restricted group of pe-ople \Vho nlay also pronounce the fo rgiveness of sins. In the nature of the ca.~;e, ' hese people are nm defined. When I have dis.cus..;;cd the semantic area.~; ofp:&il. ~,w, Md ciq..Evoo. we shall see that to some extent healers must be included. for only so could they perform heaJings

4 1.

For alllhcsc-points.SC'ee.g. W. L Lunc-. The Go.wd ofMurk(Loodon: Mnrsh.1IL ~-torgan

& Soon, 1974). pp. 96--?.

42. E.g. H. Anderson. The Grupttl ofMark (NCtl. Loodoo: Oliphams. 1976). p. 102: Booker, Mm·k, ,,, 87. 43.

SCi! p(). 69-70 abov~.

164

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

for which this wns the approprime Explanatory ~·lode I. We. have seen this already at 4Q242 .~.. This is quite sufiicient for the gene-r al IC\·el or meaning assurned by the idiornarie use of (~)1.9J(K)

""'J.

We must note also 1he vigorous way in which

this power is asserted in the-middle or a cooflict situation. Jesus was not saying

something which he e:tpected everyone to know and ac.cept already. I turn h) the senlantic areas of these three-words. TI1e-Greek word ci41tEva:t has a large semMtie area: it is not prirnarily an e.quivalem o f l he English word ' IOrgive'. In the New TestaU\ent alone-, the~ are tcxb1 in which it appn)ximates to English words such as ·allow', ·pennit' (e.g.. Mt. 3.15}, 'leave (e.g. Mk 1.1 8,20), 'ab.i.odor\' (e-.g. Mk 14.50), ·send away', 'dismiss' (e.g. f>.·lt 13.36). 'divorce' (e.g. I Cor. 7 . I I). It is as part of this massive semantic area that it is appropriate fOr cancelling a loan ( Ml. 18.27) or debt (ML 18.32), iuc.luding cancelling deb1s as a metaphor for th-e forgiveness of sins. h is used in this wa)' in the Lord's prayer, where we ask

God to fOrgive/undo/remove our sins. and dedare that ,,re_s imilarly forgi velufKio/ remove those who are. inde.bted 10 us. a metaphor for other people who have done us wrong (ML 6. 12//Lk. 11.4). Similar C.OI'tunent.s apply to the Aramaic PJ;.1• This is well auested long before the time of Jesus. It approximates to English word-.; suc.h as 'allow', 'pen·nit' (Cowley 30 line 23). 'lea,•e' (Ahiqar I 75), 'abandon' (Ahiqar I76), ·tel alone' (Ezra 6.7). Within this broad se.mantic area it can mean to remit a de-bt (1-\TNS 35.5), and it is used twice-in the-De.ad Sea scrolls ofthe-101'£_ivenel0." of s ins (4Q 242; I IQ IO XXXVJJJ.2). h is abundanti)' atteste.d in later Aramaic and Syriac with a large-semantic area on the same lines. In Syriac. it C-t)ntjnued to be u$00 on its own ofthe fi.)rg_iveness of sins. h is natunllly used io this '''ay hen:: by pesh hark. as it is used in the Lord's prayer (Mt. 6.12 cur pesh hark; lk. 11.4 sin cur pesh hark) and elsewhe-re. Hence I have used it here. li.w it is abuodantly auested befi.)re and after

the time of Jesus. and it is used of remo\ring sins. twice in the. Dead Sea scrolls and abundantly later. In late-r Jewish Aramaic it is attested of the fOrgiveness of sins in particular only together with ·,w. to which I tum next. This is aueste.d befOre 1he time of Jesus with the me-aning •retca.-.;e' (Sefire 111, 18), 'undo' (4Q 203 viii 14) aod hence ·sol"e> (Oa1l. 5.12,16), a..~ well as ro 'dwell ', both literally ( IQapGen XXII,I 3)and melaphotie.ally (Dan. 2.22). II is abundantly aucs1ed in late-r Jewish Aramaic, whc1-e

its even bro;~der semantic area occasionally includes reference to the forgiveness of si1K For ex~un ple. at y. Shevi 4,2112 (35b) il is used twice with re. lerenc~- to R. Tarphon forgiving people who struck him. once when they a~k him to and once when he says be bas done so. 1t conti1lued in widespread use in Syriac. including

references to the absolution of sins. It will be evident rronl the above distribution of these l\\'0 \\rords d1at j1J :;.i is 1'1-rue.h the more likely word to have been used by Jesus in first-century Galilee. Its brood

semantic. area is of fundamental importance. How could a healer heal someone su!Tering from paralysis of P-">'Chosornatic origin? Only by doing son1ething

h)

relieve the psychosomatic c-ause of this illness. What then if the Explanatory Model 44.

Sec Pt).

ISl--4 3t)I)\'C.

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

165

discussed above was the appropriate one, and the man was overburdened with a consciousness of sin? Somehow or other, that burden had to be lifted. Jesus has already atteruptOO this twice-. with the reassuring l'J ln 1i'JJ'VOi~ , direcl(~d first at the man and subsequently at Jesus' oppone-rlls. As we have seen. the passive refers to the ac.tion of God in forgiving the man's sins. A( the same time, the.broadersernantic. area of v~l.!i prepa~s for the more se lf~.ent red staterne-•H of f>.•lk 2. 10. I have already noted that the forgiveness of sins by God could be referred to in a context of this same Explanatory ~·lode! of illness with an actiw pa.1iciple in the pluraJ (b. Nt!d 41a).a$We now have a third attempt 10 express God's activity. with the idiomatic u.~e o f(:-:)1.9~~) -a. Tile-reason for puuing it this wa)' \\'as Jesus' central role in the healing e.vent, whic-h he \\'as about h) demonstrate. It gave vety po,verful reassurance to the man that he had done the. right thing. in coming to Jesus personally. since Jesus had the power to undo his sins himself, as he and the man must now demonstrate. The term~~ facilitates this way or puujng it, bec.ause of its broad semantic are~'!. It also penn its the general level of meaning which is an essential facet of this idiom. This genemJ leYe-1of meaning assumes that more people than JeslL~ should haYe. had the ability m undo the effects of sin in the case of psychosomatic illnesses for whic-h the Explanatory Model used here was appropriate. This must to some extent have been the case, because. as we.have seen. both Essenes and Therapeutae were involved in the healing of what we would call psychosomatic illness, and the. Explaoatory ~'1odel accordjng w \"hich illness was caused by lhe sick person•s; sins was a biblical and \\'ell-koown rnodel. I low \\'C-11 aware Jesus was of the detailed behaviour of other heaters we do not know. He may haYe been genernliling from his ow'n experience. In that ease. the agg,res.:;ive way he expressed himself wa.:;; due to his abilities be.ing denied by his opponents, and perhaps not generally ;.tccepted by other people. We know that he accepted the ability of other exorcists. even though he. \Vas the most able exorcist of his time. known to us. ~,; He rna)' \\•ell have delibe.rately sought todemonstr:ue that God enabled people to undo the effects of sin upon illness to a muc.h greater degree than people realiled. This is explicit in the editorial work of Matthew. who has the crowds glorify God because he had giwn such power to men (Tole; tiv9pc.inou;. ML 9.8). lloweve.r sec.ondary thjs editi1lg was at a literary level. it is cuhurally accurate in recognizing the geneml level of meaning implied by Mk 2. 10. It is alw implicit in seoding, the disciples out on a healing minilitry (Mk 6.7, 13,30), sinc.e cases of illne-ss fOr which the same Explanatory Model was approp1iare are likely to have been encour1tered. In due c~lur:ie the ro..,;·er to fOrgive sins was taken O\'er by the church. without any particular connection with the. healing of illness (Joho 20.23, cf. lk. 24.47). The. phrase En'1 11)c; y% has bee1l (roublesonle-. h is l)l\\itted by W b q, and it is in a di tl't1~nt place in dilferent manusc-ri pt~. so it rnig,ht be a gh).»S. I have follo\Ved the.order of words in f>R' :.: C 0 and several other manuscripts: i nl n)'; yijc; ci¢>uival 0:1JapTiac;. This is a good combination of ancient witnesses. Metzger prefers ciq11ivcn iQ.JapTiac; En'1Tiic; ~with B 0 pc. eommentjng: that this 'rtp•~se•1tS tl1e-prirnitive. 45. 46

Se-e 1,· 152: above. Casey; Aramaic Approodero Q. pp. t64- 13.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

166

Aramaic order of words, which was re-arranged perhaps for subtle e:\:egeti(:al reasons. by copyists wlU) produc.ed the other re.adings.· ~ ? H e does not however specify reasons for regarding this a~ the primitive Aramaic order of words. nor does he explain the subtle exegetical reasons. It is in fac.t dinicuh to accouot fOr all the-scribal changes as deliberate. where.as they might all represem reasonable reactions to a marginal gloss the position of which \ !laS not obvious. I have I«
follows: rJm PJ ~i?l; !(!;1K 7:; s.•zlJK 1J 7 lti7W. I Jere it is most natural to take Nli1K?!; dl)Selywitlt KIV:!X u . Eve!')'l)tle agreed that God in hea\·en could remove sins as he saw fll: Je.~us asserted that i11 dtese circunL~t:utces a human being t)ll eart11 could retnove sins as weU. I canno• see anyd1ing wrong wilh lhis Anunaic. Me12ger•s commems imply the following Ararnaic: ~,~ 7li f5m ¥-J~rb xiilJK , J? iU?iii. Titis is perfectly satisfactory Aramaic which c.ontrnsts God forgiving sins in heaven with the heating activities, including the removal of sins, taking place dow·n here on earlh. If we do fOllow the order of words which I have proposed, we couJd 1re.al1he rt
8. Th e Healing E''ellt

The word of command is the.n gi,ren to the man at v. I I. I have supposed that the words AEyu T~ rra:paAunK~. which have so often been used tocar\'e the. whole narrative into two pieces, are a secondary gloss. They were intended to mark the poim at which Jesus turned from addressing. people in gene.ral and his opponents in particular. and addressed the paralysed man in particular. The word of command requires him to use all his main limbs. since he has to walk and c.arry something. This i.s lhe point of getting him 10 go home. ralher than to sil and join lhe crowd. The crowd reac.ts in a standard Jewish way to a henJing event by being amazed .and glorifying God. This implies that events of this kind had not been taking place ifl Capernaum rnuch in ~c.ent ti1lles, which is rea.t;onable eoough. It is SOII\elin•es c.onsidered problematic that tJ1e hostile se.ribes should be suddenly convened. .and then relapse without waming in the following story..ti We should nol interpret the word 'all' so lite-rally. It obvious ly means most people., in Aramaic.or in Greek, aod no other possibility will have occurred to ~·lark or to his brief source. It is more importanl lhat 1here is oo fl)llow-up repor1, as always in our Gospels. Some.people.with psyc.hosomatic ailments suffer relapses. We.ha\'e no idea whether 1his man's cure was pennanent, l)r not Two negmive points must be made. Firstly, the general level of meaning of the Son or man saying does um irnply lhat Jesus wa.l) an ordi t~.ary pe-rson just like aoy other. The social subgroup of people who might exercise this powe.r was obviously

47.

B. M. ~kiZS~'f. A Te.\11UJI Ccmummrary otl the Gn!tk N~w Ttstamt'lll (Swindon: UBS.

48.

E.g. Maf"C'll:i. Marl:., p. 2t9.

197t). l). 78.

The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.'

167

small. Jesus wns concerned co demonscrate thai a human being could exercise. this power. not to e-xpect e.\·eryone to exercise it. The general level of meaning does however imply that Jesus was a human being. not God. This is natuml within Jewish Ye-1)'

mono! heism. Sec-Ondly, Jes-us• u.o;e.of the Explanalory f\•lodel according to which !his man's illness w·a s due 10 his sio does not imply !hat Jesus belie.ved chat all illnesses

,,.·ere due to sin. This is especially cle.ar in the case of his exorcisms. These assume a quite ditlerent ExpJanalory t-.
was due to possession by one or more demons, not to their sins.

9. Ctmdusions

The. following conclusions may therefore be drawn. The Son of man saying at Mk 2.10 is part of a true-narrative or a real healing event. lo its present fonn, the Marean narrative has some sec-Ondary glosses, \Vhich I have been abJe to remove.

The combination of our increasing modern knowledge of psychosomatic illness with some details ofMark's story enable us to inter thal the man was sulltring from

pamlysis of psychosomatic origin. The. Explanatory Model used by Jesus in this case was a 1Hwmal biblical one. acoordiog 10 whic-h the man's illness \Vas caused by his

sins. Jesus therefore began with the forgiveness of sins. The. narrative is secondary a1 the point where the scribes are supposed to have objected to this in their hearts,

but the whole story makes sense only if there were hostile scribes really present The Son or man saying comes at the climax of 1he stOI)'. It i ~ the s.taodatd idiom

of a general statemenc which refers espec-ially to che speaker. The general level of meaning as.~umes 1ha1 Jesus' pow·e r \WL~ at least pote.ntiaHy available to othe-r human

beings. At the same time it was a real reference to himself in pac1ic.ular, and it was he who actually exercised the power to heal. The narrative ends by recording the. success of the healing event It foiiO\VS thai chis Son M man saying muS-t be classilied \\'ith lhose already

studied in Ch. 4. as a genuine SJ)~ng of Jesus in which he used a panicular Ammaic idiom.

Chapter Six

JACKALS HAvE HoLES (MATrHEW 8.19-20//LuKE 9.57-58) The Son of rnan saying at Mt. 8.20//lk. 9.58 is vctbally identical in Ma.uhew and luke. It follows that it was taken from Q tn.aterial which ' "as transmiHed iu C. reek. II

ha.:; a brief introducrio1l, the first part of which varies c.onside-rably between Mauhew

and Luke. who have in common the imponant point that someone else began the conversation by addressing Jesus. Apan from the addn."Ss cSuSci:m.·lmthew aod Luke. It •oo, therefore, was

pa11 of the- Q material '''hich

,~,~as transmiued in

Greek. I have also reconstructed most of the ope11ing M M L 8. 19, and I de rend the

probability that this too was pan of Q. and was edited by Luke. The immediately preceding conte:tl of these two verses is quite different in the two evangelis1s. Each of them has e\'idently edited this Q material into its pre.senl positions, which are also quite.different in ~·latthew and luke. The ne:tt saying and aoother iotroduclory declaration frofn another person ( Mt 8.21-221/lk. 9.59-60) are suOkiently similar in Mau1lew and Luke-fOr ·us to infer that this too was pa11 of the

Qmaterial in G11..~k The two incidents have in common a comment by a potential djsciple and an offputting or critical response. by Jesus. Luke- has a 1hird such incident (lk. 9.61-62). These throe incidemsare not Of'~anically c-Onnected. and the

immediately following contexts in Mauhew and Luke are completely different from e-ach other. It follows that the broader c.ol)text io the two e.\laogelists is indevant h) the original interpretation of these incidents. and that the collection of them into one

Qpassage is probably secondru)'· While aJithree might possibly have belonged to a period immediately preceding one. migratory mission, only this very general point unites the meaning of the three sayings. Ac-cordingly, I reCOilStruct and discuss io detail the Aramaic source of tv1t 8. 19-201/Lk. 9.57-58 alone. I propose the fo lh)wiu_g rec-OJ'L.,truc.tion of this panMthe Anunaic.sourc.e t)fthe Q

passage: rm:'t ~~;;; .,~ :.:;1 i'Tii i!;'i; wx ~·7~m .~-w ;;7 "\UK' .7.~:;; 110 1i.-c ~M . ,~, . i~o on :fi "ll!X1 .;;:: :7;:.·., 11~:-·o l"' ;i·;

·n•K ~7 ;:m" ;::';;

Alld a scribe said whim. ' Rabbi, I will come after you to whereve-r ~0.1 go. • And J e~us sai d to him. •Jackal ~ have holes :md the bin:ls of hcavenfthe sky h:w..- fOOSIS.. and :t (l!ho.' son of) man has nowhere to lay his h..-:ut '

The openings of these incidents have evidently undergone secondar)' editing by the evangelisL~. Luke's nop~uo~Evc:.:>v aUTwv is an especially cle.:.trexample.of lhis.

Jackals Htwe HfJli'.'S

169

Here. luke uses a word whi(.'h is very common in tJ1is Gospel ( rropnio~ot no less than 50 times) with 1he deliberate aim l)f integ:r~ujug his Q source into his narrative or the extraordioarily lengthy and static joumey which begins at Lk. 9.51 . Eq·ually, to.·l atthew has npoo~PXOIJO:I oo le$S than 52 times, includi1)g mher Q passages whereit imroduces a pe-rilon a1)d is abseil I from Luke (Mt 4.3; 8.5; 18.21 : 25.20,22,24), and passages where it has been edited into Markan narratives for the same purpose. (Mt. R.2; 17.14; 19. 16; 20.20; 27.58; 28.2). Tile probabili1y 1ha1 !his part o r his

introduction is also se(.'ondary is the-refore very strong. • M:mhew I have howeve-r reconstruc-ted i~O 1n from Manhew's t ,1c; ypaiJIJO TEVc;. normally takes YfXXIJIJOTEVc; from tradition. l uke never uses ypaiJpo:uU<; in the. singular: he sometimes removes it from tv1a.t. (Lk. 4.32; 18.3 I; 20.41 ; 23.35), or replaces it with VOIJIKOc; (Lk. 10.25. pl)SSibly from Q), and sometime:> he does not have ypaJ,JIJO:UUc;- in Q pa.llsages whe!'e Mauhe\V doe-~" (Lk. 11.39 ,42.44,47,49), and once more he. h.as VOIJIK6c; ins1ead (Lk. 11.52). luke migh1 well lhe-refol'e omit ypa~IJaTt:Uc; from his Q source, leaving him with three anaJogous incidents oonrerning pote-ntial disciples who are responded to somewhm sharply at the beginning of Jesus' lengthy journey. f>.·loreover, 1:>0 1n has an exceHent Sit;. im Lebm here. A sedentary sc-ribe is a very suitable person to feel a need to make this declaration., ;.111d that a sc.ribe should do so would be remarkable enough to be Lra.osmiued. The word 1n is simply the-Amrt\aic \\'Otd lOr 'OJ)e' used as an indelioite article. which \Vas c.onveo1ional. It has bee.n 1ranslated nann-ally with Elc;. \Vhich is not only i1s pennaneul equivalent as the numeral ·one'. bu1aiSt) used occ.asiooall>' a.o; the equivalem of an indefinite anicle. The sc:ribe might ' "ell also use 1he te.nn ~J""'. Matthew re1ains Pa~~' only to C.l'ilicize its use (ML 23.7-8). or 10 record it used by Juda.'> looking forward to his be-trayal of Jesus and carrying it out (Mt. 26 .25.49). Mauhew would therefore bewe11 moth•J3ovv1, he either omits i1 (llc 22.47. possibly c.hoosing to use a diiTerent so-urc.e), or ahers it to imotd-Ta (lk. 9.33) or KlipiE(lk. 18.4 1). I le would 1hererore be well motivated to alter or omil Pa:~l31, if he read it in his source. He would be less well motivate.d to omit 01liciaKaAe. I le lL'>es it I I times, both redactionally (l k. 11.45; 20.39) and in S)Je.cial lukal'l material (Lk. 3.1 2; 7.40; 12. 13; 19.39); one-example has probably beeo retaifled from Q (lk. 10 .25). He retains from Mark i1s u..;e b)' outside-rs (lk. 9.38; 18.18; 20.21.28), and alte-rs it h) i mot ciTa only when it is used by Jesus' disciples in general (Lk. 8-.24). or by Joho in par1iC\1lar (Lk. 9.49). Jle orllils it only at Lk. 18.21. abbteviating a s~ch b)' an outsider who has already used 61licioKaAE-al lk. 18. I8, and at Lk. 2 1.5, where he c.ornplelely removes unwanied direc1speech by a disciple. We should infer thai !he Q source.probably re,W pal3[31. h I'OIIows thal 1he Q opening edited by Manhew and luke probably read a.ll follo ws: Kc:it itc; ypaiJ~anUc; E1mv o:UT4 Pa:~l31, ciKoAouO~ow oo• Orrov iO-v &rripxn. l11e scribe's declaration is an ope.n profession of 'vould·be discipleship. h is significa1Hiy more 1han 1he ave-rage profe$Sion of discipleship to a rabbi as we lind

170

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

it in later rabbinic.al literature. Someone who decided to be a disciple of a particular rabbi, and \\'ho was accepted a.:; such, would expect (0 sit at •hm rabbi's J{>et, Je.aro

a great deal and pUl it into ac.tion. They would not however nonnaJiy expect to ha\•e to follow their rnbbi from p1ac.e to place. Here is the importance of the end of 1he sc-ribe's declar<'Hion: ; 11\m 1K7, eorrectly translated as Orrou E<Xv O.nipxn. This shows a clear awareness llt.:u the ministry was to some.extent migratory. so that more was involved than listening to and acc-epting the teaching of Jesus. The scribe must

have been aware that. in addition to Capernaum. Jesus had an extensive ministry in Chorazin and Be1hsaida. (ML 11.21//lk. 10. 13), and thou he we.nt throughl)Ul the h)wns and villages or Galilee (e.g. Mk 1.38-39; 6.6,56). Jesus' response, however, suggests that the scribe took it for granted that those whom they visited would give them sorne basic acc.on-unodation. as in Jesus' insti'Uctions to disciple$ whom he sent oul on missio1\ (Mk 6. 10 //Ml. 10. 11// Lk. 9.4). Jes-l)S denied this, making cle.ar the fragile nanue of daily life on the migrntory ministry. The Son of man saying with which he said this has however proved diHicult to interprel. I tum thereiOre to detailed discussion of the proposed Arnmaic. reconstruction. the only way in which to fit the saying into its original Sit~ im Lebt•n in the. ministry of the historical Jesus. I beg_irl w·ith the first anifnal Doth f\•latthe'" and Luke have ai ci:\WmK~c;. The a11icle is generic. and the animals referred 10 are. foxes. There is however no doubt 1hat the underlying Arnmait must have been ~~7:m, used he-re by the.Syriac ve-rsions and in the reconstructions of ~·leye r. Burney, Jeremias, Hampel and Schwarz..• In 1985, 1 poi1Hed out that ~""'7lin includes jackals, mel'nbers of the-spe.cies mnb· aureus. supponing this with secondary literature to both biblical animals and to the be-haviour of foxes and jackals.: Subsequently, howewr, most New Testament scholars have ignored this.' e.ven though it is the unanimous view of scholars wl10 have done serious resear<.".h into the identiticatiou and behaviour of biblical

I. Mcycr. ltlctrterspm. 195-9 (lntl\lduclioo 10 canids, by t-1. W.:-ndt). 23{1- 43 (Jackal ~. by D. MOUcrlJsing.. B. Gr2imck and H. Wendt). 24:)- 56 (Foxes, by A. POO\:r.~en. 1-1. Oad•c, D. Mtlller·Ulling a1ld H. Wendt): H. F. Ewer. 71te Cumiwu't's (loodoo: Wcidrofck1 and Nkolso.u.. 1973}. t>l,· 253-61 : E. P. Walkc-ut ul.• rc'V. J. l. Paradiso. Mammals oftht' m,rld (l.ondon/Baltirootc-: Johns Ho1)kin..~ 1975) vol. II. 1>1>. l t4&tr.• 'Csmh·ol".t: family: CANIDAE'.

J. E.g. D. A. Hugn~~r. Matthew J./J (WBC 33A. Dsllss: Word Boob, 1993}- t)p. 2 1 6-1 7~ Davies and Allison. Mal/hew. \'OI. 2: p. 42, eve-n while- llOiing ;.;'nm: J. Nolland. L•tk(' 9:11· J.t:.U (WBC 358. Dal la.~ : Wor-:1Books. 1993). p. 541. eve-n whik 1l01ing Csscy. 'hckals'.

I71

ani1nals. t'>'loreover, M. I L Smith, io. rejecting this su.gge-~o;tion, quite misrepn:sented it, cornmeming, 'Casey blur:-> behavitrural distinctions to make both appear a single. species to the Semitic m i nd ' .~ I did not use this antique concept or 'the Semitic. miod'. I gave s.unicie-nt bihliog:raphical data to indicate that ' j
any more. than speakers of English blur them when they refer to Alsatians and Pekes a.r; •dogs', ono foxes, jackals. hyenas, \VOives. and the like as 'wild dogs'. Speakers or all languages use soc-ially c-Orh'e-n icnt classifications, and \Ve rnay not assume that those of Aramaic speakers we-re the s.arne as ours. Jo view of these poinu. I present more of the evidence than I did previously. and hope that sdu)fars will be persuaded

to look at importam secondary literature rather than ignoring or misrepresenting main points. Smith also refe-rs to the l lebrew o•m as 'jackals', bui he does not justify his a$sun1ption that it~ sen1antic area was c.onfined to j ackals ar1d did not include wolves. nor does he give reason to believe that il was in use in Ammaic, which it was not Whether there \\•as already a precise Aramaic wotd tOr j ackals is \Jnc.ertain. The llebrew o•m is Mrrnally rer1dei'Od with some fOn1'1 of 111~ in both P~hiua aod Targum (IS>. 13.22; 34. I3; 43.20: l<; Ps. 43.20 (MT 44.20); oEtpijw; IS>. 34. I3; 43.20; Jo)b 30.29; o rpov6ol Jer. I0.22; 30.28 (MT 49.33). II may thereli>re be that 1'""11"1' was the tenn for jackal$ in Aramaic already at the time ofJesus. Tili$ does not -undermine the identilicatil)n of x·?.m as indudir1g both fo:-.es and jackals. As Tristram noted: 'The llebrew word undoubtedly includes the j ackal (Cauis autY!us), as we.Uas the fox (Vu/pes 1·ulsaris). lndei:d, in most of the passages where it oc.curs. the jackal ratl1er than the fox is intende.d, as rna>' be see11 from the context. TI1e

Hebrew shu'al, Arabic-jukal. the Persian slragul. and the Eng1ishjacka/. are all the same word ... But the two animals are commonly confounded by the natives of Syria. though they are perfectly aware of their distinctness ... The nati\'e..S of the. East discriminate very linle between Lhe two animals, or rather look on the fox as a small and inferior species of j ackal. Indeed the.ir appearaw::e-to a cursory l)bse.rver is ve.ry sifuilar, the jackal having its fur of paler colour. or yellowish rather 1han n."<
4. 5.

M. 1-1. Smith. •No Pl:1cc fM :1 Son ofM:m', Forum 4 (19&8). pp. 8J- t07 (89). Tti.>lrnm. Narmul Hislory•. pp. &5, t10.

172

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

example, Sam son is said to h
not vety plausible. but its author and audience are likely to ha,1e had jackals in

mind because they can be found in packs. Again, the psalmist declares that his enemies Pii' a·7li"W ru?l ( P.:;. 63.11). The image is or a pack Mjac.k als eating c:a1Tion (Tg. -x··?:m. pesh :\':nm, lXX Ps. 62. 11
particular. The import.'Uil poiru fi.)r unde-l'staoding Jesus' -lL'>e of thisimage isthat these animals were well enough known, and that they have relevant behavioural characteristics in co.urnon. In particular, the>' hunt at night. and take cover during the day. h is when they lake cover during the day that they use all sons of caves, thickets and crannies 10 rest in. 11lus God's oamral creation pro"ides r 1 '\11 tOr 1\....,~n all the time. When both animals mate and have their young. they frequently take over the burrows of other animals to create deus fOr this temporary peril)(). Thus even these r1m c.ould readily be thought of as provided by nature fl)f ~·7:.m. It makes no difference that there is some w1cerhlinty over the Aramaic 'vord tOr these holes. l11e word 1m is fOund in biblical l lebrew for hole, i ncluding a lions' den at Nah. 2.13. It is derived fro m Akk. l! urm, and used in Syriac::. h is therefOre a reasooable possibility. and was used here by Je.remias aod I lampe I. as by palsyrfec at Mt. 8.20. The te.r•n l<>"ll~ was used by palsyrlec Lk. 9.58, and in the roooostruction of Burfley. b ut it seems tt) have been more.commonly used of wells, cisterns and other pits. Another possibi lity might be f~PJ, used by sin cur pesh hark i n both texts, and common in Syriac. This is used in the reconstruction of Schwarz, who quotes also Tg. Ezek. 28. 13, bl.lt this reference appears incorrect, so this word appears to be Syriac-speci(k . Whiche\•er word gave the translator reason to pUl rrot (II. A. IX,44.630a). which j ackals are not. Hence soggesl iOilS such as 'stoat', or 'cive,f .6 All this e\•idence fit~ together pe-rfectly: ci~c.lmKEr; was a good translation of ~·7!7n, and there was no reasonable alte.rnarjve-.

6. A. L Peck {cd. and trans.). Aris.tot/1!'. His.turicr Animalium (LC L .; vots.~ london/ Cambtidgc, Mass:.chusct~S;; 1-lcincm:mn/Harvard University. 1965), voL 2: pp. 377-8~ 0 . M. Balmc (cd. snd trllllS.}. Arislotle. Hi:>tOJ)' ofAnimals., Books VII- X (Cambridge. Mcm:nchtlS('IIS: Ha~·:ud Univcrsi1y, 1991}. p. 387.

173

The next creatures referred to are birds. They are a quite different class of

creature, massively common, and conventionally described with refere nce to where frol'l1 an eanhbound pe..s;pecLi\'e they c-~.)uld reasonably be pe.rceived t t) belong. Schwarz omits this \\'Ord, which is absent frOI\l Tilotnas 86. 10 give him a ' Zw eihe-ber ' appropriate 10 his 'K iagdied-Rhythmus ( 3 + 2 lle-bungen)'J This reasoning should not be accepted. Tile- term ~P~W has an exce.lleln Sit~ im U he11 ~'lliV,

here, where it prepares for the fact that this massive number of creamres who do not even live on the e.anh are still provided by nature with somewhere to go. The. absence of the term from a Coptic version of this saying written so much later is too weak as 1exrual evilk!nce to be of any real significance. The as..~crtioo 1hat we have a •Ktagelied·Rhydut)u.S (3 +- 2 llebungcn)' is quite atbitrary, and contrary to the 1cxt as it stands. We then c.ome to a quite c-ruciaJ word=KCXTaOKflvc.low ; in Greek= for whic-.h I have roooostructed l'lJihl io Aramaic. The major pOint which is ea.~y to \'eril)' is that Ka t aaKT)vc.la< are 1101 ' nests' . The Aramaic lOr 'nests' would be l'lP. for whic.h any reasonable translator would have put vooa 1cic;. using the standard and straig:luforwa.td Greek word lOr nests. It is therefore quite extnlordinar)' that

Bumey, Je.remias and Schwarz should all have used rrw, that l la.m pel should have continued with it live years after I had pointed this out, and that Smith, after quoting

reconstruction, should nonethe.les.s make the nesting of birds important for his interpretation.t(

Ill)'

r D:oh:l is exactly the. c.orrt."'(:t \VOrd to rec·OI'IStruct is subject to slight uncertainty, but makes no significant dillerence. h is a "'eJI.auestOO wt)rd both in biblical lle.brew and in later Ar.uuaic. At Ezra 7. 15 it refers h) God's d"'elling in Jerus.alen1, and it has been restored as pldo at I Eu. 89.36, " 'hC:J'e it refers ro the Tabemacle. In 1he Hebrew Bible, d1e singular p V.o is alrt\OSt always used or Gl)d's Wh edu~r

dweUing. but this is probably due to the content of the Hebrew Bible, that is to say. the reference of the word rather than its meaning in either Hebrew or Aramaic. The. same. fac.tor will have affected the usa~,e of the LXX. which nonnally renders it with OKflV~ or cm)vw~o:. both of which are from the same root as KaTO:OK~vwmc;. KO:TaCKflV6(.) in the LXX almost always renders the llebte\1/ p \if (mol'e than 50 times), and like\vise the Aramaic pit at Dan. 4.19 Theod. pldo is rendered with KO:TaaKrlvc.JOt~ at Ezek. 37.27 LXX, aod by Symruachus at Ps. 45(46).5 and Ps. 48(49). 12. Thus it seenB to me to be the best choice, and it-:: translation with Ko:t aoKr}vc.JOuc; in this context is sound and comprehensible.') It is bo,vever possible that pldo was too ch)Sely associated \1/ith God's: d\velling

and not in normal usage in a general sense, and it is not the only word which Jesus might have.used here. r ?7.m is used here at tvlt 8.20 by pesh sin c.ur, at Lk 9.58 pesh

cur. and suitably elsewhere in later Ammaic, and ~·leyer used it in his recons1ruction. 1. Schw3n, Menscllelrsclm. p. 190. 8. Burney. Ponry, pp. 132. 169: Jcrc-nl ias. New Tes/tWit'llt '111eolos:r. p. 23: li ~Ullt>el. MeiUCI!rosolrn. p. 227: Schwarz.. Memdrensohn. p. 191: Smjth, 'No Plac~·• csp. p. 89. 9. This .sc~Jil$ 10 b:.vc been acccp1;:d e.g. by Oavks :.nd Altiso.~L Maul!ew. vol. 2~ ~l. 42; Nolland. Luk~. ,,. 538.

174

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

The singular tt?u11 is used in the senlte of 'roM' in a documellt of 408 BCE. 111 The \'e.rb 7?1:' is round at Dan. 4.9, and the noun 77o (or possibly the verb) at l iQTg Job XXVI11.7 (Job 36.29) atld probably at I £11. 4. At Oa11. 4.9 Tileodotion rendered 77o with KaTaOKI)v0(.) (LXX oKu:i:~(..)). It is therefOre possible that ??ui'l Y.•as io use io

the Aramaic. of our period wilh lhe required meaning. and if this was the c.ase> the rendering KataOKflvc:.)ow; would have beetl sound. AtlOther pOSSibility is 1"'110. This is used a1 Dan. 2.11; 4.22,29; 5.2 1 and I IQTg Job XXXII.S (Job 39.6), \\'here it renders the l le-bre\1.' pii/i'l, as \\'ell as in later IlebrC\1/ and Targumic Aramaic. In this context a translator might have used kO:TOOKflvc.low; rather than the perhaps more likely KO:TOtKio:1 used by Theodotion (Dan. 2.11 ; 4 .22,29; 5.2 1: of these examples, the LXX translates the equivalent of our ~
simi far kO:TOIK11n}p10V). These details are not signilicant. The important point is that KO:TO:OKT)vWow;: c.annot be nests, that this word is a translation ofp~W;:. or j LL~t pos.~:; i bl y 01le of these other Aramaic words. and that this makes excellent sense with referent-e to the places where birds roost, as they do all the tirne, not just their nests, whe~ ll1e-y spend a relatively limited period or their liv~ rearing the-ir young. It is at this point lhat the beha\•iour or birds in Israel becomes importaol. Palestine was a majl)r llyway for cemuries before and after the time of Jesus. Most of lhe. birds seen there we.re migratOr)' - they stopped on the-ir way over to n)l)St, not to build nest<; and rear ll1eir young. Afnong the mat1y spec.ies native to Israel. Caosdale omed the-lesser Kestre-l, which 'tr.wels in large Hocks and 1'00SIS in hundreds, io suc.h COilSpic.uous plac.es as the trees round Cape.rnauo'l. ' 11 Here again. what the birds have got was provided by God in the ordinary course of namre. and it was provided for them as tJ1ey moved about the countryside. All this will have been a matter of common everyday observation for 1he-Jews in Jesus• e.nvironment. and it is this which provides the situational background against whic.h we.c.an see both the general fe\•el of meaning of the saying and the applic.ation of it to his migratory ministry. At the general level. th-e pr-ovision M J'e$1ir,g-places 1\)r lbxesfjackals and birds is contrasted with •he Jack of such provision for people. who have to build houses to ho.n·e anywhere to stay. A similar perspective on the divine provision for animals is found in a saying attributed 10 R. Silt\eon, son of Eleazar, at M. Kidd.JV,I4: R. Sim~-on. son of ~ e.a:wr. s.1ys. H:1ve youc\•er sC<"oa wild aninl3t or a bird practisill;£. u cmn - yct•hcy arc swuaincd wishoul CtU'.:'. t~nd wc-rc they llOl cre:.tcd lOr no other f)Ur~)OSe !han 10 serve me'? But I was. ctct~I Cd 10 s.:r.·e my m:.kcJ. liow much Lhcn ougtu I 10 be suJ~taincd

wi1hou1 care'? But I ha>;\: d\11lC evil. 3nd IOrfdtcd my susteMnre.

In the expanded ' 'ersion of this sayir\g at b . Kidd. 82b, R. Sime.on declares that he has ne.ver seen a 7lm9 (lbx.ljackal) as a shopkee.per. The c.onunon element he.re is the notion that animals :ue directJy provided for by God. whereas in some re-spec.ts people are nm - they have to pr0\1ide for the-mselves. The functjon or the gene-ral tO. I I.

Cowl~y.AI'amdit' Pap:ori 30. linc 11/f Jl,linc 10. Cansdak i\m.,th<(s (JfBible Lands. p. 140.

175

stateme-nt in the teaching of Jesus is however different fro m that of the abstract rellcction of R. Si1oeon. Jes.us \\1a..-t not conc.erned with the theological pn)bfem which could be seen here - indeed on another occasioo he felt able to illustrate. Gl)d's overall care of people by means or analogy with his care for the natural world (MI. 6.251l/flk. 12.121[). Jesus was not e.veo making an a..~seni on about

animals and man, for in this idiom the gene-ral le.vel of meaning is usuaJiy func.tional rather than substantive. He.nce some of the general staten~ents used in this idiom are. obvious. as this one should probably be seen to be from the perspecrive of people who lived in Galilee. This will have assisted the. applic.ation of the saying to the speaker. the scribe and all the disciples. The choice of jackals, fo:<e$ and birds lOr this ge-neralle.velof meaning is na1ural enough. Birds were as obvious a large class of animate beings then as now. and a good deal more ubiquitous - hence their ·use in R. SimMu's saying, as c.lsewhe-re-. The.y were.especially suitable here. because they were so migrant. and so ob\tiously had the nonnal rcstjng-places '"hich they needed in the branches of the local trees. The-choic.e of s."'7i!n is perhaps les.~ inevitable. They were however a sound choicebecause they were notorious, unclean and noisy animals which mo"OO in and out of an.---a.~ of hmr1an habit:uion. always finding some\1/here to lay up as 1hey moved about. Some of these factors also account fOr the sele.ctiOil of7i~1\:l in the expanded vctsion of R. Simeon's saying at b.Kidd. S2b. While. this explains the u::e of dlese. particular items in this pm1icular se-ntence. the appropriateness of the idiomatic. use of (1\)~f.J(s.} ""'0 is due to the humble situation in which Jesus fO·und him.~el f of having no acc-ommodation for e-ither himse.tf or his disciples. h is M l in any way ambiguous. for in the context of the migratory ministry to which it belongs. it will have applied mther obviously to Jesus himself. to the scribe who had offered to follow him tmywlwre. and to the gene-ral company of disciples who did follow Jesus on the actual migr.uory ministry. It follows that this saying has an excellent Sit-; im Lcbeu in the historic minisU)' of Jesus. Moreover. it does not have a Sit~ im Leben in the early church in the strong sense. that is to say. it c-3nno1 possibly be a community product. The early dlllrt'-h shows no interest whatever in comparing Jesus to other creatures like this, nor in making negative assertions about him. nor did it have reason to use the indirect idiom which emerges when the saying is reconstructed in Ammaic. The view that the saying is secondary has usually taken the fonn of supposing that it is a proverb secondarily attributed to Jesus. a view panicularly associated with Buhmann. who described it a.~J 'presumably an old proverb whjc.h tradition has tumed into a saying of Jesus' .11 This \•iew has ne.ver been st1pponed with satisfac.tory empirical evidence of the existenc-e of such a proverb. nor has the supposedly secondary attribution of it to Jesus ever bee.n giveo a proper rationale. We must note the •para.llcl' ofteo cited from Plutarch's life ofTiberius Ciracchus: Tel: piv &npto TO: Tl)v 'IToAiav vt:~OIJtOO: 1v Koi .:aTo&iow; , TOi.; 5! Vnip Tfr; 'I Ta).i C~~; ~axo~ivo1r; Ko:t cinoEiv!]m::ouaw

iKcloT~

12.

Bultmnnn. SJIIOfHk Tr-aditim•. p. 28.

176

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

O:ipoc; ~~:aI ¢t.lT0;. W.>.oo Bi- oU6n..O; p{nOT•v. O:>J.. 'ciou(OI "a'• .Xvi6P'lTO• u£Tct -rikvwv rr).o~VTO I .::ai yuvattv (IX,5.828c). The wild bea.>~ rs whk h f(l3m over haly h:."c each of 1hcm a hole :llld ,,bee to lie dov.n and tl'lcy haw hidi.ng-,,l:.ccs. bur those who lighl :.nd die f.:tr l1aly have a shtu~ in a.ir :md Jighl bu1 nothing dsc:. but the)' v.·andc:r homdcs.sund unsculod with ( hildn:--n and women.

These two passages. in different language-s and from different cultural situations more than a century apart. do not constitute e\•idenceof a proverb. What the Plutarch passage does do, with a saying which may well have originated with Tiberius Gracd1uS, is to illustrate the fact that \llhen people's l iving conditiool> are harsh

enough for social rather than environmentaJ or climati<.· reasons. the lot of animals c.an appear to be better than ours. As a Gree.k saying about other people, the saying of Gracchus is also too precisely expressed to be misunderstood in the way that the saying of Je.sus has been. For example-. in Cl)utcmplating the possibility that Jesus' sayiog was a pn)verb, ~·Janson Ol)lluuented that ' this prove.rb is required to say that 1nan, io c-' is at home in lsrae.J's land except the-true lsrael". 1"' Allegorical interpre.tatjon of this kind should have been Jell behind with the adveot of critic.al scholarship. It illus-trates only too well the problems thal scholars c.an create for themselves by ignoring Lhe language and context of sayings of Jesus. The rec.ent trend for interpreting sayings within the literary framework of a Gospel can aiSl) have damaging. elTect~. Kingsbury argu e~ that 'scrutin>' of "'tfatlbew ru l e~ 0\lt the argument that one is l'O underSland .l eS'lL~' ~te.reoce to "home l e~sness" in 8.20 in strictly literal terms'. In support of 1his, King:;bury cites passage$ of Matthew's Gospel in \Vhicb Jesus Jives in a re~i dence, ~Ianing with Nazareth (ML 2 .1 1,23) and moving to Gapemaum (ML 4.13). He particularly stres:.es that 'at 9.1. a passage in the imrnediate context of 8.20, Capernaum is eYen dC$Cribed as Jesus' '\)wn city'". He. then suggests that ' the house there in which he frequently stays is to be distinguished frorn that of Pe•c.r (8. 14) and regarded as belonging h) himself (9. 10.28; 13. 1,36; 17.25)'. u This is an example of using the study of one Gospel to remove the Jesus of histOI')'· h presupposes the study of this saying io the Greek language of ~:Ja tthew instead of the Arnmaic language. of Jesus, with the I J. 14. 15.

(o.bnson. Saying.f. p. 12. Munson. SayingJ. pp. ?2- J . J. D. King);bury. 'On Following Jcllull: 11tc "F.agcr" Sc1i be a.nd the "Rclucranl.. Disciple (Mntlhcw 8. JS-21)'•."-'T'S 34 ( 1988). pp. 45-59 (50).

m resuh that the general le.vel of meaning is ignored. KingsbUI)' the.n proceeds with the assumption that the question is whether Jesus ever lived in a house. a question which completely is.nores the context of the migratory ministry. When he argue-s that Je.sus had his own house in Capemaum. he. makes use of passages which are. either Matthean redaction or special ~·tatthean material. This is not a satisfactOI)' way of treating a Q passage which has an excellem Sit:; im Lebi'n in the ministry of the historical Jesus. With the situation in JeslL:;' rninis1ry l'e-llloved, so that Jesus' suppl)sed 'home-lessness' 'caonot s imply be understolxl lite-r ally', Kingsbur)' Je.ads into his cre.ative redaction criticism with his que:aioo 'whic-h shade ofmewphorical rt\eaning

suits il best?' To aoswer the question which he has irwented. he heads straigtu lOr the centre of his own frame of reference: ·~crut in y or Mauhew itself suggests that it makes allush)n 10 lsnlel's "repudiatit)n" of Jesus.· To supj)Ort this, Kingsbur)' cites passages from all over MauJ1ew \1,/hich relate-Je$uS' moving away from any kind of problel'n. beginning with Joseph taking him from Egypt (Ml. 2.13- 14)."'; None or lllese passages .nentil)ll eit1ler (~)1.91 {~) 1:l haviog •nowhe.re to lay his head'> t)l' Kir\gsbury's ' homelessness'. In short. having igoored the laoguage and setting of this saying in the ministry of Jesus, Kingsbury has created his own Manhean world. This does not tell u.s what e.ven Mauhew lhought of the fragme.ntary piece. which he fitted into part of the ministry when JeslL't was travelling about (Mt. 8. 18.23,28), before he rerums to ' his ow·n city' at 9.1. It employs a •nethodology which ca.n on I>' lead to serious distortion of the. life and teac.hing of Jesus. Both these suggestions illustrate how far we c.an get from the life and teaching of Jesus if we do not study his sayings in the. language in which he spoke them :.tgainst the background of his culture in geneml and his ministry in panicu1ar. Having done so, I lUnl finally to the-pn)Cess or transhlliOI\ rrom Aramaic ioto Greek, lOr this must be comprehensible if tJ1e proposed reconstruction is to stand. We have alre.ady seen that. despite-the s.hift in me.aning which took place. OAc.lm:KE~ was the only 1easonable pOssibility 1\) r ~·'nrn. TI1e \!JOrd .Jl(.)XEoUc; was equally cle.ar ror l'ilii, aod txouo1v is no more than idiomatic lOr n;1? ·n·~: sin'lilarly, rd m n tvd ro\i oUpcxvoU is an obviou.r; rendering o f ~"'"r.-ii 'i~S. The translator ruay have had a bit of a problem over l'JJiili'l, btH \\''e have seen thatKaraoKqvc.low; is a good solution. and it may not have take-n long 10 think of. As often, {~)tzi:(~) -a is pOtentially problernatic. because it h.a..;; a general level l)f meaning. refe-rring to the scribe and the disciples. as \Veil as a specific. reference to Jesm:. We. have seen that the translators responded to this by adopting a strategy, using 0 v"u)c; ro\i 0:v8pc.lrrou whenever {~)&J(K) "U refers to Jesus. This is a perfect e..'(ample of the shift in meaning which may result from this suategy. The.translators have used 0 vi~ ToG O:vepc.lrrou bec-ause there was a genuine.reference to Jesus. as he led a migratory phase of his ministry. This was the-best that they could do. and as proper bilinguals. they could still see the original idiom in the Greek version of the saying, for they could read dte-tirst artide in 0 v"u)~ ToU OvOpc.lrrO\I as generic. as 16.

Kingsbuty. ' FoUowing Jes-us' . 1,· 50.

178

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

we should all read 1he second in every ()CCUITC-llC-e. l n the finisl1ed Gospels, however, 0 ui(x; roU Cxvepc.lrrou Mtcn refers h) Jesus alone. It can be so read he.re, and in 1hat

case the general level of meaning is lost. This reduces the effectiveness of the saying as a direct response to the scribe. and removes the.general level of application to the disciples on the mig.ratt)ry ministry. 1l was still the best strategy that the traoslators c-ould tind, especially as it retained clear re lf1~nce 10 Jesus, the le-ader ofthe disciples

during the migratory ministry and the centre of the faith of the Christians for whom the Gospels were written. We shall see that this strategy was :.t central factor in the transilion fi'o m (~)lii:J(x.) u to the use of 0 ui6c; To\i O:vOpulnou ns a Christological tide. The rest of the saying was straightfOrward. Tile 1 was correctly rendered with Oi. placed af\er the tir3:t article. The negative N7 has the straightfOrward equivalent oU{K), l)(li• for :.7 ~n~{\ is the same idiomatic rendering as in the previous line, and noV isc.orrect fOr +lK nlv "KE¢aAftv is inevitable for ;;t'"\ KAivn is a sound rendering of l lOO' and correctly placed at the end of the sente.nce, and :1~ should be 01nitted

because it is redundant in Greek. Thus the. translation was an excellent piece of work. and it is fOrtunate that il was literal enough fOr us to reconstn.•ct Jesus' saying

and part of the introduction to it in its. original Aramaic. The following conclusions nK•)' therefore be drawn. This Q saying and pan of the introduction co it can be reconstructed from the Greek versions in Mauhew and luke. h was tra.Jtsmiued with the very small number of sayings \\•hich I"Ollow it, but otheJWise it was transmitted in isolation from the re.st of the Gospel traditions. While both evangelists edited their introductions to fi t it inro dim~tent parts M their narrative, paJ1l)f t11e introduction and the whole or Jesus• sayiog arc verbally identical in Greek. The same is true of the next saying. It fOllows that this patt Mthe

Qmaterial was transmiued to the evangelisrs in Greek. The translation was however lite.ral enou£,h for us to be able to n.~.onstruct the original Aramaic. What emerged was a genuine inc.ident from the tile or Jesus. Oo the verge of a mig.tah)ry phase M his ministry. Jesus was confronted with a potential disciple. who promised to follow

him wherever he went Jesus responded with a general statemem comparing the lot of human beings in such conditions. and therefore partic.ularly the situation of h.ifnself and his disciples, indudiog the scribe. if he jl)ined them, with that ofjackalsl fOxes and bird.;. This functioned as a wamiog to the scribe. It \\1liS sufficiently

memorable to be transm.itted. partJy OOcause of the dramatically parlous conditions of life on the migratory ministry. and perhaps also because il was written down at once or very soon thereafter.

Chapter Seven T HE S oN o F MAN JN THE H EAVENLY C ouRT ( L UKE

12.8-9// MAlTHEW I0.32-33; MARK 8.38)

The purpose of this chapter is to consider two or more sayings which have bee-n transmitted in more than one version. Two excant sayings use the term 0 viCe; ToU av6pc.\nou ( Lk. 12.8; Mk 8.38), and tlu-ee do '"" (Mt. 10.32-33; Lk. 12.9), but il is arguable 1hat hVU or three original sayings used the 1ern1(~)W'J(K) u. and thou tllt~­ olhe-r versions are due to 1he lr.'lnsJation process aod the editing l)f the eYange-lisrs. I begin by suggesting a possible. Aramaic substratum for two origina1 sayings which were subsequently edited. These might be reconstructed as follows:

X.7 7K '1 ~,,_,.;:;. Q7ji ;;:: .,~ Y VJK -u "~ .4 EWI)'Oilc who coofcsscs nlc before (Lhc soos of) men, a/the son of man will cootCss him (/her) too bcf(I(C the angds \")f God. And whoc\';.' t denies me befOre- (the- sons of) me.,. 3fthc son of m:.n will deny him (/h~'f) bcf\'Jt'C 1hc angels of God.

I begin with 1he first saying, which I have rec.onstructed from Mt. I0.32// Lk. 12.8. In both Greek versions. there is one cleat and undisp-uted Aran1aism, 1he lt.~e- of Ev following all four occurrences of 61JoAoyE(.). This does not occur elsewhere in the. New· Tes!ament. notably not at !he closely related Rev. 3.5. where the heavenl)' Christ says of the victorious Christian from Sardis. 6tJoAoyr)oc:.:> TO Ovo~-ta aUroU ivC:mtov reV rraTp&; IJOU Kal ivc.lmov r~v ciyy€Ac:.:>v o:UroU. Nor is this Aramaism found in the alternative version of the Gospel saring at 2 Clem. 3.2: T6v 0~-toAoyr}oavT<:i IJE·Evt:.)mov rc:>v civ9pc.ln(.)V, 6,.toAoyr)o(.) aUrOv i vilrr1ov ToU rraTpcit; pou. This underlines the-fact that this is a clear Armnaism. which implies a written source which c-aused such straightforward interference in the translators. The recon:-.Ltuction of ~ '1P ill line I is accordingly very straightfl)tward. Conventional scholarship has soog.Jn 10 establish from r-.~tt. 10.32//lk. 12.8 an original version of this saying ill Greek, to be a:;cribed to Q. I have previously sugge.sted that the versions of the. two evangelists make good se-nse as translation variants.' I the.reli)te explairl 1he saying frorn this perspoc1jve as a saying of the I.

Casey. s,m ofMall. pp. 193-4. 232.

180

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

historical Jesus, and poi1H out the-f.'tults of allemative suggestions. I have treated the

connecting links of each evangelist as their own editorial work. Matthew uses oUv 110 less than 57 l imes. and it cannot real.Ona.bly be regarded as a trunslation of an Aramaic \\·ord, so it n'HISI be excluded. Luke's ~iy(.) ~[ UJ,Jlv can be more reasonably defended, and Pesch went so fur as to suggest that it is an abbre\'iation of ciiJflV JJ.y<.:J UIJ.t v.: TI1is c.onjecrure \1/0uld permit the J-ec.on:.wuction or a characteristic. of Jesus• Speech, as 1 have done on 1he basis of sound evidence at Mk 3.28; 14. 18,

25: p:)7 ;'1JK "'\':!~ lDK' This is howeve-r most improbable here.. Mauhew has such e);pressions sort~ JO times, and neither he nor his translator (if they ' "ere diife-re-•H people) would h:we reason to rernove it rrom a saying or such soc.ial and e.xiste-otial importance. Luke however has other suc.h expressions in this group of sayings, and all areabsem fro m Matthew: Aiyw

61 u~i· Toi<; <j>i~Ol<; ~ou (Lk. 12.4), u rro6Ei~w

6i U~-t1v (12.5), val, Aiy(o) U~lv (12.5). We sht)uld thereron~ c.ondude that luke's J.iy(o) 6EU~iv is due (0 his editorial work. For 7J-, each evangelist has; mic;, whic.h is virtually inevitable. For '1"1' '1. they have different constru<.~tions. ~·latthew employs Oonc; with the future indicative. whereas Luke has&; O.v with the aorist subju11Ctive. Both re.Jlderingsare excellent Greek, and withio the us-ual stylistic paranlete-rs M each e.vaogelist. For 017, both evangelists have ip rrpooOtv in this verse. whereas in the next verse. Matthew c.ontinues with E~.mpoo9w, while Luke has ~vc.lmov twice. Again, both renderings are sound Greek, and within the normal habits of each evangelist. For rC>v civ9pc.)rr(o)\l in both evangelists, I have rec.oostrueted ~t'J~ 'JJ, because this (itt; the saying a.~ a '''hole beue.r than the simple ~v civ9pc.l rr(o)v. We have however seen that this is ir1 accordance-with t11e lr.'lnslators· corn.•uou strategy of rende-ring (K)Wl(K) -.J with 0 vlOt; roU
4.

Sec t,· II&above: pp. 253- 66 below.

71re Heavenly Court

181

closely nssoc.imed with what is con.seque.ntly the most remarkablesimilnrity betwee-n the two versions. l uke's Kai before 0 uiOt;- ToU O:vOpimou before 01JoAoy~ow, and Manhew's Ko:i in crnsis with Eyc.l to produce Kciyc:.l after 01Jo).oy~oc:.:>. Both nre. perfec-tly normal Greek. but Kai as an appn)ximate equivalent of the-English 'also'. 'too', rather than ·and' is unusual enough H> give us pause. That two uanslators should do this independently nliglu seem suOkiently improbable fOr us to shift to a 1nodel of a single Greek Q in thi_s passage-. 1 have however proposed ~.s io 1he Aramaic source. The Gree-k xai in the.se-Jtse 'also·, • h)O', is an excellent rendering of this. to the point where it could well be done by two indepe-ndent translators, just as the e.qually nortl)al but relatively uncornnu)l\ )(:O:t ycip at Mk I0.45 may beconsidered a sound trafL-:; Ialjon of~}\)..s Apart from the change of person. :1~ "11' is translated in a similar ' "ay to the~-nde.ring in the previous line. Its nature as a simple future is properly rendered with a (ireek future-i1l both Gospels, and ;1J has been lrtulslated with Ev o:Un~, re.peating the cle.ar Aramaism Ev. I have already noted l~.mpoo0tv lOr 01;? in bol11versions l)f this verse. This brings us 10 the other major variant at the end of the ''e.rse. where Luke has Ti.)v ciyytJ.wv ToG S~oli, and Matthew has the sig:niticantly dillhent ToU rraTpO; IJOU ToU Ev oUpavol.;. I have rec<mstructed K<11~ ,, I\"'?K7o fh)ltl luke-. This makes excellent sense. It utili-zes the traditional concept of Gt'XI's C0\1ncil. This is especially dearly put at I Kgs 22. 19-22, where f>."T) sitting in judgemc1lL and books are ope1led befOre judgeme1H is passed. These are the kinds of pictllres of the angels which formed the trndition which Jesus used when he foresaw himself and others bearing witness before them. He will have taken it for granted that God would be in charge of his own council. Matthew did not however take this for £}anted, for he had a picture of Jesus in charge of the judgeme-nt (ML 16.27; 25.31-46), and another of the twelve judging the tw·e h·e tribes of Israel (Mt. 19.28). He is not likely to have envisaged the situation any differently from the way that it was imagined by Jesus. bUl simply sought to clarify it by making dear that God himself was the judge on this occasion when Jesus bore witness. The secondary nature. of ToU rra TpO:;- IJOU Toli t v oUpo:vol.:; has been widely recognized bec-ause from a rednctional perspective it is so Matthean." Another con~ltlOil suggestion is that l uke's Toli &oG is also secondary. and there are bad and good reasons for this. The most wide-S-pread reason is a mistake. which goes back at least to Dalman. Dalman suggested that the. angels were a secondary periphrasis for God. and that consequently ToUOtoUshould be erased as an addition 5. Ca~y. ..\ramak Sowwst>fMarf:O.GlJspd, ~l. 194. 6. Se-e cs1>ceially J. kremiall, Tl•e Pruy~rs ofJesliS {london: SC~t. 1967}. I. 'AbOO •• pp. 29- 35.44- 5.

182

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

which panially defealS the intention of introducing tJ1e angels.' This view is panty lxuoe
Terragrammaton could be lawfully used only by the high priest on Yom Kippur. Late.r sc:.-holats have treated the text in the same ' "ay. For e.xample, TMt comtnerus that ' In Q the phrase "befOre the angels" may have been used (0 a\'Oid the nanle of God ... '"We should not accept this approach, because. the angels were belie-ved h) be real beings, not a periphrasis ror God, and K;i?~ wa.~ a nonnal term ror God, whose angels they really were. Fleddermann provided a better reason fo r a similar conclusion. He pointed out that Luke adds a clarifyi ng ToG SEoU elsewhere too, citing notably Lk. 9.20 (cf. Mk 8.29); Lk. 8.1 1 (cf. Mk 4. 14); Lk. 11.42 (cf. Mt. 23.23); Lk. 22.69 (ef. Mk. 14.62); and Lk. 23.35 (cf. rvtk 15.32).'<' There is howe-ver a siguifkant dim~-rence

betwe.e n this case and the-othe-rs. In this ease-, R;i7 K has an excellent Sil:, im Leben in the 1eachir1g of Jesus. lie m us1 have used the term K:l7K a great deal, in the standard expre$Sion l'G17 K1 ;im :-?o, in similar expressions such as !'::17~1 :l1 1Jl (cf. n1v .SUva~u,.. ToU OtoU, f>.·lk 12 .24), and in many other ways, such as his re-ference. to God instiiUiing indissoluble marriages in th e process of creation ( Mk I 0.9). Moreover, .lesu::• use o f S..i7K could well have given rise also Lo the editorial use of ToU rraTp6t; in the paralle-l version of the-Se sayings {f\•l t 10.32-33: Mk 8.38). The cootext of Luke's occ-asil)nal additioo M a elatil'y iug ToG &EoU is his inheritance of the centrality of God in the teaching of Jesus. The angels howe.ver are not very common in theamhentic teaching of Jesus. and the complete-expres::ion x:1?:\ '1 ~ ~JK7ll makes an excelle-nt contrast with Kt:iJK ' JJ in the previous line. While absolute certainty cannot be obtained. the balance of probability is sHongly i1l favour of the Ol'iginality of K;i7X, \Vhich I have accordingly used in the proposed reconstructions. Vos proposed that the. original form of the e.nd of the saying was reserved at Rev. 3.5, i vWmov ToU rraTp&;- ~ou Kal (.vWn•ov Tc:lv
71re Hea venly Court

183

this is emailed by holding that Luke comains the more primitive tradition of this saying and Malthew represen1s a later aheration of it. The assumption that the. alternative to Vos's su.g.gestion is that only the (il)Spel ve.rsio.u: of the saying could be-known is an arbitrary reslric.tion. John's tirsl language was Arafmlic, and hemight well have known the original saying and r-.·tanhew's alteration of it. He. has ToU rra TpO:;- ~ou used by the hea\'en1y Christ of his Father in the lene-rs to Thymim a1ld Laodicea (Rev. 2.28; 3.21). and he uses ToU rraTp6c; a VToU similarly (Rev. 14. 1, cf. 1.6). If he-koew the original version \\•hich eventually gave rise-to Lk. 12.8, he might have been affe(:re.d by the Mauhca1l version. Mol\.'over. Rev. 3.5 is a saying of the hea\'enly Christ John might have freely rewritten it himself. and added ToG rrcnpcit; ~ou without be.ing dependent on Mauhew. This brings us to the main difference between the J\.·l auhean and Lukan versions of the s.:t)•ing. 0 uiOc; roU O:vtlpc.)rrov with O~oAoyr)otl in Luke. and the emphatic. first person singular 6-,JoAoyrlow Kciyc.l in Matthew. Conventional scholarshjp has supposed that one of these represenL~ a Greek Q. and that the ocher has resulted from changes made deliberately by one. of the evangelists. This has howe\•er made il extremely dillicult to explain the behaviour of \Vhiche,re.r e\•augeli.st be thought to ha\'e made the required c.hanges. Attempts to understand the supposedJy original saying withoUI proper aUe-ntion to its Aramaic idiom have also been disastrous. with widespread acceptance of spurious arguments in fa\'ourof or against the authe-nticity of the saying. For example. sc.holars who argue for the originality of 6 u'u)c; Toil Ovepc.lrrou usually coment themsel\'e.s with direct arguments for the originality of Luke, and the perfectly true fact that from a strictly linguistic point of view K0iot of view was that be regarded the Son of man·s function as being that of the judge, whereas this saying implies lhat the Son of man i.s actiJlg llOt as the independerHjudge but a~ ao intercessor or guarantor befOre the assize. h The-re arc h !JO things \\>rong \!lith this. One is that if 0 ulCt;- ToG O:vE!pc.)rrou is kept as a Greek title of Jesus aJone, as Manhew often uses it with reference to the final events inclllding the final judgement (see notably Mt. 16 .27-28; 25.3 1-46), the saying docs lh)t tell u.s whether the Son l)f man is the judge-or an intercessor Ol' guaranh)r, because ancie1H judges might confess or deny people. befo re the c::oul'ts over which they had ch1). 212- 22. 230-39 b.:-lcw1. t4. T3dL, S()lt ofM<111. 1>1>. 89- 90, from Mtt~t.'ifhtlJsohn, pp. 83-4.

184

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Argument~

for the originality of the Mauhe.an version have been equaJiy unsatisfactory. The. most e.xtensive is that of Hoffrnann.•s. In the first place, the

Kciyc.l is blatantly redactional, so Ih)ffmauo conjecture~o; that it is a n alteration of Ka'• Eyc..l.1r. Like t oU natp6c; J.!Ou toU iv oUpavoi~. K
the fact that some redac-tion must be postulated to explain the origin of the Mauhean ''e.rsion. T his is 'vhy i1is so impottant that it is precisely a1 d1is poi1H that it is dinlcult

to explain why Luke should interpolate 0 u'u)(; t oU O:uepc..)rrou. Hoffmann refers fOI'\I.Iard ro Ac.ts 7.56, but th is is Mt a comparable-caseY In Acg, Luke is writing

freely and hns used 0 ulOc; t oU <XvOpc.lnou in line with his editjng of the Son of man saying at Lk. 22.69 in circurtlstanccs where he had a free c.hoice- M how h) write Stephen's short speech. At Lk. 12.8, b0\1/ever, we would ha\•e. h) suppose that he deliberately ahe.red a clear reference 10 Jesus. and in the next verse altered it 10 a di lfererH c.oostruction again. Thirdly. we would have to suppose thal just at the )JOint whe.re Luke altered a very Manhean expression to a phrase.which he did not want in Lhe next verse. he ooincidemaJJy ended up with an edited version of a saying which is perfectly oomprehensible.as a rmnslation of :.t s.aylng whjch conforms to Aramaic idiom. Hoffmann could not see this because he did not corre<::tly understand the Aramaic idiom.110 This fomls a ve-ry strong argument of cumulative weight against the possibility that Kciyc.l represe.nL~ an original feature of Jesus' saying, while 0 u'u)t; Toli O:v9pc.lnou is due to secondary Lukan redaction. It foiiO\VS that the Sit:. im Leben of the variations between the Matthe;.m and Lukan versions of this saying are to be found in the translation process, not in the edi1ing of eithe.r evangelist. To undershlnd this, we must first recall the nature M the idiom itself. T\1/0 pl)ints about it are impol'tant: the term (~)iV)( x) 1J rnust have a general level of meaning. and at the same time it may refer to one or more people of especinl importance. It is regrenable that we do not ha ...e the c.ootext of any M the sayings in this group, so that we do not know whether partic.ufar people other than Jesus himself were in view. as Jacob and John were especially in view at Mk 10.45, and Jt)hn 1he Baptist at Mk 9. I 2.1'' What we c-an be sure of is thm there is a general le.vel of meaning. and that there is a partic.ular reference to Jesus himself. The general level of meaning presuppOses thar ' the angels of God' font! a heave.rlly C·C>ul't, and t11at witnesses C-an confess people befOre-this coun, just as in the rle-xt saying they can deny them. The idea of the heavenly court is based on an earthly court. so the notion that it should have witnesses is a natural one. A few Jewish texis have survived in which it is cle.ar that the righteous dead will haYe.a role in the Ol)ndemnation of the wicked at some fo m~ of final judge.ment. The most sttiking is

15. E.g. P. lioffm:.nn in C. Heil, P. Hoo·mann t-1 al.. D«IUIJt'IIUJ Q. Q 12:8· 11. CunftniJig or lknying: SMoking agaill.\' llht Haly Spin.,: Hearings btf(Jrt! s.mag(JSIIt'S (LCUYCO! P~t'-"r~. t 997). pp. 2t0-J8. 1(>. Hotl'nlann. Q 11:8·12. p. 230. 17 . Hollinann. Q 12:8·12.pp. 228-.30. t &. Hotlinann, Q Jl:8·12.pp.210-t3. t9. Casey. Aramaic Scltrt't!S ofMart's Gospel. pp. 125-.33. 2Jt- t8: pp. 127-34 a bO\'C.

71re Hea venly Court

185

the Wisdom of Solomon. Here we are assured thm the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God (Wis. 3. 1}: so when the righteous person has been put to an early death, they will coodernn the ift)piou..~ who are still ali\'e (Wis. 4 . 16). Finally they will take their stand to condemn those.who oppressed them during theireanhly lives (Wis. 5. 1-16).

A similar role for people in the last times is found in the teaching of Jesus m Ml. 12.4142//L-k. 11 .31·32. I Jere a large number or people, Gentiles at that, will c.onde11111 the ge.ne-ration of Je~;:; us' contemporaries in the final judgement This presupposes a very large number of witnesses. Asomewhat different image is found at M1. 19.28//l k. 22.30. whe.re dte •welve will sit on rwclve thrones judging tlletweh•e tribes of IsraeL In t)ur :;ociety. a judge is vet')' diiTerent from a witne-ss. but in Ihe-irs a judge-might eoofess or deny a person on trial. We must conclude from all this evideoc-e that the above Aramaic reconstruction of M1. 10.32//lk. 12.8 has an entirely satisfactory le\·el t)f meaning. People's view of Jesus while he is here on earth will detennine whether they are conti!ssed or otherwise at the final judgement. lfthe.y c.ootes..;:; hirn, it is presupposed that more than one witne$S will confe~;:;s them in the final judgement. At the same time. Jesus himself will be the most impot1ant witness. This is obvious in the first place from his position in the firs-t half of 1he saying, in which confessing him in the present life is the crucial event which ensures that the person c.onfessing him will be confessed io the fillal judgemem. The-same applies 10 the ne:u saying, according to which den)~ng him in the present life is the-cmcial event which guarantees that the persoo \1/ill be denied in the l'ioal judgement. Whether Jesus will himself be the j udge is not acn.rally stated. On the one hand. it is not excluded by his role as a witne$S. nor by the ability of other people to be.ar witness on the same oc.casion. tOr ancient judges could bear \Vitnes:. for or against people-. jlL~I as other people could appear as \\1itneS:SC'$ i1l the court over which one or maoy judge-~;:; pre-sided. On the other hand, the refere-nce h) the eschatologic-al court by means of the expre.o;sion K:17K ., K'J.'\1:Ji'l o 1p strongly suggests that God himself will be in charge.of this coun, so that Jesus will be a wimess. albe.it the most imponam witness among however many may be envisaged. We c.an now consider the saying from the perspecth·e. of the translators who had to render (K}IV;(N) -a into Gree-k. We have seen tl1at lhe (nlJlSiators generally operated with a strategy, acc.ording to which they nonnally reodered (N);1J(K) ,J with 6 u'1 6c; ToU O:vOp<.'m ou when it referred to Jeswt luke's Christian (tanslator has simply followed this stmtegy as usual. so his beha'' iour is unproblematic. As always. the. bilingual translator will howe. been able. to see both anicles in 0 u'1 6c; ToU O:vepWnou as generic. as well as seeing lhe particular reference to Jesus, as was characteristic of the original Aramaic idiom. It was h0\\1e\1er possible- h) see problems in this panicular saying, and these problel\ls atleeted Matthew's transhuor here-, just as Mark's ttanslator was allected at Mark 3.28 and 9. 12.!II Unlike a monoglot Greek reader or 1he-finished Gospel, 20.

Cascy,Anmwic Scmus
1 30-3~ Ammaic Appmoch 10 Q. pp. 180-1.

186

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

the bilingual translator would be fully aware that (K}oiJ(K) 13 had a general level

of meaning, and could therefore refer to many people other than Jesus. As he considered the possibility of using 0 u'1 6t; ToU O:vOp(l)rrou as usual. he might therefore be. anected by the :.arne- perc.epfion as has so regreuably alflicred many n-ll'MJem S(ude-n u of the li oished Gt)spel, and bec.ome troubled that some readers might suppose that 6 v'u)t; ToiJ O:v9pc.lrrou in this saying referred to someone.other than Jesus. He therefore decided to opt for expressing the mos1 important level of meaning of (K)VJ(K) 1J in this sayiog, the reference to Jesuii himltelf. This he has do1~e with absolute clarity by using •he first person singular instea
two translators. it is quite eas)' to e.xplain. Both Luke's translator. IOIIowing his usual str.uegy or rendering (:o:)t.9J(!') 1~ \\1ith 6 u'u)t; ToU O:vep~rrou because. it referred to Jesul: himself, and Matthew, opting lOr the first person l'ingular to avoid the u.~;ual strntegy leading to misundersranding. have be.haved in entirely undersl andable ways. This C.f.)tlttasts with the diOicullies \\1hich scholars have expel'ienced in tryiog ro explain rhe text of either evangelist as a resuh of redactjon by one evangelist. We must therefore conclude that we have before us the work of two diffe rent translators. We must lherefore conclude that the proposed reconsmtction and the interpretation of it given above are. both approximately correc t. Two regrettable arguments are however so widespread in modem scholarship that they must also be discussed. As so often. Bufl..nann made. the main mistake \!lith clarity: · .. . it appears c.enaio to me that the distinction between Jesus and the Son or Man is primary. ' l1 From this he inferred that suc.h sayings were authemic. for Jesus distinguished himself fi'om the S01l of man. TOdt rel1ected the wide$pread acceptance or this arg.ume.•u, c.onunenting ' Today most scholars agree. that the ll)rtll which discrin1inates betweeo the " I.. or Jes.u.-.; and the Son or Man is the more original one. "No church \1/0uld ha\•e invented at a later time a tJ1eology making a distinction so foreign to the feeling of the church. i.e. between tJ1e person of Jesus himself. and that of the fuwre judge.•• •:: This widespre.ad argument has no \•alidjty because it is entirely a function of ignoring the.Aramaic. feve.t of the tradition. As we have seen. the oliginal saying doe~~> not have a figure ' the Son of man• who is di!Terent fi'orn Jesus, it simply has a general level of meaning in addition to its reference to Jesus. l lae.nchen correctly drew Lk. 12.8 into his discussion ofMk 8.38. but in rejecting the views l)f Buhmann <111d T6dt, he made a similat mistake.:..' He sugge.sted that f\•lk 8.38 was a product of the pc.lst-Ea~ter et)lhmunity, and his argurnent implies the same fOr Lk. 12.8. lie argued that tOr I hat et)mtnunity •waren .. . Jesus uod der l\•lenschensohn "futurisch identjseh": Jesus \\'ird io naher Zukunft als der 2 1. Huhmann. S.nwpric Traditio11. p. I 12. 22. Hid1. Son ofMaJt, p. 55. from MmschttJsoJitl. pp. 5-0-1. llUOii.ng R. Ono, Ti:e Ki11gdom ofGod am/ the Sm1 o/MaJi(ti'J.ns. F. V. Filson 3•\d B. L. Woolf. Loodoo; Luncrwonh, t93&), p. 163. and referring to Buhmann.. S.wwpti< Trodilitm. p. 112. 13. E. H:te'.nchcn. Dtr \l
71re Hea venly Court

187

Mensc.hensohn (der er jct2( noch nidu war) mit den Wolken des I tiuunels zurUckkehreo. In seinem Erdenle-ben war er nocb nicht der MensehenS4>hn ... 'Each step in this argument is wrong, because Haenchen ignored the Aramaic level of the traditiorl j usr as Dult.mauu and TOdt had done. Je$uS \Vas (K)t9l(K) -u throughout his en.nhly life because he was a human being. Accordingly, he could not become. (K)idJ(K) -a afler his death, so these g.1nunds lOr anributing the whole ofMk 8.38 aod similar sayings to the.early church are not satisfactory. Borsch made a profoundly similar mistake in producing the following form ofLk. 12.8-9. on the gn)mld that agrecrnenl11'1ight be •-e-achOO from dine-rent perspectives on sornething like it as 'an early :.ayiug': Everyone who

:.dmowkdge.~

me before me-n (sons of men?)

will also bcfOf'C me-n (sons of

(:.:F-;(~} i :!

acknowk·dg~ before lhe :tngd 11 MGod; cwtyollc who i11 a!JI::tmed of me

men1) (x)if.!(~) -c will ~ ssh:uncd llf belOre the :.ngel~ of GOO.

lie com.uents. ' I frankly find it diffic.ult h) hear a spe-aker refe1Ting h) himself by different means in the same senten ce'.~ It is ironical that spe-akers do this in En~',lish.1s the. wrong language bUI one which, like all languages. provides comparative data which should warn us to e:\:amineAramaic usage carefully \1lilhoUl such precooceptioos. It is of central importance that this apl)fogy or a reconstruction is in the wrong language., and that we have Arnmaic texts in which similar switches occur (e.g. Sefire 111.14- 17).16 t>.·loteov~-r. Borsch wrote-years atler I had onered reconstructions of lk. 12.8 aod Mk 8.38. fi'o m \"hich this much should have bee1l clear.1' Dorsch•s mistake also illlL.;t.rates the ract, known to some linguists for ye.ars, that abstrac' theorizing tends to depend on Olle's own idiolect rather than on standard usage. ~' A different kind or l'tlis.take was 1nade by Klise-.,nann. lie argued thal Mk 8.38 and Mt. I0.32t: are l)f a font1 'Seruenc.es or Holy Law', and the same most follow for Lk. 12.8-9.2'1 He argues explicitly thm the Marean and "'Oii s: Fortress. 199~), pp. 130-44 {144}. 25. Cf. Wale.01. "' Pc-r$0n:.l" and "lnddlni!i.•" Reference': !ol. Sack11, 'E~·.::ryooc Has to Lie\ in M. Sanches :.nd B. G. Blown (cds), S«iocullltml Dime-nsions of Umgtutgt Use (londonlNY: Academic Prc~11, 197St pp. 57- 79: ea!alogucd wi1h disettsllion by Ca.~y. 'Jack;~.l s' . pp. 10--12, wi1h nn. 24- 26. 26. s~ 1)1). 67- 8 above. 27. Casey.5ono/Mall. pp. l62. 194. 28. S. Grecnbsum, ·eo,m:xlll:ll lnlluc-ncc- on Accq-Mability Judgeme-nts'. Lim:uislics 1&7 ( 1977).1)1). i-l l. 29. E. Kl scmann. 'Sa'12c- hciligcn Reclnes im Neue!\ Test:.mc-nl'. NTS 1 ( t9:S4-5), pp. 24&60: 'Scmcntt-s of !ololy La\1.• in the New Tc:>t:.mc-nt'. i.n E. K ds~·ma:n.n.. Ntw Ttslument Qunlimu of TOOay (uans. W. I. ~fom:. gue: loodoo: SCM. 1969), PI,· 66- 81. 30. K511cmsnn. 'Scmc-ncc-;'. p. 71.

188

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

sentences of holy law to early O uistinn prophets. Many scholars followed this approach. For e.xample-. Ed\\1ards declared the ulte-of this fOrm 'wideltpre.ad', and exaggerate.d lOome of Kti.$Cfllann's cornmeuts in auributing h) him the view that this fom1 had its Si1~ im Leben in the celebration of the Eucharist. He funher proposed that in Lk. 12.8, 'we have an example o f the Son of Man theology leaving the eschatological correlatjve fOrm to fu nction in a sim ilar way io ruwther judgn•erual Gmt uns. ' ' 1 Rejectjng the authenticif>t of Lk. 12.8f. with particular refe-re-nce to the

work of T&dt. Gaston C-01nmented: 'The-li.)nn of the saying agrees so well with the

S5tze heiligen Rechtes which Kasemann has established as a form of prophetic sayings in the gospels, 1hat it can hardly be denied tll
3t. R. A. Edwttrdi.. ' The E!Oehawlogkal Con'dalivc -ss -s GdltllllS i1\ the New To:-!OL>''Itncm'. ZN1l' (,o ( t969) p~l. 9- 20 ( 14- 15). 32. L Gaston. Nc1 Mcme Wf (mmlter. Steu/Je9 htlhe .tlftit!/iC(ltt~ t>flh~ fall fl{.lenr.•·tll~m l111he S.mopti< G<>J(H!Is (NovTSup 23. lcidc-n: Bdll. 1970). pp. 403-4. 33. For t1 full ~'1i tiq uc of K.!l~mann. sec P. Berger~ ' Zu d..-n So.""~go:-n:.nntoo ~tzcn Hciligcn R..-etues' . .~TS 11 ( 1970-1 t). t>t>. I0-4-0: ' Di ~ sog.. "StiLu- hd l ig~'fl Rc..--ht~~.. im N.T. Jhr~ Funbion und ihr Si12 im Lcb.:-.n' , 7Z28 ( t972), t)J). 305- 30. 34. Edwards, 'E!Oehat ot~ct~l Corrcl:uivc', p. 14, quo1jng P.::rri1l. Rtdist·o~'trillS lht> Tf'(u·hiJ1g of Jl'.ms. p. 22. 35. K~m:mn. 'Scmcnc~-s·. J)J). 76-7.

71re Hea venly Court

189

n0\1/ would lOr that reason be supported by people witnessing at the final judgement before-the angels in God•s coon. Just as he was the most important person in tllehere and oow as the Je.aderofthe Je$US movement and the final messenger frorn God who called upon Israel to repent. so be would also be-the crucial wi tnes.~ a1nong many at the final judgeme-n t In the next saying. ML 10.33//lk. 12.9, the d i fn~•e-nces betwe.en tvlatthew aod l..AJke c-an again be accounted for by lhe work. of two translators, with the addition of some editing by the.evangelists. The reconstruction proposed above shows extensiYe. symmeli)' with the pre\'ious sa)~ng. Both evangelists have some form of 00. for which I have ree.o.--.~tJ1JCted the ubiquitous l. This gives an excellent link between the o•igi•lal connected sayings. and the Gree-k is a sound equivalent. ltl place of rrCic; in the-pn!vious saying. ror which I naturally recoo..•ttructed n. r-.•tanhew has OOT•c; ... O:v with the-subjunctive. where Luke has 0 with the paniciple cipvqod:l.mloc;. I have reconstructed 111l, which is the appJt)Ximate equivalent of both 'he who', and 'whoever' . It b.as dtus been correctly t.ranslated lwic.e, in both cases withio the parnmeters of the normal linguistic habits of eac.h evangelist. There is no serious difference fro m ., 7-:>, so this is ellOctively a stylistic wuiatioo which the tradition attributed to Jesus. As I noted in discussing the previous saying, luke now has ivt.)mov, as he does later in this w rse.. rnther than l1Jnpoa9w which both e.vangelists had in the previous verse. and Manhew continues with here. This is perfecdy sound Greek. and both words belong to normaJ Luknn Greek. where-as Matthew does not use &v~n1ov. A• the e1ld or the tirst half of the sayio_g. I have again rec.onstJucted ~1.9:<.-.:: 'J3 for the evangelists' ti.)v civ9pc..)rrc.lv. for the s.ame reasons as in tJ1e previous wrse.

The next variation be.tween the evangelists is central to the reconstruction and interpretation of this ve-rse. Matthew again has the first person singular Mthe ''e-rb. this time cipvtiooiJa• , and again he has reinforced it wirh Kciy<-5. Luke. who had .:cxi 0 uiOt; ToU cXvOp<.lrrov m 1his point in the previous verse, has no such thing lhis time. preferring the future passive ci:rro:pvr)Otlono:•. Mk 8.38, ho,vever, ofie.n lhought to be an inde.pendent variant form of this same saying, does have e..'(actly 1v ToU 6toV. I have accordingly reconstructed ~:i7K ~~ l\"'Jk7i::, ju.st as in th-e previous verse. We .nay 1low retum h) the ope-niog p hra.~e of the sec.ond half or Mt. I0.33//lk. 12.9. llere I have again reconstruc-ted :;/J~ u , with :i:lli:>llowing the veril. Minthe\V has cipvfioopco Kci:y~ aVTOv. This is strongly parallel ro 0~-toAoy~oc:..:> Kciy~ (.v a:VT~ at Mt. I0.32. We have ;dread)' .see.n that it was a. bold but c-Omprehensible trao~l ati on M (~)Wl(~) iJ in that verse, so it is likely to be the srur•e thiog here-. This is especially so since the idiom itself makes perfec.t sense as pan of a sa)~ng of Jesus. and the Lranslntion process is perfectly comprehensible. as outlined

190

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

above. This time, Luke has the future passive cino:pvne~onot. This is perfectly comprehensible as Lukan editing. for it is in accordance with Lukan usage in general. and in particular as an editorial response to a collection of sayings which includes Lk. 12 . 10. Bmh these points have l) llen been made befOre. For example, Cadbury observed that ' Luke shows considerable freedom in the use of the passive. Especially frequent is 1he furure passive ... in his panlllds to Mt and Matk. l uke's pre-ference ror the future pas.o;i\1e is especially striking .' Cadbury c.orrectly listed this passage among his examples.l 6 More- .-ec.ently, Fleddt-nnann went fUrther: •... the

form cirro:pvr)6T}ono:l is Lucan, reOecting 1hree tendenc-ies of l uke's style. First. Luke favors compound verbs. and he frequently S\\~tches from simple to compound verbs both in ~·tare-an and Q material. Second, he also likes the fmure passive., again introducing it into his source.s. Third. Luke tends to lengthen the future passive fOnm by prelixing prepositions, eve.n though 1he fOrms are alre.ady q·uite lt)ng.' 37 On the :;econd point, MUller conunenL.:: that •Luka.:; be-IIUlZt die PassivtOnn vermutlich. we.il er eine Wiederholung des Ausdrucks vermeiden wollte. da er auch im fOigenden Vers ein "Mel\..::chensohn..-Wort brin_gt, niimlich daB es ver'Leihbar sei, ein Wort gegen •·ctes tv1enschen Soluf• zu reden.' Beasley-Murray adds, 'luke's passive verb in 12:9 is almost certainly attributable to an acconH\IOdation to the sentence that fOllows in verse I0, which appears as a Son of Man saying wil11 passive \'e.rbs in bmh clauses ... · .Jt~ All this should be accepted. tr luke received thi$ sayiog eithe-r in Aramaic. with (~)1.9)(-N) 1~, or in Gre~k with 0 uiO; ToU O:v9p(o)rrou. he had good rea.~on to alter this expression. The originaJ expression served the mechanical c.olle<:tjon of the three sayings at Lk. 12.8-10 into one-plac.e, but it caused tensioo be-.tween the last two sayings. Luke.the-refore altered the saying in a manner fully in accordance with his own style. It will be nmed that I have 1101 :ugued that an Aramaic reconstruction of Lk. 12.9, complete with its specific variants. would be impossible to produce, and a foil discussion demands that this be illustrated.

There is nothing_ wrong_ with this saying. which miglu potentially be thought to have a sound Sit:; im LRb(m in the teac-hing of JeslL.::. The~ is only one significan1 dilferencc from the reconstruction which I have preferred. This is that those who have denied Jesus on earth will be denied in the heavenly court by God himse.lf, rather than by witnesses of whom Jesus himself would be the most important. There are however throe basic. re.aSt)tiS tOr preferring 1hc. reconstruction which I proposed at the beginning of this c-hapte-r. O!~e is the behaviour of Je$US himself. It is diHicult to see why he should have several wimesses. induding most notably himself. 36. H. J. Cadbury. 711t Slylf' ami Lilf'mr.v- Mf'rhtJofLukr (HTS 6. CambtKfgo:. MA: Ha•, •atd U.P., 1920). p. t(l<4. 31. Flc-dckrmann. ' Q Saying on Coo iCs~i.ng a.nd O~.oyi ng'. 1>1>. 611- 12. 38.. Milllcr. Ausdmck •.4lt!ll.f£'heruolm '. pp. 13 t-l: G. R. Bc:~lllcy-M ufray, ltsus and lhf' Kingdtmt of G(}d ( Grand Rapi(k Ec•'dman.ns. t986). t,· 225.

71re Heavenly Court

191

witnessing on behalf of those who confess him, and change to God himself as the sole being who denies those who have denied Jesus. Secondly. there is the argume-nt of cumulative weight fonned by the explanation of both the saying itself ;.md of the. editorial behaviour of the C\•angelists a.~ 1 have jlL~t pn)pO~. Thirdly, there is theargume-nt from Mk 8.38. In its pre-$ent IOnn, Mk 8.38 reads as follows: &;- ycip f:&v i no:toxov&fi IJ~ Ko:i ToU.; tuoi.r; .Myouc: (v T1} ynn~? -rcuhn T6 uotxo).lbc~~:ai Ouo:pTc.».~. Ko:l 0 v'i Oe; ToU O:vEI~noo Eno:•oxv~~ono:c a'.hOv Cho:v il&n iv TO 6~o -roU liO:TpOt; oUToU 1-1ncX T~\1 ci:yy~).(..)\1 TGlv clytGlv.

At first :;ight, this looks very diffe:rent from. f\•11. 10.33//lk. 12.9, but it is intelligible as an edited version of an Aramaic. saying which differs by only one letter from the n.'<'-onstruction proposed above. with 1:>n. 'be ashall!ed'. rather than ""'rJJ, 'deoy'. This was (>Oioted out by Jeremias, and I carried it fo1ward. ;,-) I now a lTer an updated \'CI'sion or this hypothesis. beginning with a slightly rnodified reconstruction of a possible saying underlying Mk 8.38:

Here l\.Jatk has replaced lhe ubiquitous l with the-conoecting particle ycip. thereby integrating the saying into jg present Marc.an conte-xt. Otherwise. l\-tark's &; ... EO:v for 1 l::O is very similar to Matthew's Con; ... Civ, and we have already seen that Luke's 6 ... d:pvT)OciiJEVOt; is an entirely re-asonable ahemati\'e to this. The next diffe.rellCe is the flll">St important poi1H, with 1~n proposed behind i rra •o:xuv9fi where the proposed original behind l k. 12.9 has,~,. and the san1e diiTere.nce beh\'een the proposed versions in the next line. These words sound very similar, so that Jeremias was led to comment: 'The bifmx:.ation of the tradition ('be asharned'/'deny') lhU$t ha ...e take-n placed·uring the c.ou~e- oforl:ll tradition in an Aramaic-speaking milie-u. ' 40 This is an entirely plausible suggestjon, which I have accordingly used in producing the rest of the proposed reconstruction of the.Marc.an version. the remainder of which is identical to the proposed rcc.onstmction of the sayi11_g underlying lk. 12.9. I have accordingly s-uggested that the sirnple ""J was translated with ~E and e.xpanded with Kc£1 Toll<; iJJoUt;- AOyouc;. This could have been done in Aramaic with -?1.1~1, or Jesus might have said both version$ of the s:t)'ing on dillerent occasions. I have-likewise suggested x:ziJ~ '"JJ DiV, as ill both the mhcr sayings. Mark will ll1en have edited this to produc.e Ev T6 ytv~~ Tfi ~o•xaAI61 Kal ci:~apT(.)J..~. Again, however. it is nm irtlpl)SSible that Je="us said K't.l1l n':.p :n1J. Ne-xt, Mark has Kal for ~~. just like l uke at 12.8 and equivalent (0 the same word ir1 crasis with Eyc.J to produce. Kci:yc.l twic.e in Mt. 10.32-33. The next expression is (he crucial one. with (x)vi(K) 1~ as at Lk. 12.8, s-uppo11iug the possibility that (K)l.?l (~) "'IJ was also the e:qJression in the Aramaic origioal l)f Lk. 12.9. If the short Aramaic versit)n

39. 40.

Jcl\"'mia.~.

Nt>h' Tt>stam~nl T11eo/ogy. ,,. 7, n. 2~ C:.11cy, Son of Man, pp. 161- 3. Jct\'mias. Nt>w Testamn11 71eeology. t,· 1, n. 2.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

192

behiod t'>'l k 8.38 proposed above be lhought probable., this is a very stn)ng argume.Jlt. Finally. I have pwposed •hat the \\1hole of the last piece, 0Ta v EAOn iv Tfj ~~n Toll rra Tp6t; aVToU IJET
The plausibilily of this. especially its Sit-;, im Leben in the editorial ac.tivity of Mark, depencl>• pa11ly on the discu;.~sion of Mk 13.26 and 14.62 ilt Ch. 10. ~ 1 This shows that Mark c~ated 1wo tornposite midtashim, both u.~i1lg Dan. 7. 13 as 011e M the fnaj or texts. Tile proposed expansiol'l at M k 8.38 is in the same tnidrashie mode, aod Use$ this same If'X(. f\•lark's eAen 1\."'jJrtSe.nts the Danie-lic ;m~: OO~n recalls !Y; ToU rraTpQ.; aVToU is a pan icularly Christian description of God. whose presence

is ceo[ral to Dan. 7 . I 3; and the ange-ls must be presupplx~OO as the subject of ' ;11J1jr.1 (as explicitly at rvtidr. P~. 21 ,5}. The interpretation of Dan. 7.13 which is presupposed at Mk 8.38 is also the san.e as at tvlk 13.26 and 14.62: the weste-nl ChriS-tian interpre-uttion according to \!Jhich Dan. 7 .13 desc-ribes the parousia of Jesus. The proposed hypothesis accordingly posits consistent behaviour by Mark, who midrashically created references to Jesu~· second corning when these \\1ete absent from his sources. It is the-refOre- entirely plausible to ~uppo-se that botl1 Mk 8.38 and Lk. 12.9 resulted ffo m accidental and deliberate c h aoge~ to a single saying. I have not howeve-r m~ed the word fOr •J>e asharned of' which i ~ best attested in Aramaic sources of suffk ientl>' early date. The atte~tation of1~n in biblical lie-brew and ill Sytiac should be- regarded as sullicient ti>r the propOsed c.om~pt i on h) have takeo place. but it is wonJ1 seeing what happens if we try to reconstruct the whole of Mk 8.38 using n;u. which is round at 4Q2 13a frg 2 line s. with the cognate-IIOUll io line 4 and at 4QEn# I ii 25 (/ En. 92.2); the Yerb n;,~ is also found in later Jewish Aramaic, Christjan Pa l e~tinian Ar.uuaic, Samaritan Arathaic.and Syriac. One might suggest the followi ng, and lranslate it into English rathe.r diffe rently from the way it was tnlnslated intt) Greek 10 fonn Mk 8.38: a~

K"?..l' P' Tlll

Whoever is asham.:d of me snd n1y word!~ in thi ~ !'lduherou~ snd sjnful

gcn~:ration.

aflhc !"On

or man will be as.lmmcd or him too when lhc. Father comes in gkuy willt the: holy angels.

Eve-n in this complete fonn, the saying understood in this w:.y has a potentially satisfacwry Sit: im Leben in the teachiog of Jesus. Theconling l)fGod ti>r judgen1ent was part of Old Tesmment expectatjon: lOr e.xample. at Zee:h. 14.5 we find God <:·OI\1ing: at the-final judgement, Md all the holy ones witll him. This expec.tation was c.onti11ued after the Old Testament period. For example, at I E11. 1.9 he c.omes with th)'l'iadf. of holy on e~ to execute judgemeot Otl all. There. is therefore no serious problem in attributing this expectation to the.Je$US of history. TI1e-setting of this saying would be. the sa.rne as that of f\
Sec pp-. 242- 5 below.

71re Hea venly Court

193

Lk. I2.8-9. The desc.ription ~·om K1~l11 ~niJ is simply mon: dram:11ic and c.ritical than ?\ '.ifl~ 'JJ D1j;:t. Doth expressions 111ake.clear that it is a person':. anilude to Jesus of Nazareth d·uring: his C-t1rrent ministry 1hat will determine their l~lte at the final j udgement. Equally. the. seuing M their ultimate flue ' when the-F::nhe.r c.ome~~t in glory with the holy angels' is a clear reli:-re11ce to their fa1e at the final jodgement, j us t as at M L 10.32-33/ILk. 12.8-9. The proposed Aran1aic is pe.rfecdy idiotnatic. In particular, (~)IV:(x.) -u is used in 1he same idiomatic way as in the proposed otiginals or f\+(L 10.32-33//Lk. I2.8-9. The saying has a general level of meaniog whic-h presupposes that the.re will be witnesses at the tinaljudgemeut who will be

ashamed of people who we-.re ashamed of Jesus during the. historic ministry. At the sa.ne ti1ue, (x.)W~:~ ) 'U is being used idiornalically because Jesus himself, the a\1thor of the s.1ying, will be the mosl important witne-~ at the-judgeme-rH.

This proposal aJso makes excellent sense of the behaviour of the translator. As a committed Christian. he shared the belief of the rest of the New Testament in the early return of Jesus. 1 have noted this expres.11ed with the use M 0 u'u)(; ToU Ovepc.lrrou and fpXOIJal, with other signs ofDao. 7.1 3, at ,._,lk 13.26 and 14.62 ...~

Thjs same-understandjng has bee-n applied to the translation process here. Hence the traoslamr has continued \Yith (~)W:(~) 1:1 as1he s-ubject ofxn~, and has taken ii:::!IV as a construct befOre lCIK Apart from these c.har1ges. the whole of the translation is as su·aightfon\•ard as pos..o;ible. We must lherefOre conclude that lhis propolOal is just as

sound as the one proposed at the beginning of this chapter. We have two alternative possibilities for understandiog the origins or Mk 8.38. This makes no dillCrence

to our understanding of what the saying means in its present context in Mark. and less differenc-e than one might expect to our underswnding_ of the teaching of Jesus fo und io the two somewhat dilli:-rt1lt sayings which I have. reconstructed. In either cal\e., Jesus asse-rted dull p001>le's alti(Udes to hil'n during the historic 10inistry would be decisive at the linal judgerne.•u, whe1l Jesus himself and other witnesses \\'(1-uld

deny or be ashamed of them as they had denied or been ashamed of him here on earth. In either case., Jesus used the tenn

(~)v.iJ( ~) 1J

in an idioma(iC way to

S:l)'

this. It follows 1hat \\'e can achieve 1he main purpose of this c.hapte.r io recons1ruc1ing

and interpre.ting two or three Son of man sayings in the teaching of Je.sus. even though uncertainty remains about the details of the Aramaic s.aying which lay behind Mk 8.38. There-should be oo doub1 that, in rwo or throe sayings, Jesus declared that people's a.tlihtde to him during the historic ministry would condition their tim: at the last j udge.ment. If they confessed him iu the here and ntw.·. Jesus and odle.r wimesses would confess them at the finalj udgement.lfthe.y denied him in the here and lu)w, Jesu;.~t and othe-r wiu~es..o;e,s would de.ny them at the final j1.1dgernent. He may also

have. said in somewhat more graphic tenns that if peopJe were ashamed of him in the here and uO\\', Je~~tus and other w i toes.~es Wl)uld be ashamed of the-m at the final j udgement In that case, he would also have made clear reference. to the eotning of God himself for d1e final judgeme!lt. 42.

SCi! Pt). t92 above: 242- 5 below.

194

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Even with t.hi~ degree ofuncerhlinly, the genuine sayings \!Jhich I have rec.o,•ered are of central i•uporl
the eternal fate of evet) 'Oile who was there at the. time. This gi\'es him the totally centml position which led the early Christians to describe-him as the Christ

Chapter Eighl B ETRAYED BY A

I<Jss ( LUKE 22.48)

There is just one authentic Son of mao saying which bas Sul'\'i\1ed in Luke-alone. It belongs to an incident which is related by Mark. and which certainly took place. The basic. stoty of Jesus• betrayal by Judah of KetiOlh is not lhe kind of thing that the early church had any reason to produce, and it has many signs of authemicity. The Greek 'loUcSac; is a straightfOrward vcrsioo of the llebrew aod Am111ai<: ;m;r, which is generally rendered into English as Judah. 'laKcxp•we (Mk 3. 19//Lk. 6.16: M k 14. 10) and 'la'' "ithout and then with Greek endings added, of t he Jlebl'e\V m~1j7 'li~. 'man of Ke-r ioth' .1 Keri04.h was a small village. in the very south of Judea (Josh. 15.25). lienee the variant reading c:irrO Kapu(o)Tou (Jn 6.71 :\' 9 pe; 12.4 D; 13.2 D; 13.26 D). Judah was thus the only one of tlle-twelve not to oome from Galilee. which is presumably why he was known by his place of ori£in. Judah's betrayal of Jesus has be~n a _gre.at puzzle-. Mark t~lls us •hat he went to the <:hier priests of his own volition atld oO"ered to hand Jesus over h) the-m (Mk 14. 1OIl ). The iocide-1H in which Lk. 22.48 is found is pa.rt of the srory of how Judah took an annOO parly to arrest Jesus in a garde-rl at oight (Mk 14.43-50), therel'Y solviog the chief priests• problem of how It) arrest him without a major riot. The rea.~on why Judah's motives have pnwed .so difficult to understan-d is because of the-inl1uen<:.e of late•· Christian lradition. If we il'tlagine-that Judah became one of the Twelve bec.ause he realized the pertec1 goodness of his lncamatc Lord coming from he-aven 10 redeem the world, :.mel because.Je~~us perceived in him the pe.rsonal qualities needed by an apostle wh-o would spread this wonderful news: and if we. in1agine dlat Judah's betra)'
196

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

a prophetic tnovement dedicated h) the re.newal of Israel. Jesus clh)se him because he. was a faithful Jew. dedicated to God and 10 the renewal of Jstael, and with the il

qualities nec.essary to take a leading role in a ministry of preaching and e~orc.ism. Like other li'tithful Je\VS. he will have been troubled by JeslL'; ' c.ontnwersies with scribes and Pharisee.o;; during the historic ministry. E:\:actly what he obj ected to,

we have no idea. Perh.aps he lithed mint. dill and cummin, and felt the decorated monuments of the prophet') were quite m.agnilic.cnt. Perhaps it wa.'j; something else - it nlust have be.cn sornething which did not seem contrary to the prophetic renewal of Israel. While such de1ails are c.onjecrural, l) ur main point is surely secure - he will have been troubled by these c.ontroversies. and he did not undergo an overnight convers1on. Nonetheless. given the. point at which he went to the chief priests and the seriousness of what he undertook to do. there should be no doubt as to which e\·ent was the lio.al stra''' fOr him - the cleansing of the Te-1llple. Frorn the perspective. of a faithful membe.r of normarive Jewish tradition. the will of God laid down in the Torah \\'tt!;; that the house. of God siKYuld be. run by the priests. In charge were the chief priests, as God had appointed, with scribes who interpreted the scriptures so that everyone kne\\' ho'" the Temple was to be run. Fro n) Judah's point or vie\!/, il was accordingly quite wrong of Jesus to enter the Comi of the Gentiles. and upse.t the arrangements duly made by the. chief priests and sc.ribes for the payment of the Temple tax and the purchase of the offerings most used by the. poor. From our p0i111 of ''ie"'• Judah changed sides aod be1rayed his master. From Judah's point of view, he did nothing of the kind. He was a fai thful Jew doing the will of God from begioning lo end, and when a most ~gn:: uab l e connid becatne unacceptable, his only master was God. r...toreover, to some.extent Jel:ou.S must have collude.d with Judah. I have.discussed in detail lhe sayings with \\'hic.h Jesus, at the Last Supper. predieled his betrayal in terms which led the disciples each to deny that they would betray him.! In going to the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus aJJowed Judah to bring an arm-ed group of people to arrest him. He could have ruo for it if he had so "'ished. Indeed, he did not have to c.ome to Jerusalem if he had not wi$.hed. His obligation to anend Passover. and to remain within greate.r Jerusalem for the night, could both be overriden by the need to save life. We have however seen that he predic.ted and interpreted his fonhcoming death. and went to Jerusalem in order to die. Moreover. Jacob and John .said they would s.hare in his. de.ath (l\-tk I0.35-45), a.nd Peter and others said after the La.~• Supper lhat they would dje. with him r.).lher tha.n del\)' him (Mk 14.31 ).' Jesus the.refore knew full well that he would be executed if he were arrested. This is the. extem of his colfusion with Judah: he we.m whe.re he knew that he would be found (c.f. Jn 18.2). All this •nakes a pe.rfetlly cohereot na.rratjve, \!Jhich should be acce.pted as historical fac.t. luke's major source fl)f his Gospe.l was the Gospel or Mark. which however he. often rewrote to a considerable degree. Sometimes. especially in the accurate "2. 3.

Sec 1>1). t.l+-6 3bovc: C3S(:y. Aramaic Sm11r:f!S ofMark's Gospt'l. 1)1). 229- 32. See- funhcr pp. 1.3 1-4 above: Ca..;cy. Aromaic Sourrt.{ ofMarkS Gospd, pp. 193- "2 18.

Betrayed by a Kiss

197

parts M the passion narrative, it is djfllcuh h) tell whether he perhaps had another source whic.h was mther like Mark. There are two points at which he cenainly did. though scholars have often contesred this. These are the two points where Matthew tUined ro the same noo-Marc.an source. At Mk 14.65. Mark relates how the-people mocking Jes-l)s said to him 'prophesy•. Luke, ''.•latthew and luke have tive words running in common, onI>' the firSt of which is Marcru~: KO:.I E-~EASc::.v £~<:.::~ fKAauo~v tTIKpilc;. r-.•toreove.r the text of Mark is quite unsatisfactory from the point of vie.w of a monoglot speaker of Greek. sinc.e i: rn~o:Ac..lv m~ans ' thrc)\\•ing', which docs not make sense. In Syriac. however, l\117 is used or'throwin_g'threats and curses, muc.h as in En_glish ' "e m:l)' 'butt• abuse-. We must 1herero1~ infer that Mark had a \\'l'iue.n soun::.e \Vhich read ~JJ 1n1V"\: 'Ao-d he began h) ' veep'. lie misread this as ~J~ ~11.?1 : • And throwio_g (sc. n~ore abLL:;e), he w~pt'. This m:tde se11Se to him because-the idiomatic use of ~11.? wa..,:; already present in Aramaic., and he t~ulslated with im~o:Ac..)v because. he was suffering from the double level of interference inevirable in translators.-• Matthew and Luke, howe\'er. had in front of them the text of Mark. which does not make proper sense. to anyone approaching it fro m :t purely Greek perspective. 4. Ctscy. Ammai< Soo1r:es of Mari:.J Gc.wel, 1>1,· 85-6. This was rej.x1cd by ~tastin, who insi!:·~'l7 1\i;t!-r, which would mak~ non~'flSC of nly sugg_ession. Mastin's: i nsi~• encc th31 we ~houl d usc oo1y Qumran Aramaic 101'-"COilSU\Ie-1 souro::s f1001 fi rst-century Gsl il~ is howewr oonlplctd y ttnlla1is:faclo:uy (s:ce pp. 56- 9 above). •-rt nl3y be ti>llowcd by a 1>ankiplc- i.n. both later Jewish Ammaic and in Syriac. so it is entirely rcasonabk to posit it here. A diO'erent <:ritkism was m:.dc. by P. J. Williams. in a K\'kw article full of mistakes which csnnol be enumerated he-re: P. ~~ . l-lead and P. J. Willian111, 'Q R\'vicw'. 1YnBul 54 (2003), PJ). 119·44 {14J-4). Williams argued du.tl\i:z" oould mean. ' begin' only in the pa'el. so the fonn V.'Ould have 10 be •-It;. .,...flieh would require IWt> lcuers 10 have been misre:-.d. one of 1hem (' mis:read as :-:) implausible. That x-rt csn nll'an ' begin' only in Lhc pa'~l is ttue in \'ornli7.C'd Syrioc. but it is not d ear th:u 1hc aulhorof Mark's source would koow this:. nor is it Ob\•it>us in c:Hiicr unpointOO h'XIS. For cxan;ple. ;P-,v. 'I tx:ga.n•. occuts a1 I Qap('..cn Xll.ll.J5: XIX. I&; XXI. IS: it could be either {Jt''UI or pa'el. 11is: mMt improbsbk tbat 1hc autho•· of Mark's sou1\'c had b~n uaincd in At:-.maic g_remn~r. Accordingly. there is no1hing wmng i.n. ~J'l1Xl6.ing thai he "'rote. ~it!. Willi:-.ms also insisL" dlal :-:1i!t must haw bcC1l u~d in lhc {Jt''ul. btu he docs notjus.1jfy this opinion al all. lfMatk's SO:Itltce did write ~ '1d'l, 'and he began wcc:ping'. i1could haYe bce:n miste3d lO:! •1:z!1, •and he 1hrew (s<. threats snd curses). he W~'fll' . A bilingual sutr.:·ring f1001 imetfcrence as: Slbc-translat~'il miglu well render this Ko:l i n. ~o:Wv (K.Xo:tn... M(J(eovcr 0 0 565 r~d Kol ~~o:To K).a!nv. sin~~ ~1;; ·,;;;1, pe~h ~~·,;;!;,hark "1l:!t U l :->1:> ~. Clcady the home of Sc-mitk r~"ad ing~ no1 ic~-d what had happened. and corrected Mark's misltlke. Both Mastin lltld V.'illiams huveereated stric1 rules whkh prevent the solution of problems like this. \Ve should oot do so.

198

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

This is exactly the point at which both of them had good reason to consult another \'e.rsion if they knew it l uke shows ample signs of ha\ring such evidence available to hin1. We :o.hould therefore infer that this included an account ofPe-h~r·s denial. and

that Matthew. seeing something wrong with the Marean account which he usually fOIIO\\'S. looked again at his alten·lative aec.ount, just as he had done a tew verses earlier.sl uke's account of l11e-betrayal show'S s ignificant overlap with 1hat of Mark, but not such that one can decide whether he was simply rewriting ~~lark or using an altem ative Greek accourH. At l k. 22.47, he has the following words in c.on1mou

with Mark: E'T1 o.1hoG AaAoiJvTo; ... 'loU&u; E'ic; Tilv &.l!SEKa ... o:lm5v. and in a different position, Ox~oc;. Similarly at lk. 22.50: E'i.; ... Tt.; ... T0v 5oUAov ToU ci:pxl~p~c.ll; Kal ci
.:11i:i"

This example is rather near th-e lil'nit.s of Arumaic idiom. It is a re-action of hom)r that Judah of Kerioth. one of the c.hosen members of the Twelve. should betmy Je-.sus and should do so with a kiss. The general level of meaning which is idiomaticaJiy used is a generalization from his own personal expe-rience. and one which has re.sonnted with most people e\'er since. He was expecting to be betrayed. but he had already expressed his condemnation of the traitor. He now expressed his horror at this way of be-traying him. The. use of a generaJ level of meaning should not be allowed to undermine the drama or the emotion of the moment. Jesus really meant that Judah himself was doing something horrible to Jesus himself. He expressed himself indireclly because that was a nonnaJ way of expre.ssing oneself in Aramaic in overtly humiliating circumstances. which these were. As at tvlk 14.21, I have-used the convc:-ntional E1lglish 'betray' to 1ranslate the Aramaic 1co, J'OOl)OSiruc-ted behind the Gre.ek rro:paOiO(..)IJI. Klassen is prominent among scholars who have objectOO h) this.' Klassen has some. philology on his side 5. For roorc dclailcd discUS!'ion of these two pa!iS:l~s. with lW>mc com.mcniS on si.Snd:trd S«oodary literature.~~ Cnsc.y. .-\ramai< .-\ppmudr U1 Q. pp. 2(r9. 6. Cssey, ' Gcnctsf. Gcncl'ic and Indefinite'. p. 39. 1. W. Kls~n,Judas. Betra.rt r or Frimd ofJesus? (london: SCr.-·1. t9%).

Betrayed by a Kiss

199

up to a point, but the c.ontext of these two sayings i ~ the reason why I have not ac.cepted his view. The main point which he has right is that no:pa6l&.l).JI has a much broader semantic area. aod is basically equivalent to the English ' haod over' in a wide-range of circu m~tance$. The. Aramaic and l lebrC\1/ ""''ll are how·ever both

used incircumstances where people would not want to be handed over. Judah handed his master Jesllc; over to his most serious enemies in circumstances which might well le--ad to his de-ath. While there must have been a c-errain degree. of collusion for the eYent to have been possible-, Jesus' word.~ at Mk 14.21 express e-xtrenlec.ondel'nnation, and his sayir\g at Lk . 22.48 expresses shock and horror. I call that 'betrayal' .

This pe-rfe.ctJy sound example of an Aramaic idiom makes it most unlikely that Luke-made dle saying up on the-basis of Mk 14.21 and 14.41. It is much nlO!'e probable that he ha..:; picked it up from his non-Marean smuc:e. We have see.n how

impossible. it is to reconstruct that, at least partly because we know that Luke edited Mark heaYily, and he may well have done the same to his non-Marcan sourc.e(s). I can actordi ngly see no plausibility, and consequently no value, in atte-mptiog to

reconstruct more extensive Aramaic source. mate.ria1 from this part of Luke. Eve-n this son of man saying may have reac.hed him in Greek. The following conclusions may lherefore be drawn. Judah of Ke.rioth betrnyed Jesus wilh a kis.;;, a~ recorded in Mark's narrative. l uke picked up what Jesus said

at the time. probably from a Greek source which was more extensive than we. can recove-r. The saying is a sound example of an Aramaic idiom which we have seen JeslL;; use on olher oe:ca.;;ions. h pre:;-uppO:Ses the normal hmnan feeling that a kiss is

an especially awful way to betray a person. The saying is none-theless nothing like a \'ague ge-nerality. Together with Mk 14.21, it is a dran'latic rooord of Jesus• rej ection

of the. man who betrayed him.

Chapter Nine J ESUS PRE DICTS HIS D EATH AND R ESURRECTt0:-1

I have alre.ady disc.u.o;sed two of Je-sus· predictioo~ of his death which used the tenn (K)~l(K) , J. One o r lht$e., Mk I0.45. Ct)llduded a ge.nuine inciderH in the

ministry of Je.sus. This began with a question fro m Jacob and John, who asked if they eould sit on his rig ht a1ld Jell in his glory. Jesus' respanse took it for granted

that he would indeed be in glory, with people honoured by sitting on his right and Jell h thus presuppol!ed his res·urrection, presumably as part M the c.oming of the

kingdom of God and the generaJ re.surrection of the de-act. The Son of man saying briefly expounds the atoning value or hi.s death, and a..;;serts that Jacob a1ld John,

presumably with otJ1ers. would share in his death. The theology of martyrdom underlies the whole discussion. 1 I have also discus.~ed r-.+tk 14.2 1. This is part of afl acc-urate though abbreviated acc-Ount of Jesus• final Pa.,sover \\'ith his disciples. II predicts Jesus' death in accordance with sc.ripmre, and I wa.' able to locate some passages which will have been io Jesus• mind. h also predicts his betrayal, with very severe condemnation of the traitor.: Despite the general level of meaning of the term (~)1.92(~) J1, bOlh sayings make-clear the fundamental importance of Jesus· death it1 salvation history. As part of these discus.~ i ons, I have also considered more-briefly l k. 13.3 133. Here J eslL~ was wnmed that Herod was seeking to kill him. He responded by declaring his determination to continue his ministry until his death in Je-rusalem. To predict this, he used a general Shltetnent with x·-:u rather tha.l (K)!
Sec t)f). 131-1 abcwe: Casey. Arumaic Suwr:es ofMar/(s GcstJt'l. pp. 193-218. Sec pp. 134-6 above: Casey. Aramaic Soo1us ofMark'J Gtmlot'l. t>t). 233-- 6. Ct~sey. Aramaic Sollrt't'S of Murh Gmprl. pp. JSS-9 . Sec.further Ca!O:}'. Anwuric StHJIUS ofMark J GostJt'l, t>f). 238-42.

201

!Jealh and l?e:mrrectimr

It is against this background that \!Je l'tllLc;t inve.t;tigate the central group of predictions M his death and resurre<:tion \Vhich run thro-ugh the middle-of Mcuk's Gospel (t>.•lk 8.31; 9.31; 10.33-34). They have Ca.li.Sed a g:n"<'lt deal or tmuble to

scholars. None of the standard treatments has become generaJly acc.eptable. and an earlier tme•npl which I made to re.construct one. pos.c;ible original behind all three sayings also met \1/ith severe criticism. Rather than de tend it itl its original IOnn, I propose to make a fresh attempt.$ There is good rea..c;on to begin from Mk 8.31: 1he Marean context has inalienable features of authenticity. Kat ~P~O:TO 6!&iOKUV aU-tack: OTI &i T0v uiOv Toii av6pc..lnov rro>.AO: nmlfill .:ai O noOa.:t~ao&iivcu UnO T~V l'Tpl~uTipc.w .:ai Tilv apx~
Like the other sayings in this group. this cannot be mrned into a satisfactory Aramaic sentC:IlCe as it stands. It contains the \'iw.lterm. 0 viO; Toli O:v6p(.)rrou, whic-h goes back h) the Aramaic (K)JOIJ(K) -a. As we have seen. this was a ge-neral te-rn1 lOr 'man\ and while it could be used idiomatic-ally to refer ioJesus in parlit-ular, suc.h e..'(ample~o; must also have some general level of meaning. Here the problem is thm the saying makes precise reference to the elders and chie-f priests and scribe-$. that is. h) the circ.uriiStances of Jesus' death so speci(ic as to preclude any general level of meaning. Pe.ter is nonethe.less portrayed as understanding this saying very clearly, and reacting in an understandable way which the church would have no reason to create: K«i npoo).o(3c);.t£l1Ct; 0 0 (Tpo; oohO\f fip~O:TO i:tnTtiJciv o.Vt~. 0 6e £ rrtOTpo:~lt; .:at 1&1v toOt; IJ0:61'jtci.; oUToii EnniiJJ'lOtV niTp~ KO:t ).£-yt.,'Y tiO'(t. Oniow IJOV, Io:roOO, OT, oU ¢p0Vf:ir. "t0: TOO &oii Q)).a TO Tilv av&pc.)rtc.)\1 (~ik IU2-33).

So serious a. criticism of Pe-ter \•IO'uld not be found in r-.•tork's Gospel if it did not repre.se.nt approximate-ly what Jesus said. Dut if Jesus' criticism of Peter is autheotjc., a.nd Peter's rea.c.tion must be equally authentic, Pe~er 1'1'1ust have had something likeMk 8.31 to react to. There are therefore good re-ason..:: \llhy w mething like Mk 8.31 must be authentic. and good reasons why it cannot be authentic in its present fonn. The solution to this puzzle lies in repeated editing by aU three e.vangelists of one or more. genuine sayings of Jesus. This can be seen most clearly in Matthew and Luke-. lo lhe central group of Marean predictions, Jesus predicts his resun-ection J.umi Tp{ir; ~JJEpar;. Every single time. both to.'1atthew and Luke alter this to til TpiTl) fJJJip~. The.reason for this is obvious: they have edited the- predictions in the light of their ac.(ual stories of the ~surrection, in \\'hich Je-~c;us does rise 'on the 1hird day·, not li(erally 'after three days'. They also add details to the predictions ofJesus' death. For exarnpJe., only Mt. 20. 19 predicts crucilixion (also added to the heavily ~worked Lk. 24. 7). II is in this light thal we must coosider the inc-reasing details of the successive predictions in Mark. So we tind that on I>' Mk I0.33 34. fOihYwed by 4

5. f(l( :m carliCI' defence of my migiMl suggCSlioll, !Y::C Csscy. ' C".cncral. Oc.ncrk a.od 11\dcfil\i!C'. 43--9.

202

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

r-.•h. 20.19 a.tld Lk. 18.32-33, pred icrs that Je~~us \\1ill be handed ove-r to the Gentiles and scourged. This too musl be. attributed ro the e.\·ang.elist rewriting the prediction

in the light of what he knew of the actual story of Jesus. We nllL~t therefore. go back lO M k 8.31. the lirst of these predictions in Mark, and see whether \\'¢ ca.n remove detailed retere.nces to the stOI) ' M Jesus' death

and the-reby unoove.r a prediction with a general Jevel of meaning. We. can begin with SOI'liC main pOints. We have already seeo 1hat some prediction of Je.sus· death llllL'Jt have been involved for Pe-ter to have had some-thiog to reac.t co. With Matk's ci:rroKTaveiival in mind we shaH be lernpted to th ink of?oy, hut we should by no

means exdude mi'l. which lends itself rt\ore readily to a general level of meaning. We must aiSl) include •after three days'. since this docs not fit a literal reference. to the story of Jesus' resurrectioo.. so fm·· :m7n ,nJ at or near the end or the saying. We shall see that it does um ha"e to he taken literally: rather, resurrection •after three days' c.ould me~ll'l after a short inte-rval. We shall also see that the Aramaic word o1p need not refer to a bodily resurrection, and that goiog straight to heavet~ was a nonnal way to visualize the immediate fate of the suffering righteous. We can see ftol'n the story of the rich man and Lazarus (lk. 16. 19-31) that Jesus shared this vie.w. Equally. aU men die. and il was believed that everyone would rise at the general resurrection. which Jesus believed would take place before very long. All this tits beautifully Sl) l~lr: Jesus predicted his death and his resurrectioo a11e-r three day-s. with a general statement using the tenn (x}"jl(l'\) ,J, which 100k for granted the de-41th of e\'e.J)'One and the general resurrection. How far. then. should we go? We must eliminate UnO Tc:lv npEo~uTipc:.:w tr::o:i Tc:lv cipx•EpEwv ~~:al T~v ypapiJcni(.)V, because this is too ~pecifi~ to the- 1~1te of Jesus and has no proper general level of meaning. We must now go back to the be-giooing l)f the sayiog., where-we l)bviously keep (N)~(x) "U. Mark's lirst word, &i. has often been eliminated on the ground thm it has no precise.equivalent in tJ1e Aramaic of this period, but in this context it is a perfectly reasonable transtmion or the Aramaic Yl1, which is approximately equivalent to the English ' liable to', 'guihy of'. I have previously suggested a simple future In'l". \!Jhile omjng also the possibili(y ofT'ro. which is also used here by Sc.hwarz, or indeed ~'il.6 1 have aiSl) suggested !hat ,~w sho·utd be posited be-hind ~si. at tvlk 9.1 1. "~ I nO\V prefer J 'il hc1-e at Mk 8.3 I on the ground that it 1nakes better sense both of the general level of meaning and of the teachiog of Jesus. The tenn J 'll is used in sayings with reference to death. For example. Hillel is c.redited with saying that a pe.rson who does not team is worthy or de.ath ( J ii ;i?U? ~7" K7'1. M.Ahoth 1.13}. Sinlilarly, R. Aqiba is credited with saying that someone who is unwilling to serve the sages is worthy of death ( J"i11'\7op, y. Naz. 7, 1/18 (56b)). These are not the ~me as our pa$sage, but there is some-similati(y in the use or J ....n witl1 rererence 10 death. It is reg~Hcy. S(}fl of Man, ,,. 232: 'QI.'ft('tal. GC'Il\'ric artd lnck:tinitl.", pp. 43-6: Schwai"L, MttJschell$0hJ1. p. 277. 1. Casey. Aram!lic SOliJ'C't'S t1jMark's Gos(HI. 1>p. 121, t23: •Ar:ull:Uc B:u:·kground of Mark 9: II'.

!Jealh and l?e:mrrectimr

203

beings are liable to s.um~r rcje<:tiOil ruld death because or the fall of man. More partieularly, Jesus was predicting his own s.u m~rin g. rejectil)n by Israel and death as an atooing sacrifice. We mu~t con:o.idcr each M these points in rum. The next words, rro~~O: rro:Oetv. have often been eliminated 100 on the ground that rro:Oetv has oo prec.ise Aramaic equivalenl. However \1/t: have seen that JX~, 1he I lebrew "'ord lOr •sune.r ', wa..:; used in the Arantaic. of Jesus' tinle-.11 Moreover, in discussiog Mk 9 .12, I h:;w e shO\IIfl lhat meditation on Job 14.22, where JKJ is use.d. will have encouraged Jesus to use it.'i Job I4 is a ratherdepressi"e account of the life or man in genetal (o1s, Tg iiJJ -u). h begin.s w·ith a programmatic tirst verse: . ;:., ~:!~'1 O'<:!' -.:;y ;;~

~fan who is born

m· on>

of womun is ~hortli vcd aDd full of lurmoil.

Jl)b 14 ends with the verse which uses JKJ, which is retained in both translations into Aramaic in the rabbinical T.1.rgum, as well as in the Peshitta: r?; ·1b:: 1X Indeed his ftcsh sutfers upoo him, and his soul mootns O\'N him. .~Xi!··';~ lc'~·:r ~'(j'

This gives comprehensive scriptural warr;.mt for suffering being :.t normal part of a 11\all's life. This provides a general leve.l of me.aning lOr the suneritlS ofa/the son of man, which Jesus used to predict the suffering which he amicipated. So we have a good stan to recon:.ttuctill£. Jesus· prediction: r\Ahe SOil of mail is liable 10 11um:1' much

What about cirrotSoKt)Jo:oeijvaf! It is tempting to elimioate-this, because-in tllepresent Ji.)ntl ofrv1k 8.3 1 it is ch)sely a.ssoeiatcd with UnO Tilv rrpt~uripc.:lv Kal T&iv O:pxupic.:lv Kal rilv ypO:IJIJO:TiColv.The rejection ofthe Son M man is howeve.r fo und aJso. linked with his suiTering much, al Mk 9. 12b:

Here the s.uO'el'ing and •·ejection M the Son of man is said to be written in scripture-. tvh)reover, \1/e ha,·e-seen that an Aramaic I'OOOrL"'i ttuction of Mk 9.1 2b alone makes sense of it, for the genera) level of meaning was used to make particular reference to Jl)hl\ the Baptist as well as to J e~us.l also showed lhat this rejection should be traced back to Jer. 6.27-30: 7.29. references on either side of the passage on which Jesus preac.hed in the Temple during his last dnys.10 Rejection is mentioned as folll)WS: .a:;:: ;;1;r CN<:! •:- o:;'; ·:-;; y oxr.·J :-pj :i]ru x7 D"l'l ''f:"l:> :na :-;;;:.! ? Refining he refines i.n. vsin. and th<' wicked SIX' 001 dtt~wn olf: thC)' Will be ~al!.-d rejce1cd silver. for the lORD hall rcj.x1cd lhcm (Jcr. 6.29-30).

s. s.-e ,,. 128abov<:. 9. Casey; Aramaic So:1n·es ofl•turk SGuspel, pp. 126-8: pp. 121-S ab11~·e-. 10. Casey, Aramaic Souras ofMark's Grupt/, pp. I'U,__Jo, t>l,· 127---9 above: •cJe-Jn~i ng \) f theiempte•.

204

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

. lii-u¥ ;n-n<. ;;o., :>~:;· em ':1 For lhc lORD h3s rejected and ab:tndoncd thl.' gcncmtion of hi ~ fury (Jet. 1.29).

The implication of the-use of this material a.1rvtk 8.31 is that Jesus would be rej ec.ted by God whe-n he died. represe-nting the rejection of IsraeL fOr which his death would
was commonly used to refer indirectly to the action or God. It may well have been Lhe tmnslator. who may in any case have been Mark himse-lf. who added UrrO tilv rrpt~utipwv Ko:t Tilv cipx•£piwv Ko:t T~v ypO:IJIJOTi(o)V for this wry reason. There was a very obvious need fOr s.uc.h an ·e.xplicitative> translation, one which explains what the translator takes the text to really mean. We must therefore add the AramaiC;l"'XlJn71, 'and be rejected'. tothepredictioo. T11is hal> "'lCJn~ as the word which Jesus used 10 pick up o~"::. and which •he-t1a nslator rendered Kal cirrOOOkllJO:OOi)vaL It has the rigln se-n'I <'UUic area. It oc-eurs befOre. the • il't~e of Je:,.us at 4QS42 I i 6, and subsequently in several dialects, induding Jewish Aran)aic. It is C1Hj1ely reasonable that the translator rendered it with d:rroOoKt~.tcxoeijva• . because of the. similarity of Lhe semantic area of these two words. The Greek word cinoOOK1~ci~(.) renders o..-.;o -six times in the LXX) and nothing else. The use of E;,ouliwT)Ofi at rvlk 9. 12 should not be regarded as problematical. All these words had overlapping semantic areas, and E~ovli~viCol tWa similar ronn renders O..'\ll sixteen times in the LXX, as well as other \\'Ordf>. notably :11~. We shl)Uid not expect our translator{s) t t) have been utlifi)nn when the text in front of us has two different words with similar semantic. areas and an intelligible linguistic and cultural background. We c.an now pass to d1e next words. Ko:l cirrOKTavO~vat. We have-seen d1at the original predic.tjon um:,.t have included Jesus• death, a..:; 0111y this wi II explain Peter's reactil)tl aod Jesus· re-buke of hin1. The present fl)rm of r-.•tk 8.3 1 in Greek. however, stretches the general level of meaning too far, precisely in its use of cinoKTo:v6~vo:t. Although it is literally true that we are all liable to be put to death. this does not produce anything like as good a general level of meaning as the obvious fact that we are all liable to die-. It is the-refOre be.uer h) suppo.!:e that this h)t) is an explicitative trartslation. Jesus \\•ill have said m~o?1, 'and die', fllld the translator, knowing the passion story. will have translated this Kol ci rroKtavOijvat. a re.tatively ea rly stage in clarifying Jesus' original prediction($) in the light of subsequent eve.ntl>. In the LXX, the velb mo used of $Omeone who will be put to death is similarly re.ndered both with cirroKnlvCol (e-.g. Deut. 22.22,25) and with 6avcxt00 (e.g. Exod. 21. 14: I Sam. 14.45).

The obvious fact that we all die is also sc.ripturally based. The. most basic text is th-e oarrative of the fall or man, who is Ct)Jlsequently subject to death (Gen. 3. 19,22, cf. e.g. 4 Ezm3.7; 7.1 1-16.78). 1 have also dra'"" attention to Jesus meditatiog 011 Job 14, which e.xtensively present;; the de.ath of .-nan. The \1/0rd noo7 acc.ordiogly provides an excellent geneml level of meaning, which Jesus used in order to predict his own death. as we haw seen him do elsewhere. We now have this:

205

!Jealh and l?e:mrrectimr ~~'71 ;;;oz.;'T X~\:I ~XJ
~·;;

This leaves 1\."Surreclion after three days. and we have already seen !hat this pan or the prcdiclion must be genuine-. The Aramaic word Dli" has a ve-ry \\'ide n1nge of meaning. including any so11 of rising or getting up. For example, it may be used or gelling UJl literally. as e-.g. at Dan. 6.20, where D1V' is used of Darius gelling out or bed in the rnomi1lg. TI1is usage is fomld in the life ofJesus at Mk 5.41, where he lakes a sick girl by the hand and tells her ..."0\)~l. 1he Arantaic DlP. transliterated and then correctly translated ~yEtps. It is ti1\1S a uarural \VOrd fOr risiog from slee-p. as for exl.ln'lJ>Ic at y. AZ 2,317{41a) where a woman's husband gm up from sleep: ;,•ru~l.7 j7.l ;,,.JJ 0,.?. f\•lore geoerally, it may be used of corning imo existence, as e-._g. at Dao. 7.24. whe.re lV::P' is used of teo king,~ who will arise in rum to rule over the founh kingdom. Equally. it may be. used of remaining in existence. as e.g. at Dan. 2.44, \\-'here it is said of the kingdom ofGl)d ~""'r:}?:J7 D1V11, meaning that it will 1X:tnain itl existeoce fOr ever. h i~ accordingly M obvious word to usc for rising from the dead. whethe-r what we think of as resurrection of the body or immonality or the soul is really in rniod. For example, R. Jol)anan is !>;Vv Tetit; ~~etic;: nlcn·,c;: aUroic;: liVO:I KO.l &tKO.tc..Jot u; TG K(U TtiJdr; o\r; O:ptt"ij:; ·~ KO:K\ ett; i:rnn)&tuOtt;

d&dw.1'0v

"(ovtv, Ka·, roic;: a v
1.1~v

t tpyJJOv dlcS•ov

rrporle~oecu,

UtrO xeovOc;:

iv Tc;,

j:!.(~

y£

ralc; eX P,o.orWvnv Toli ·

f(l( this, I am indebted to S. It Sdl:lgtn. ·concepts of Rcsurre.:tioo and lmmot1aliry in

l.nt!.'nestrun~mal Jud!tis m and in tho: New Te~tsmem' (Uili>Ubli sh~ddoctoml disscnatioo, Nouingham Uni v~r~ity,

work.

19&5). Ot• Sch:tge:n is lllll hO\VCvct ~~~l)l)ll~ible f\"11" lhc us.c whi..-h I h:tve m:tde of her

206

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

They hold a be lid that souls have power to survh•e death. a nd unde-r the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who tua\'e led live;s of virtue or wickedness. Some receive e.te-mal punishment. while others pass easily to li'll: a,g;,j n (Ani . XV III. 14). l le-r e " 'e fi nd no mention of the reS-urrection of the body, but only the continued

existence of souls. There is no indication of any kind of pause afler death before a final judgement: the natural inte-r premtion is that the soul goes to its etemal tate at once. Some document') imply both :ul iuunediate and
of sinners in a panjcular compartme-nt for those who have already been punished. There will none-theless be a final judgement, when other sinnerS \\'ill enter very great torment. but those who haw alre-ady been punished will not rise. Some documents irllroduce clear c.onc.epts ro deal with ltpCCilic problems. For exarnple. 4 Ezra has the disembodied souls of the righteous rece.ived at once by God. spend seven days contemplating their fate and the universe, and then go to chambers in the underworld h) await their resun-et-tion and vindication at the la.-;;t judgement. As a document, however. 4 Ezra is hardly consistent Oil its own major problem, 1he salvation of the chosen people. The agonizing Chs 3- 10 imply the danlnation of lru).:;t Jews bec.ause they have not kept the Lihv up to orthodox standards, while the Yisions ofChs I l- l3 resolve this problem by their vigoro·us portrayal of the ::alvatiou of Israel. Evidence of this kind should lead us to a more general conclusion. The conce.pls which Jewish people used at the lime M Jesus to cope with de.onh and with the destiny of Israel were variable. and liable. to a degree of obscurity. change and inconsistency beyond those whic-h modern sc.holars regard as to1e.rable when the.y see them in others. The meagre evidence of the Gospels suggests that Jesus shared the anitude to resurrection and immortality characteristic of Jews who believed in Sllf\'ival after death. For example. in answer to an awkward question from the Sadducees, Je-sus assumed that there will be. an occ.asion when the dead rise. His saying may readily be. reconstructed in Aramaic: .r;l' ;);:~;;i:: i'JIO
The natural assumplion is that they rise on a partic-ular occasion. and Jesus conspicuously fails m say lhat they will nm have bodies at a point where such a <"·OilC·Cption would have been helpful 10 his argumerH. On the mher hand, lhe parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lie 16. 19-3 1) pictures the tate ofthe righteous and the wicked at death. Consequen1ly. there is no pause in time before they pass to bliss and 101ment respectively. and it is clear they have not left their mmbs empty. Nor pre.sumably did father Abraham, who wa.~ already in the next world with powers to _se.nd a messenger from the dead if he wished. This process is described at lk. 16.30. i civ Tlc; €Kva::pc":>v rropu.19fi, and at 16.3 1 Eciv Tic; iK vrKpi:>v rroptu&fi. This latter exp1-es.s ion must re-prese-nt Jesus• use ofo1y with reSpect to a dead person who has

!Jealh and l?e:mrrectimr

207

passed to his eternal fate .u once returning to l!".arlh to \tisit people who are still alive. Thi$ ful1her indicates how broadly DlV might be used. Tht' streogth or Jesu.~· belief in survival after death is illustrated by his supposedly crushing argument against

the Sadducees. who did not hold any belief of this kind. He argued from the nature. of God himself. God is so clearly lhe GOO of the living (ct: Jer. 10. 10) thal his declaration to Moses ' I fun lhe God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jac.OO' (Exod. 3.6, 15. 16) is held to demonstrate the survival of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and thereby the-raising M the dead (f\•Uc 12.26-7).1l It !Oilows thal Je,;us' use or O'V i1l this prediction shows that he expected God to vindicate-hirn by raising hifn fmm the de.ad. His use orowdCle$ not however indicate when or how this would wke place. Can we get more from IJETd: Tp~lc; ~J.Iipo.:c;?u

We have aJready seen that this mu.~t be. an authe.ntic pan of the. prediction.

~·latthew

and luke c.oo.!)istently ahere.d it because-, if inte1preted literally, i1 does nol fit their stories of Jesus' comb being el'llply e~1rl ier than thal. A second reason con1pkmeots this. In some pas.sages, 'three days· seems to mean linle more than a short interval. So, for example, Jonah was in the belly of a big Jish for throe days and three-nights (Jon. 2.1), but nothir\g is made of so precise a rneasute1\lent, whic.h seems h) indicate simply a sho11 interval. At Acts 28.7. 12.17 we might believe. in three pl'L'C ise th•~e­ day intef\'als in such a shon narrative, but it may be that here too we should more. \'aguely unde.rstand •a shorl time·. Moreover. a more certainly general interpretatioo of ·aner three days• may be deduced fmm midrashic. sayings which declare. that lsr.tel, or the righteous. ' "ill om be leO ln distress; ror more tha1l lhree days, a view suppOrted ' "it11 several passages of seriptun;-.. One such occas ion is the last days. when de.liveranc.e will bt' by rne.ans of tht' resurrt."':(;lion. For example-Geu.R. l VJ.I c-
following among the examples: .. . oo th~ lhird day
Sirnilarly, Est.R. IX,2 conunenrs on Est. 5.1: Israel arc nc"c-t lefl in dire dislfcss for mor~ than three days . .. of Jonah i1 s:~ys, ' And Jonah wss iJt the belly of the ti>Jl thr~e days and 1h r~e nights' (Jon. 2.1 }. niC dead sl~ will eome lO life onty after 1htec days.. as it ssys. 'On the thitd day he will raise 'US ut> . snd \1/C shall lh'e bef01~ him' (Hos.. 6.2}.

t2.

Cf. F. G. Downing. 'The RcstHI\."Clio•tofthc OC'..d: Jesus and Philo', JSNT t5 (l982J. pp.

42- 50:

P. Lat,ick, 711!' Re.mrwclion of Jescts (L1)ndon! SPCK, t9S4), t)t). 59-63: 0. Sc.-hwankl, Oil"

SaJJu~.at'rjragl" (Mk

11, 18·27 parr) (Frankful1! Athen§um.. t9&7). Sec cs.p. J. Jc-remia.'i, 'Die Drd-Tagc-Woue dcr E"a.ngclicn'. in G. Je-rcmi:~s 1"1 a/. (eds) 1inJili fiir K. G. Kuhn ~um 65. Geb11rts1ag (miuiilgcn: Va1~nhocek & RuptC<'hL. 197t): li. K. McAn.hut. ·on Lhc Third Oay\ A'TS IS ( 1971), pp. 81-6. t3.

208

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

If ' three. days' is interpre.ted like this. the general re~urrection could be e);pected ·aner three days'. It is eltpecially w be noted that these passages do not seem h) mind whether scripture says 'on the th ird da)" or 'atler three days'. which is natural

if a shon interval is really what is meanI. These fuidrashic. passages are however or very late date. II is accordingly of particular intportance that three o ther sayings orJ e~L•S use the th ree-day interval io a similar 1\letaphorical .se.Jlse. l have noted Lk.

1 3.3 2-33: 1 ~

.:mt ::i;;z.! l'\"n'7i'Ull-r.X o r1 ii m1· Krotl:'.di-i:r-,1 ;-~x ;'1-t' ~ ,x;; ,:v; K,-,m7 l"t'::-> o7.; ,ji.o? "\":Xl 32

.o7dn• lll x-c 'nK"i ;;::j, 'K" ~7 ':l .; r inl a-,•; p Nllr 17:1') :ill\ m.r ou 33 he s:~id 10 ll'lc-m. 'Go (CIJlh:n jscksL look! I 11m ca.s.zing 01.11demons and pc1fc>nnif\£, hc:llings to-day and tOOllliTOW. and ont.hc thil\i d3y I ttnl p.:rf.xlcd. »BUI I run goi.ng 10 pl\~ccd lO·day 3nd
In the first of these sayings. Jesus used a more-elaborate version of the th~e-d ay interval to look forward to his death l)O the third day. In 1he-~ond sayiog, he used aoother more elabor:11e versioo of the tllree·day imerval, et1ectively h) IMk forward

to his death after three days. This underlines tJte obviously metaphorical use.of these three.day intervals. At Mk 14.58, a more difficLth saying, b..)th itl its interpretation and in the question of its authentic-ity. he is re.poned to have said he would bui ld a temple not made with hands Oui TptWv iU.tEpc:lv. At a more.literal level, three days is just long enough (0 enMtre that a person was really dead (cJ: Jn 11 .39; b. SetH VJJI.I; Lev. R. XVIII. I). We may e-ondude that, in the original saying, Je-sus probably

meant that he. would be vindicated in the generaJ resurrection. which would take place.after a shon intervaLThe way in which he plll it was howe.ve.r rather opaque. and eminently ca~ble of reinterpretation after his dea!Jt. We must therefore conclude that Je.sus said some-thing vel)' like this: .p;::.· ;;:1'm ;ro oy.":~'?l ru:l!l'71 ;;,~:'\'7, 1\::-i:- ~lOll'?

~:Z.J.'\ -a ::~ •;;

Mh" 1100 of man is liabl" lO ~•lli:r much 3nd be rcjC(ICd t.nd die, :md lise ali\'r LhfC(' days.

Given tJte cultural background in the Jewish scriptures sketched above. this has a pe.rfecdy good general Jevc;ol of rne.aning. The ti rst part M the saying refers {0 the eneets of 1he filii of mao, and \!Je have seeo that man's suO"ering and reje<:tion. as

well as his death. were wriuen in the-scriptures. Jesus could also rely on widespre-ad be.l ief in the t"eillim.~t ion of the dead. I lis asse.rtion that this would 1ake place •after three days', in the thetaphoric.a l sense of afte-1' a short iruetval. is of a piece with his expectation that the kingdom of God would c.ome in the near future. This genernl l.evel of meaning aJso helps to explain how Jacob and John might participate in his de.ath (Mk I0.35-40), and h0\1/ Pe1er and olhe r disciples might contemplate dying \Vith him (l\.fk 14.3J).'S At the same time. the established nature of this idiomatic use.of (~)1.9~ 1\) 1~ \!Jas s-uflieit-lll to e1\Sure tha t ever)'One would realize 1hat Jesus was

14. 15.

Ct~scy. Aramaic Soltrt:t'S of Marh Gmprl. pp-.

See-funh"rpp. l29-36 abovc.

188-9.

209

!Jealh and l?e:mrrectimr

relhring primarily to hinlse-l f. The humiliating nature of sulleriog, being rejected and put to death. on the one hand, and the central importaoce of his de~lth in God's plan followed by his vindication lhrough resurrection. aU this made-the use of this

particular idiom especially appropriate. TI1is primary refCreoce to Jesus himself explains Peter's imrnediate reactioo. lie did not start complaining about the fall M mao! I=Je obviously objected to Jesus' inte-ntiOil h) die, and the-re is no mention of the death of <~.n yo ne e-lse. Jesus ' feroc ious reaction makes the-same assumption. We must therefore accept the authenticity of this prediction in somedling very close to the li)rm which I have constructed. This was Jesus' 1irst prediction M his death
'Q uiCJc. -roli 0:v6p<.lnoo

The authenticity of this saying has often been defended. sometimes with refere.nce 10

a partial Aramaic

~c.ons truc t ion .

hl a brief but inlluential

ln~aone.nt,

Jere-mias

suggested a possible original: mitm'sar bur "111i.\tj fiJ~ Ifne "mi¥U. God will (1>oon} dc-li\'ct up 1M nlall to illCil.

Jeremias described this as 'a mti.Sii/, a riddle. simply bec.ause bar "mi.M can be uoderstood either as a title or geoeric.a.lly.' lie regarded this as 'the anciem nuc.leus \!Jhich underlies the pal)sion prediction' . 16 Tilis should no be accepted. (K}oiJ(K) 1J was

an ordinary term for man, and does not offe--r the-.altemati\'e of being a title. Without a rnuch clearer conte-xt, the general level of rneaoing does not make proper sense. Ir the above reoonstructil)n fron) Mk 8.31 is even approximately C-Om!(t {.le-remia:..:o did lh)t acc.epl that), it is difJicult to see \!Jhy Je-$ul0 should offer this riddle aller a p •~d i ction so clear that Peter objected h) it at onc.e. It also l)l'llits the-reltrence to resurrection. part or the prediction in common with r-.~tk 8.31 which \l/e have seen good reason h) de-feud. Lin dar's aue.mpt is even shorrer: 1/!lmt.rar bar tm.uha A man muy be delivered up . .. 1 ~

llere the n-lOdal 'may' is pa.rt of the English translation, not ofthe text, and it is dillicult (0 see-\!Jhy JJJ:>n~ slk)uld be reoden.xl \!Jith the-present tense napa616oTal . ~
even as an original lxtsis for longer sayings, this is too shonto be fmitful. When we consider this saying as a whole, we should conclude that an Arama.ic reconstruction is not possible.111 The first pan does not make proper se.nse. and Ka·, 16.

Jc rl."nlias. Nt>'"' Testamotl Thtology. J).

2:82:: similatly ~.g. H:unpcl, Mms
288- 300.

17. Lindars, Son of Man, p. 68. 18. Fo••sicm ofwhtu h~pp~~ns ifone tries. ~nd wh:tlt is. wrong with 1hc resuiL sc~ Csscy. ·o~nersl. Ocnclic- :md Indefinite'. 4(t-9.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

210

0: nOKr av9eit; is too Greek for an Aramaic reconsuuction. especially following O: nOknvoUo•v o:Ur civ. At the. same time. '0 uiOc; roUO:v9pc:.lrrou rrapcx6i0ota •. the-opening ofthe sayiog at Mk 9.3 1, is found at Mk 14.21 , the authe nticity of w hich I

have defe.nded: Kat ci:rroKnvoiJolv aUrOv, Kat ci:rroKtavln ·,~ is an elaborate version of Ka·, cirroKtaveijval at Mk 8.3 I. where I argued that it is a (tansfation or oorl':n: and

the vel)' end M Mk 9.31, IJHd rpelc; ~~Epa.; civaOTr)oETal . is close. to Ka1 IJHO: rpelc; ~JJEpo:c; civcxoTijva •, which I d e le nded as paJ10f a prediction undetlyiJlg f\•lk 8.3 1. The rernaiuing words, e.ic; xet pac; civOp<.lnCalv, are fJ ... s:WJ~

in anothe.r authentic Son of man saying at Mk 14.21, and to et.; tOe; xelpac; r Wv ci~.tcxpTt.:~Ai.lv in anothe.r Sl)n or 1nan saying a1 Mk 14.41 . We ll'IUSI infer thai Mk 9.3 I was written by Mark on the basis of e~ i sti ng traditions which were available to him. We must rnake the same infere1lC.e 1\)r Mk 9.32: oi cS£ l)yvciouv TO P~l-la, Ka'• i4>o~oUvTo a:UTOv Emp'*l-rijoa.. If the-prediclion of9.J I is due 10 Marc.an edilillfh the di.~ci ples' re.aetit)l\ 10 it must be like\vis.e. On historical gmunds, the-incident does not make good sense. We have seen lhat when Jesus first predicted his death at r>.·lk 8.3 1, Pete.r understood him immedialely and reac1ed memorably. Uy 10.3540, Jacob and Joho understand 1hat their request to sit on his righl and left in his glory entajls that they share h is de-ath. That in the meantime Jesus made another prediction of his death and resurrection. and none of the inner circle of three.nor any of the olhers understood him and were too afraid to ask, is not plausible. It lits very well. ht)\\ Cver. irno Mark's reg.reuable a11d inlluenlial view of lhe disciples' Jack or understanding. We must infer that ~·lark wished to present another pre.diclion by Jesus of his death and resurrection. bUl thm he rewrote the tradition because he did not have a prediclion othe.r lhan that underlying Mk 8.31 to present at that point. 11lis •es.ull is cort.linnOO at Mk 10 .33-34 : 1

'1000 civo:~iVOIJH" ti~ 'hpoo0Av1Jo , ~:a't 0 viC., TaU O:v&pc.)rrou napo:&&r}ona• Toir. cipxupnjotv Kai Toic; ypaiJpan-Uow, .:ai t::o:ToxpntOUotv a1hOv &ovch~ ..:a'• no:po&.>oouo•v oUTOv Toir. ~6wow .:ai i~mo:i~ouo•v aUT~ .:a't il.lntVoouo•v o:Vn:;:a ..:al IJO:OTtyc.XIovo•v aVrOv !::o:i dnoKttiiO'liow, .:a't IJHO: TpEit; ~!Jipcxt; civo:onlono t.

Here again, even more obviously than at Mk 9.31 , the~ is 110 possibility or reconstructing an adequate Aramaic original of the prediction as a whole. Moreover. we c.an see where the details have. come fro m. 0 v'tOc; Toli O:vOp(.)rrou is from Mk 8.3 1 and 9.31. rro:pacSo9rionat is an improwment on napacSicSoTa:l at 9.3 1. Tol.; cipxlepEOOtv.:o:1 Tole; ypa~pan\iotv replaces theSemitictk XEt pac; O:v6pc:.)rr'*lv at 9.3 1 in light ofUrrO Tilv npeo~rip(o)V 1v ypaJ,J IJariwv at 8.31 . The words Ka't 0 rrOKnvoUotv are from.9.3 I. and e-verything in between these last two rewrites. Ka't KaTaKp•voUow a\m)v ea-vch~ Ka:l rrapa&.loouono~ a \m)v Tol.; £0veotv Ka:l [IJ.rral~ouotv o:Un;, Kal EJirn\ioouotv alm:~ Ka·, ).taOTty
!Jealh and l?e:mrrectimr

211

This also make-~.; excellent sense of context We are told that they were on their way up to JerusaJe.m. and Je-sus went ahead. Kal (.Oa~~GvTo, oi .5&o~livTo (r\
explicitative translation of a genuine prediction by Je-.sus of his suffering. death and resurrection after a short interval. We have its original context as the. first such prt"'diction by Jesus . for it led directly to Pete-r 's attempt It) rebuke him. aod 1hat Jed d irectly h) Jesus· se,rere rebuke of Peter. It was a very important pre.die!iotl

at the time. and was treated as suc.h during the Inter transmission of the tradition. Mark presents Jesus as predicting his death and resum.~tion repeatedly. His other pred ictions at 9.31 and 10.33 34. howeve-r , \Ve-re written by him in the light M Mark 8.31, the a:uthentic predictiOil at 14.2 1, and the actual eve!lts of the passion. h remaim; possible- that Jesus gave diOCrent ve-rsions o f the predic-tjon which we can reco nscruct fro m Mk 8.3 1, and that what Mark d id not like abou t the1u is that. like Mk 8.31 itself. they were not specific enough li.)r the-late-r part of his narrative. 4

.A.H we can be sure of is that we have one. prediction which was of fundamental importance. and that it was subsequently rewriuen.

ChaplerTen OTHER SYNOPTIC SAYINGS

The purpose of this chapter is to argue that the remaining Son of man sayings in the synoptic tradition, i.e. those no t discus.~ed in Chs 4-9. are not authentic say in.gs

of Jesus. They are the work. of the early church. or the editorial contribution of the evangelists, or some combination of the 1wo. I begin with the two large~;:;t C.OI'tlplexes of material, which are centred on Matthew 24. and on l uke 17 and 2 1. Both include vigorous editoriaJ work by these two evangelists. e.ach of whom used some Q

material.

I. Mllllhew 14

11)e-fi rst 36 verses off>.•lauhew 24 are for the most paJ1 his edited version ofM k l.l l -

32. Both chapters are rigtuly famous as eschatological discourses. each of which J'CJlecb; to a coosiderable degree the interests of 1he- early church rather !han the

preaching of the historicaJ Jesus. The first important piece of Matthean ediliog relevant lbr pre$ent JlUI'J>Oses is

at v. 3. Mark has a question plll by the inner group of three. Peter. Jac.ob and John. toge-lher with Peter's brother Andre\IJ: rrOn taiha: iota•, Kai t t tO oru.uli'ov Otav IJEAAn taGta auvnMloOal nci-vto:; Mauhew made the second pan of this question, which he auribl1tes to 'the disciples•, much 1t10re precise: rrOn ta.Uta i'ota:t, Kal Ti tO orn.1t:lov tfr; oilr; rrapouoiac; Kat ouvnA£ia:c;: to\i ali.)voc;; lhe l'irsl e-xp•e-ssion refers to the events associated with the destruclioo of Je.rusalem, and the last makes cle.ar that these eve1HSare the final eschatological ones. Al1lt)ng them, we have r...tattliC\IJ's own phrase t~ aijc; rrapouoiac;. The word rro:povola is used only in Mt. 24 in the whole of the synoptic Gospels. All Lhe Olher three examples refer clenrly to I) rra:povoia toG uloU toU Cxv6pc.lrrov (24.27 ,37,39), and all li.)'u r refe.r h) Jesus' second coming at the end of all things. The expression tO OTJ}Jtlov ~c;: one; no:povoiac; refers forward particularly to t0orn.t£lov toU u'u>li toU CtvOpc..)nou iv oUpav~ iUYu)O.f', the tina! events at tv1t. 24.30. Tile tenn rrapouoia ha~ no natural Arnmaic equivalent. as the. efforts of the Syriac versions to translate it indic-ate: ;m•no (sin). ;m~n.'\t~ (pesh hatt) or :iin'm::: (palsyrlec) at 24.27, and similal'ly elllewhere. The ul!del'lying ve1b ;-J.fl.x is common in all kinds of Arrunaic tOl.n the earl ie~t tifnes through lO the modem period, but d1is noun M"n(~)n is specific

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

213

to Syriac, which has more abstract nouns of this kind than other ancient Aramaic. dialects. l11e.pos..') ibility tb.at:m~n(K}'l ' "as there for Jesus ro u:.~c in tirst-ccntury Israel may therefore safe!)• be excluded. What is more. the tenn rrapouoia has an e:\:cellent Sil~ im Lebe11 in the-Greek-spe-aking church. While it narurally c.ontinuOO to be used of the appearance of real people in the here and now· (e.g. I Cor. 16.17), some Ne\V Testament authors use it with clear refere.nce to the second coming of Jesus in the. last days. Paul uses it at the beginning of his gr.~phic picnm~. of the second coming at I The-ss. 4.15, where he refers n.'•a.o;s-uring_ly (0 hifnselfand his audieJlCe-a~ ~IJ{ic; oi ~ilvnc; o'1 rnp1~u n6,Jn,ot tic; Tl)v rrapovOa v ToU KUplov. Other references are less graphic but equally clear: I Cor. I5.23; I Thes.~. 2.19, 3. 13, 5.23; 2 Thess. 2. 1. Jacob also use-s the phrase t) rrapouoio: ToU truplov (Jas 5.7-8). Similar usage of napovola is also preserved in 2 Peter ( 1.1 6; 3 .4) and I John (2.28). h fOllows that Mauhew's use of rrapouoia is part of his own presentation of the second coming of Jesus, which was such an important part of the belief system of the.early churc.h. We shall see that his particular expression ~ rrapouola ToUuloU roV Ov9pc.lrrou resuhs from combining it with a tetm which was of c.entral imponanc.e to Gospel traditions in pruticular. At\Oiher important piec.e of editing is ~l.l Mt. 24.15, where-tvlatthew elaborntes the perceived prophect and re-tains 1he reQ\test fOr interpretation beyond the confines of his text:"'OTL"ltive materia] of1his kind is covered by retaining 1he phtase 6 civaytw..)oK(.)V voElT(.). This is the simatiot~ fn)tn which Mauhew urges pe.t)ple io Judaea to llee.Heal.o;o expands the instruc.(ion to pray tllat their tlight does nm take place io winter, with JJTI~ oo:~JkiT<.;J {Ml. 24.10). This shows \\'hat a serious part of early Christianity Judaism still was when this Gospel was wriuen. and it is one of the indications that \ 1le should prefer an earlier date. than is conventionaL As so often. ~·lmthew amalgamates his Q material with his Marean source, i n..~c rti og vv. 26-28 in bctwe.eo his editiog of r...tk 13.23 and 13.24. By this stage-, he has taken over from "'lark the prediction that this would be. the worst period of di suc~~s in human history (Mt. 24.2 I). Ile also relains from Mali:: enough of tllelanguage of Dan. 12.1 to make clear that he followed the western interpretation of that p~sage.l lis ac£uali2itlg exegesis c-Onstantly updated the whole text of Dan. 7. 9-I2, so that this predic.tion of disastc.r rernained io the future. Matthew also follows Mark. in the. comment that God will shorten Lhe days to prevent the extinction of humankind (ML 24.24 frorn Mk 13.20). This makes il clear that, apart frorn 1he desln.tc.tion of Jerusalem, the last times will see large-scale h\Jn'I<'UI ca.~ uahie-s. This sets up the folh)win_g Q pas..~ag_e, Mt. 24.28 (/Il k. 2 I.27). Mauhew takes also frorn Mark the prOOietion of fl:tlse Christs at1d false prophets (Mt. 24.24 frorn r...tk I3.22). I.

On the wc>:1cm i m~rptcL.'\tioo of0anicl 7. ~...x- Casey. StHI ofMan, Ch. 4.

214

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

We know from other e\'idence that this was a genuinely serious problem. For example. Josephus ha~ this account ofTheuda..s: Wh¢n Fadus was procurator of luduc.a. a certain impostor (y0rr,) called ihcudas pc-rsu:.dOO: most of d1c masse's to take up the.ir possc.ssions and follow him to the ri\•Cr Jordan. For he said h;:. was a prophcl. and that he v.X>Uid p:ltllhe river b)' his command and provide WI easy passuge for thcm. With these:.words hc:.doceivod muny poopk. FadUS-. however. did t101 allow 1hcm to benefit fmm 1hcir folly, bUl sent out ag.sin'-llhc-m a troop of cavalry, which tCII oo

them unc:tpcctcdty and killed man)'. and took many ali\'e. TI1c-y c.aplurcd Thcuda.~ him~lf. cut off his hc.11d tmd took it to JC'rusulem (Alii. XX. 97-8).

This has everything that Matthew was concerned about Like Josephus. who calls him yo!};. Mouhew would obviously regard Theudas os a >jl1]Tn~. He promised signs and wonders. deceived many. and took them into the wilderness. which Matth-ew wams against in the follo\\•ing Q passage (f\+h. 24.26). The resuh of this was disastrous fOr TI1eudas' follo"'ers, as \Veil as for him. f\•tauhcw's predictioo of fat~ Christ-.; and l~l l se pi'Ophets begins \1/ith a slighlly edited version of Mark's warning 001 to believe anyone who says " 'here the Christ is (MI. 24.23). Tilis neatly sets up1he opc-niog of the Q pas.c;age {t>.+lt. 24.26). The parallel h) ML 24.26-28 at lk. 17.23-24.37 is close enough for us 10 infer that ,~,~e are deaJing with common source material. ·The differences between rvtmthew and Luke are howe.\•er so great that we must recognize also that there has been hc.avy

editing. These.differences are of such a kind that they cannot possibly be explained as resulting from two Greek translations of a common Aramaic source. They have resulted from e.xre-nsive editing by the evangelists. Nowhere is this more. obvious than with rvtanhew·s e-: EOTtV, ~i) i~: we have seen fro m Theudas how appropriate thm is. His second elaboration is iv r ole; r a,.u lott;:, ' in the inner rooms'. This has puzzled some of the comrnentators, but it l'onns an excellem rhetoric--al contrast with i v T{l i:p~IJc.>. h also make.s perfectly gOt)(( sense of people hoping thm someone of royal breed would emerge from an aristocratic palace to le.ad the nation back to victory. Blac-k suggested that a translator may have misread the. Aramaic. bt-'idmyya. fro m the Aramaic 'idm: 'idm, ' threshing lloor', 'area', ·asse.ubly', •congregation', ·sanhedrin ', so that lhe origioalmeaning behind Ev Toi~ TO:IJ&iol<; was ' in the As.o;el'nblies', ' in the-Sanhedrin'. This wa.t; 1t1isread a.o; be ' idroll(ryya ' in inner roon~s'. and this is how it came to be. translated Ev r o"it; TO:IJEiOI~.: This suggestion should not be accepted. In the first place, a..:; we- have seen. the te-xt makes perfOCtly gOt)d sense a.o; it smnds. Secondly, Clack's procedure embodies a comnu)fl error of method. 2. M. Black, 'The Aranl3ic OinlCilSioo in Q \\"ilh Noh::ll: oo Llll:c 17.22 and ~ianh~:w 2-4.26 (Lul:c 17.23}'. JSNT40(1990), pp. 33-41 (39).

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

215

He did not like the-text. so he posited a change.of a single word. This is noc enough to show that the saying ever existed in Arnmaic., let alone in its pre-~o;e.m fonn in a passage where r-.~tauhe"' is editing heavily. Thirdly, the '"ord ·rr~ is not auested with the right meaning anything like early enough. and not cenainly auesred with 1his meaning a1 all. II is atresied in early Aramaic, and derived from the Akkadian lulru, with the rneaoing ' threshing-floor', as at Dan. 2.35. It is \\'ell anes-ted lmer in Je\llish Palestinian Aramaic. Samaritan Aramaic. Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Syriac, still 1f1eaning ' threshing-floor', and sometimes \Vilh the slightly e-xtended rnc:-aniug 'bani', •gronat)'' . Dlack's auempt to justit)' his proposed meaning ftom Tg. Prov. 27.22 is M l satislactory. This Targum is too late-and \\'ayward to c.ounl on it-:; l)Wn as evidence M first-cenrury usage in Israel. Moreovel', Dlack dl">e:S not offel' the detailed discussioo necessary to justifY either his reading be 'idmk or his interpretation of this dinicull verse-. Accordingly, Black•s s-uggestion is methodologically and e.mpiric.all>' unsatisfactory. We must not proceed like this. Mmthew has also elaborated the li£)1tning saying from Q: o;omp yap 1\ Oorpam) i~ipxerot OrrOcivaroAc:lv Ka·· a1~TOl Ec,y; ¢uQllClV, OOr<:o:>e; ;orat ~ rrapouoia Toli ui.oU r oUcivOpi:JTTou. Lighming is always rapid and sometimes destruc.tive. The immediate conte~ t suggests that both features are in view. The mpidil)' of the Son t)f mall's appearaoce makes it painrle'Ss (0 look in the. deserl Ol' in i1llle-r room..:J l'or hirn. The ' "hole passage Mt. 24.23-27 makes sense only if \\'e assume that the Son of man is the Christ. a point which is meant to be.ob,rious by this stage.of the Gospel. and which was stated with especial clarity and emphasis in Matthew •l< versioo of Pcter•s oootes.~ i on (!\-1t. I6. 13-20}. Accotdingly. the l'uue1ion of this comment is to warn people that the pamusia wil l be so rapid and visible thm all the stories of the Messiah being somewhere to be found can be known to be false. in the meantime. The saying aJso looks forward to the description of the. parousia in the following ve.rses. where the sign of the Son of man ¢avr}ono:t ... Ev oUpavc;, (Mt. 24.30), another strong paralle-l \\1ith Jightoing. Mauhew has also retained from Q the sayiog, •where the C-OIJJSe is. there the vultures will gather' (ML 24.28). Tile use of citToi rather than the more. technical ylim<; has caused trouble, and Jeremias was Jed 10 declare-a mistranslatioo of the Aramaic ~iliiJ, which llleans- both 'eagle> and •vulru•-e'.J This is not however necessary. since. vultures were more generaJly thought of as a kind of eagle (Aristotle. H ist. a11. 9.32; Pliny, N.H. I 0.3), lOO this cannot function as CYideoc.e that the saying once existed in Aramaic. In its literal sense, the saying is obviously true. h also fits with the picture or mass desttuctil)ll which I have. noted at r...h. 24.22 (fro.n Mk 13.20), and which we shalliind again in the next bil of Q ( ML 24.37-39//Lk. I 7.26-27). h could pl)SSibly also be a sooood image indicating that Lhe coming of the Son of man will be publidy obvious. Manhew now moves back to Mark for his picture of the acntal parousia iLo;elf. This is based on u1idra.~hic use of Old Tesmnleot texts, with the Son of man fi'Om Dan. 7.13 a1 its climax: Kal '*ovTa • rOv ulOv roU
p.

J. krc'mias. The Pwuhles (Jf JeJtu· (tuns. S. 1-1. Hooke. london: SCM. 2nd C\ln.

t62 1\. <16.

t963),

216

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

rWv ~41tAWv roV oUpavo\i IJtt
i ni

as at LXX Dan. 7. 13, aod

the addition of toU oUpavoU. Matthew has accordingly taken ove.r the western Christian inte•p•-etatiou M the man-like tigure of Oao. 7. I3, just as he has the western iote1pretation of Dan. 926-27 at Mt 24 .15. This not ooly puts the eve.nt in the e$C-hatological fUture, it also ide1Hlries the man-like figure. as Jesus at his second comiJlg, rather than a.~ a symbol of the-Saints of the-Most llig.h. r..·l anhew's c-onscious use of Dan. 7.13 is quire cru-cial lOr understandiog his view of his rnajor title 0 uiQ.; ToU O:v6pc.)rrou. From his point of \•iew. it is a scriptural title. It is also a scripturuJ title with a t·omt'xt. wh.u Matthew c.alls r) rrapovaia nii ui.oU ToUO:v6pc.)rrou (Mt. 24.27,37.39). Thirdly, it is absolutely dear fn)IH his use M

Mark that in using this title in describing the parousia in scriptural terms, Matthe\v was working in Greek. We ha"e alread)' seen that in de-scribing the occasion as 1) rrapovata ToiJ uloU TOU avepc.lrrovl Matthew was working in Greek. From Manhew's perspective, dterel\)re. lhis is a Greek title-. It follows that, as in the c.hurch Fmhers, the uniqueness ofd1e Greek expression 0 ulO:;- TOO O:v8pc.)rrou was already perceived as pan of the uniqueness of Jesus, not as :.t problem. rvtauhew's Jove of this unique litle is especially well il hL'>tr~ned by his insertion of it in another So•~ of 1nan saying ill Mt. 24.30, making midrashic use-oCJsa. 11. 12, which does not c.ontain this tem1: Kal TOn ¢o-vriana1 TO OTJIJ&Iov ToU uiou ToU O:v6pc.)rrou iv oUpavc;l ... . Isaiah II is a well-kno,vn messianic chapler. Alre.ady at v. 10 weiind irr' alm:~ ~eVIl i~ moUo1v. Tite.n at .... 12 we J'iltd 1he phrase which was c.limactic for Matthew: Ka·, dp{l OTU.Jtlov t.it; Td I8vn. The ph.rase Elc; TCi: EOVf} has been expanded by r--•t:.n thew wilh Kci~VTO:I miocu at ¢>uAa'1 Tile;- yfic;. using Zech. 12.10-14, M whic-h he ,yjJI have been ren1inded by O'IJCvTal a1 Mk 13.26. In Jsa. I I, the raising of the orn.1t'iov is imme l)f the earth, which will have been for Manhew the same eve.nt as he describes as the gathering of the.efecl at Mt. 24.31, directJy ediling Mk 13.27. Thus the OTU.Jtlov fit~ perfectly ill h) the context of both lsa. II and Mt. 24, so there should be no doubl lhatlsa. 11 . 12 is the rnidra.'lhic basis of the additional Son of man saying. The oruJElov is based on the Jewish custom of raising an ensign. or torem. on a hi ll, and sounding a shofar, as a call to battle:' The Hebrew for the ensign was o:~, ofi:e.n 1ranslated with OTUJElov, as herem J:.a. 11. 12, where the I ((~,brew te:
4. For dclaj!cd djscussion, set J. A. Dr:'lp.:or. ' The Man" i.n the Jesus Tradi1ion •• l'lfTS 39 (t993). pp. t- 2 L

Ocvclopn~m of

"thl.' Sign of Lllc Son of

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

217

Bk>w lhe grt'31shofar for our fr~dom ~od r:.ise an ~·n.'Oign (oo} to !!,ather ou1· uiks. Bksscd 3n thou. Lord. who g;uhcl'l! the di ~pet!:ed of hi ~ I>Cople lsracJ..S

Acco!'dingly, rvlatthe,v•s OTJIJ{i.ov tiL~ petli:'clly imo his Je''' ish culture and into tllt~­ scriprural sources of his creative midrash. h is doubly remarkable that he ha..' d"it)stll to describe. it as TO Ofl!JE'Iov ToU u'•oU ToUO:vOpulnou. This further underlines the. importance of the title 0 uiOc; ToU OvepWnou to him. Aller this graphic picrure or dte second coming, f>.•tauhe'v re-produces Mark's C.Ollllllents t)u lhe nearness of the end, \Vilh very lilrle alteration (tvll. 24.32-36, editing Mk 13.28-32). He reinfOrces the warning lhat no one krt0\1/S the e-:' understaodable from within MaHhew's first-ceotury .lew·ish and Christian subculnu-e. Some Jewish sources also say that only God knows lhe time of the End. Fl)r example, Baruch prays to God: ' You alor-.e know che. eod of the limes befOre they (-t)Otc' (2 Bar. 21 .8). This \\'3..t;; very natural, because a lol of people had tried to \ 1.:ork out when the. End would come, but it did not come. The Qumran community were among those.disappointed. and one of them commented on Hab. 2.3: 'ffi1 lingers w:.it for it, for i1 will ~urely eome t~nd 1\01be buc' (H:.b . l .l b). hs imerp1\'1alion

concc:ms !he: men of truth who do lhe Luw. whose h:utds shall not rclux from the service of truth "''he:n the final :~..go:: is t>rolongtd Uf>OO them. For :.11 the :~..g.::s of GOO sh:l.ll come 10 dwir al>l)l>iJttcd .-.nd :.s he has dctf\.~d for the-m il\ 1hc mys1erics of his t)rudl.'n« ( I QpH~b V II. 9-14).

Matthew was in a very similar position to the author of this commetuary. The. parousia "'as a centnll itefn of his faith. 11 had bee-o expected lOr son1e ti1ue, Jonge.r than when Mark wrote his Gospel. but it had not come. The teaching of Jesus himself had no actual date fOr the coming of the kingdom or anything like that. beyond that re-peated at Mt. 24.34 lfom Mk 13.30, that everything wotdd be accotnplished within a generation, and one or two sayings sound suspiciously as if Jesus expected it much sooner. pe-rhaps ewn before his death. Matthew therefore accepted and ~ iolOroed Mark's c.ond usion: like everyone e.lse-, eYen the angels in he-aven. Jesus did not know the tinlf: of the End. complete with his parousia. Christian Christology had de\'eloped very rapidly, and was now \'ery high. as we can see from the titles in Manhew 24 alone. It had not ho\\•ever ye-t bec.ome doce.tic. enough ror people to imagine. Lhat Jesllc; must have known e.ve.rything. With this made clear. Mauhe.w now shifts back to the.same block of Qthat he had used befOre (MI. 24.37-4 1//lk. 17.26-27 ,34--35). Once again, dte parallel passages in the. two evangelists are close enough for us to infer that we are dealing with common source material. The differenc.es between Matd1ew and Luke are however a~,ain so great that we must recognize also that there has been he.avy editing. Here. 5. f(l( llw t~x1 :.nd transb1ion of 1M Eigluccn lknOOk li\'IOS. sec C. A. Eva1\S. Jt:nu and His CoJifempomritJ. Comparotirl! Stlt
218

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

too, the differences are of such a kind th.at they cannot possibly be explained as resuhing from two Gree.k transhllioos of a commo1l A ramaic source. It is clear •hat the original pa.~sage compared the da)rs of l':'oah with the tjme of the l inal appearance

of the Son of man. Moreover. the point of the comparison has been retained by both ~tuthew and Luke. The generation of Noah. who are notorious in Jewish sources too as sinne-rs {e.g. Jos. Ani. I. 72-6), canied 011 \ Vitll their nonnal lives until the Rood destrO)'ed lhe.m. It follows that the final coming of the Son of man will i•wolve

large-sc.ale desaruction of sinoers wlh) have ignored the message-of Je-~c;us, and, by this stage., earl)' Christianity. I have noted the destructive aspect of the linal events already: this passage simply reinforces this in a picturesque rather than a blunt n1anoer. Matthew's OOiti1lg retair1s the meaning of !he original compatison in Q. His most dramatic change. is purely editoriaJ, framing the comparison between two examples of his phrase~ rra pouola TOO ulOO ToUO:v9pc.)rrou (Mt. 24.37,39). While two examples of 0 uiO:; ToVO:vepc.lrrou itselfe.videruly s1ood in Q (Lk. 17.26,30), f>.•lauhe\v•s double u~ oft) rra poooia: Toll u'1oii Toll 0v0pc.}rrov again shows how importam belief in the paroosia was to him. f\•latthew oondudes his use of this section of Q with two more sayings which also indicate large-s.c.ale and apparenlly raudon1casualties in lhe last times (Mt. 24.40411/lk. 17.34-35). The sa.lvatil)ll of others is like\vise indicated ~·lauhew now mO\'es to another piece of Qm:uerial, with a parallel in Luke I2 {ML 24.43-5 1//lk. 12 .39-40,42-46). I lc- has ooe linking verse to make ye.t agaio one-of his l\1ain points. and it has made evident usc of Mk 13.35: YPfiYOpe!n oUv, On oUK o'itian noiQ: iliJEP\1 0 Klipu:)l; Vp&.v ~PXHOI ( tvll. 24.42). At first sight, this is a remarkable ve-rse. because it is the only verse. in the synoptic Gospels whe-re reference is made 10 the. second coming of Jesus with tpxo~at blll not with 0 u"lO:; Toll O:v6pc..lrrou. 1-loweve-r, tlliS is not dillicuh to explain. In the-first place. it comes from the ~·tare--an parable which Matthew has edi1ed: yprwop~tn oOv· oUx olcSan ydp rron 0 kUpto:; Tr)c; oiKiac; Ep; urges good behaviour ~-tixpt ~t;: imq>o:vriac; ToVKUpiou "lnooU XptoroU ( I Tim. 6.14): Jac.ob ded ares ~ rra pouoia Toll trupiou fiyy tKEV (Ja..; 5.8); and Revelarion almost concludes with a prayer founded on the.primitive ,wrmrmha (I Cor. 16.22), which shl)WS that similar usage was already derived from the eal'ly Arul'tlaic-spe.aking churth: A~tlv, Epxou, KUp1E 'il)oo\i ( Rev. 22.20).6 This should remind us agaio that Matthew's use of 0 u'•~ ToUO:v8pc..lrrou, vigorous though it be, is by no means exc.lusiveof other tides. 6. For moru.nutha illth~ light of the mo:~t r.:-e~m research. sec P. M. C:.scy, ' Mooothd s m. Wo1'Sbip :tnd Chri>11ologiC';!II Ocvclot)I~OL~ in Ihe Pau l inc Chut<'h~>s', in C. C. Newman. J. R. Davila and 0 . S. Lewis (cds). n1e Jewish RtmtH(CIIri.stological M01wt/rdsm. Pttpcrs from the St Andrev.·s ConfCfl."'CC on Lite 1-lisml'ic:.l 0 1i gi.n.i oftiK' Wors.hip of Jesus (lcidcn: Brill. 1999). PI,· 2:14-33 (22:3-5).

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

219

not e.ven with reference to whnl he has re.peatedly c.aJied ~ rro:povoio: ToV uioU ToU ixv9p<.)rrou. The Soo or mall was l ord for Matthew just a.:; l'nuch as for oth-e-r Ne\1/ Testame-nt writers. The following Qpassage has such a high proponion of verba) ide.mity that we must infer that it was transmitted in Greek and reached eac.h evangelist in Greek Sl)me variations, such as luke's insertion of Lk. 12.4 l-42a, are Clb\1iously due to an evaugelist•s editing, and all shm1ld be so explained: none are due h) Aramaic variants. The.passage opens with a parable. about the coming of a thief in the night. -This shon parnhle ends by applying its warning to the coming of the Son of man. There are. no Je.wish parallels to the image of the thief for any aspect of the. day of the Lord or the coming of the kingdom. The image however recurs in the New Testamem, and SOllie of the parallels are especially instructive. One is at I Thess. 5.2: aVTol yCp ci:Kp1~C>c; ol15an OTI t)~ipa kUplou ~ K~inTflc; iv vuni oliTc.lt; £pxnat. 11tis USI!S the traditional desc-riptjon 'd."ty of the Lord'. which could .l:O easily be. shilled from traditional Je"'ish belief in the judgement of God It) the parousia of Jesus. The absence. of the articles with tiJJEpa Kupiou shows close connection with the underlying Semitic trndition. The. inrroduc.tion shows that the Thessalonians were certainly expected by Paul to hold tltis belief, and strongly suggests that they were already familiar with the imagery of the thief in the night. The image is used similarly at 2 Pet. 3.10. his reapplied ro a C·l)lning l)f JeS"tL'I injudgemellt m Rev. 3.3: icXv OOv J.Ji! ypT)yop~ory;, ij~"-l ~ KJ..i-nTT)t;, Ka·, oU J.Ji! yv~ noto:v Wpav il~w i-rrl oi (cf. 16. I5). This mate1ial s.hows eve.ry sign of be-ing e.arly.1 and it contains ~PXETO:I but not 0 ui&; ToO Ov8pc..)rrou. We should infer Lhat n genuine parable of Jesus underlies Lhis Qpassage. This c.ert
S.

9.

The s:une canno1bi.' ~:.jd of the- non·c~hawlogie-JI par:. lkl~ in Gos. 711tnlt 2t . t03. Se-e furthi.'l Casey, Srm of Mall. pp-. 162-4. Casey, S011 rifMall, p. t90.

220

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

This is not quite.impossible Aramaic. in the sense that theendingc.ould be a reference to Dan. 7 .13 if it 'vas spoke n to people-wlu) C-0\1Id be ~ l ied upon to pick th is 'Li p . It is

however possible only in these very restricled circumstances. We shall look at more generaJ reasons tOr supposing that this did not happen in the teaching of Jesus. Accordingly. we have a very strong argument of cumulative weight for supposing that the OCCUJTellC.e of the term Q u'16c; ToU clv0pc.lrrou in this saying is due IO sec.01ldary editing by the earl)' church in Greek. under the inf1ne11Ce of Dan. 7.13. Ill its prese1n c.ontext the saying fib> perfectly into Matthew's editing. The irnage

of the d1ief implie.s the destruction of unwary people, and we have seen that the destl'uction of outsiders w:t.:; part of t\·latthew•s view or ll1e-pa.rousia. 11le SOOI.)r\daty editing of 0 u'u)t;- ToU O:vOp<.lrrou with Epxna1 recalls Mauhew•s use of Dan. 7. I 3 in his picture or the parousia just a tew verses previously (Mt. 24.30). This perl(.-ct fit iSpresumably the rea:;on why rvtatthe\1/ put this piece \)f Q n'HHerial here. The next piece of Q material ( Mt 24.45-51//Lk. 12.42 46) is anolher parable about an abse-nt ma..:;ier retuming sudden!)' and unexpected!)'. so from Mauhew's pe-rspective it is at10ther parable about the parousia. h too indicates salvatioo for the faithful, and puoishmeut lOr the wicked, the latter emphasized b)' Mauhew's final addition, intended to •-ecall the fi nal judgement: i:K~l Eora l 0 KAau&lJOc; Ka·• 0 ~pvYJ.IOc; rC>v OOOvT(..)V (1\iit. 24.5 I). At this pl)int Mauhew leaves llliSsec.o1ld piece of Q material. His interpretation of the parable of the wise and foolish maidens. whic.h he alone has (r-.·tt. 25. 1- I3), is along the same Jines. The bride-groom be-ing delayed and then c.oming suddenly is memu to rec--all the interval before the parousia .and its predicted suddenness. The faithful are again rewarded .and the others le.ft outside. Matthew concludes again with a message about the. parousia: r pqyop{in oUv, 0Tl oUKo't6an nlv ~J.Iipav cUeS~ n1v ilpav. 1\.·fatthew has similarly inte.rpreted his parable of the tale-nts (rv1L 2 1. 14-30), which has sorne-O\'erlap \Vith luke (lk. 19.11-27). :.t•ggesting that ao original pamb1e ha..;; bee1l much re(old and re-edited. Matthew again has the Lord coming (EPXETal, Mt. 25. I9) and rewarding the lilithful. Once again the punishment of the useless slave slips over fn>•n the parable itiiOa reminder of etemaJ punishment: Kal T0v cixptlov OoUAov i:K~ciAtn Eic; TO o..:v 060vTwv (ML 25.30). Thus the coming or the Son of man at his parOlL-.:;ia has been ifl Man hew's mi11d throughout this lengthy section in which parabolic material, basically in story mode. led hifn to use diO(.-.rent language. 11le tin.al parable-, or rather picturesque stOJ)'. of the last judgement has a MauheaJl introduction which returns to his pre-ernineut title of Jesus at the-tirne of the final evenrs: "Orav cSE£Aen 0 u'u)c; ToU O:vOpilrrou Ev Tfj ~n aUToU Kal ncivTEc; o"• ciyyt Aol JJ-ET, aUroU, TOn KaOioe1 Err"• OpOvou 6~nc; o:UToU ... ( Mt 25.31). Se.\•eral details again recall Dan. 7.1 3 14. We have already seen that the.collocmion of iAen with 0 ui<X- roU O:vOpt:>rrov is sutlicienttt) indicate dependence on this text We have also seen that Matthew wa~ aware of using this tex:• when he edited Mk 13.26 to produce Mt. 24.30.10 There are. further paraJiels 4

4

tO.

Scc pt). 2t5--63I)I)\'C.

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

221

between the two le.xK O~a is ul>ed at LXX Dan. 7.1 4, a \Wtyward traoslatio11 in which 1\'C cannot be certain whether it represents t11e Aramaic t p\ h\ more geoeral terms, the whole.scene. is quire £,lorious. There are plural Op0vot (T\O,J) at Dan. 7.9. R. Aqiba s.aw here two thrones. one. for God and one for David. by which he may or may M l ha\•e. meant the Messiah (b. l~ag. 14ai/San. 38b). The virulent rejecti011 of his opinion is due to similar Christian use.oflhesame text. Matthew may accordingly ha"e seen the glorious throne already at Dao. 7.9. The. ac.c:ompan)'ing onge.ls rna>' also be seen round 1he throne-of God at Dan. 7.9· 10, and btingi11g the Son of man at Dan. 7.13- 14. rrcivTo Tci: Eevn at Mt 25.32 could also be taken ffom LXX DarL 7. 14 (where it translates 1\....D.':lli' ? J). Quite how mud! of this Matthe\lt saw in Dan. 7.9-14 must remain to some degree uncenain, btu his use of this text is not uncenain: it was the.basis for his picture of 0 u'16c; ToU O:vEipc.lrrou at the last judgement Otl1er texts may also have been used. whethe.r deliberately or simply through absorption in scriptural!)' based Je\\1ish tradition. We-have seen Matthew use Zech. 12.10-14 at Mt. 24.30: Zec.h. 14.5 has Kal ~~Et k'Up1o:; 0 0£&; pou Kat rrcivn<; ol tiy•ol ~n· aUToU. Matthew might haYe reapplied this to the comins of 0 u·l~ TOU avep(.)rrou. Be th picture of the Son of 1nan coming in glory h) carry out the final judgement is scripturally based, with Dan. 7.1 3-1 4 at the centre of it There are also a number of pamllels with the Similitudes of I:.Jrodt. Here the central figure is also called 'Son of man·, and the first time he is rnentioned O~u1 . 7.1 3 has ~n used (/ En. 46. 1-J). Til iS Son of ma11 alS-O SitS Or\ the throne or his glory (I En. 62.5; 69.29). He. is moreover the e~~c.h atolog:i c.a l judge . It ha.~ sometimes been suggested thai ~·lmlhew was acwally dependent on this work,l 1 but this cannot be demonstrated. When a possible Aramaic substratum is reconstructed from the ditlicult Ge'ez te-xt, the term 'soo or rnan ·emerges as an ordinary term lOr man, used to conceal Enoch•s identil)' in the OOdy or the work in preparation fo r the explicit reve.lation of his idemity in the denouement of the whole work (I En. 71.14-17).'~ This is signilicantly diO'cJ'CIH from the 1najor Christological title which c.haracterizes the wotk of Mauhe.w. It may well be- therefOre that all the parallels aJ'C-due to thec.om.uou use of Jewish tradition, rather than LO tvlauh-e\V·s specific depende-nce on this one document especially as we have seen how heavily Matthew is dependent on scriptur.tl trndition. We have seen that the introduclion to this scene of liual judgement ha.~ au excellemSit; im LRbeu in the editorial Wt)rk orManhew. In the body ofthe narrative. the con1rolliog tigure is called 0 ~ao1AtUc;. This is a very striking differe.nce. The. only reasonable explanation of it is that Matthew inherited a parable in whic.h the eschatoh)gical judge wa.~ 0 ~o:otAEUc;. presumably therefore God hi mself. I I. Sec cspedally l. Thd sohn. fkr tlllSI!'I11'iihlte Rit'hellsohn..~tswlr der Bildm\'den de.t Atlliopischm Hemx:h (SUNT t2. \.Oningc-il: \.~nde-nhocd: & Rupudu, 19'75). csp. t>t>. 149-82~ 0. R. Catchtx>tc. ' The Poor on Esnh !lnd the- Soo of Man in Hc:wc-n. A Rcapptai ~at of ~i t XXV.3t·•l6'. RJRVII 61 (19789), I'll· 355-9? (378- 83). 12. Sec pp. 9t- t1t above.

222

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

then wrote. the introductory piece himself. He will not have wanted to alter 0 ~aotA~:Ut; bec-ause he fervently believed that Jesus was f3o:o•AtUc; Ti)v ~tuthew

'lou6o:i(.)V (Mt. 2.2: 2 1.5; 27. I I ,29,37,42), who as XPIOT<:k fo lfilled Jewish ht)pes of deliverance by a king (ML 2.4, cf. 1.21; 16. 16,20: 26.63: 27.1 7,22). As befOre,

the only possible.c.onclusion is lhat 6 vi~ n ii O:v9pc.lnou was an important title for r-.•tatthew i" Gruk. f\•latthew's editing of Chs 24- 25 in gene-ral, and his use of 0 vi&; ToU O:vSp~rrou in panicular, foml a coherent and consistent whole. He fully intended to give a picture of the Jas1 times, both with straightforward predictions and with picturesque parables. images and storie.s. At the centre of his e-xpectation was rl rrapouota ToU u'uii toU O:v6pulrrou, coming on the c.louds of he-aven, bringing salvation and j udgement r...laultew fo·und this usage of 0 u'uk t oti O:vepulnou in both Mark and in his Qmaterial. Crud ally, he also found it in scripture. This was a massively strong combination of source material, which ensured that Manhew used 6 ui6c; Toli O:v9p<.l rrou redactionally, with his new phrase rrapouoia TOU vloU t oU O:vSpulrrou clarifying the tradition which he inherited. He felt no need to inform his readers and audiences as to what 0 vlOc;- t oU avepulrrou means, a matter to which we must return. He found it in scripture and tradition, and il was his ide.al phrase for describing the return of Jesus, for which he urged the church to be both patient and always ready.

n

2. Luke /7 (_IJid 21

Luke also has four occurrences of 0 viOt;- ToU O:v9pul rrou partly dependent on the first of 1he-two pieces of Q nuuerinl used in Mauhew 24, and he too shorlly f0II0\\1ed them with a fi JU1. He used ho..,;•ever a ve:ry dilTerent frame or reference. In the tina place. (his is nowhere near the eschatological discourse of Luke-2 I, which I Ct)llSider next luke put the$e. Son of fHan sayings from Q further back in Luke 17. l uke 17 is part or a massive and quite sta(iCtravel narrati\•e, w'hid• consists of Q a1~d special Lukau 10ate:rial. aod which luke gathered together between Lk. 9.50 (frorn Mk 9.39-40) alld lk. I8. I5 (friutl ~~l k I0. I3). There is blatant Lukan editing at various pointS, it~clttding ror example the liltking c.onune1lt at l k. 17.5: Ka'• e1 rrav

ol ci rrcioto~ol t c';> Kvplc,;>. The eschatological sec::.tion in luke 17 is introduc::.e.d by a small piece which has a pe-rfect Sit~ im U ben in the theology and generaJ c.oncerns of Luke:

n

'ErnpGYtT(Il<'it; Sf UnO¢.o:ptoo:lwv nOn ipxno:• jlo:o•Atlo TOO 6;oU Onu.:piOl) o•.hoir,: .:a'• Et rnv. OUtc (pxna• ri Po:o1Mio: ToU ElroU ~nci napO:TtlP!locc.;,r;. 008! i:pcNow, 'JOOU <15r· ii. 'EK~i · iOOU yO.p nj3o.otMia TOO &1:00 i:vTOt;- U-uClv llo-nv (lk. 17.2C..22).

This mirrors one of Luke's central c.onc.ems, to ward oJT any threat to Christian belief and action from d1e lengthy delay in the coming of the kingdom. This concern is re.peated in Lukan editing at Lk. 19.11. Luke wrme considerably later than tvlanhew. By this rime the notion of the kingdom coming within a generation, the outer limit

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

223

which might be thought to be implied in the teaching of Jesus. was barely feasible. He brings forward the Pharisees. whom he pot1mys as maliciously hostile and sometimes as foolish. u We expect a silly que.s.tion from them. and asking when the. kingdom of God would come-was in Luke's view just that. .Jesmo' response pre-sents the kingdom as not rcall)' future al all. I le f-irst rejec-ts ony notion that the.kingdom is a future entity which COllieS in such a way that one c.an look for signs of il. as people oommiued to a fairly litem! apocalyptic view of the kingdom might. He the.n makes the positive statement that the kingdom of God is ivT6c; UtJWv. This phrase.has ca used a lot of discussion, because its precise me.aning is not dear. Taking the commonest meaning of ivTOt; from Greek usage as a whole, we would expect the phrnse.EvTOc; U~-tc:lv to rneat1 'within !ft)u'. From patristic limes through to recent scholarship. it has often been so interpreted. This interpretation has however be-eo s-ubjected 10 1\IJO decisive.objections. In its immediate c-Ontext, this \\'Ould mean that the kingship of God was to be found in the Pharisees. an interpretation contl"dl)' to the teac.hing of Jesus and to the theology of l uke. Secondly, this interpretation of the kingdom of Gcxl does not have a proper Sit~ im Leben in the teaching of Jesus or the tlteology of Luke. Recent scholarship hns accordingly tended to favour the interpretation ·among you•. This can then be suppl)rted rrorn the traditional view that the kingship of God is manifest in the ministry of Jesus. a view essential for the. interpretation or Lk. I I .20(//t>.-1t. 12.28). 14 This also iits perfectly with an e-1Hirel)' feasible l ukan interpretation of r} ~o1AEia r oU StoiJ at Lk. 18. 16. 17. The Gree-k word ivTOt; ha.' a sernantic.are.a "'hid1 does stretch tt) 'within' and hence 'among• a social group. IS TiliS iS SUfliCient fl)t ~VT0:; UIJWVtO refer tOthe Whole. social group of which the Pharisees were :.t part. We should infer from the. word ivr6.;, whic.h Luke doe-..~ not use elsewhere and for which he might more-d early ha\'e preferred i.v pioc,> ( Lk. 2 .46: 8.7: 10.3; 21.21; 22.27: 24.36), that he took this part M the saying from the traditions available to him. His editing of it has C!'llSured that it l·i(S his needs perfectly. The introductioo of th-e tirst Son of man saying in lhis sectioo also fits Luke's editorial purpose perfeclly. The.audience is deliberately shifted to the disciples, who are to be instructed in what the church will need to know in fuwre years. •o.EUoovTal iwipa1 On hn6v1Jrlont

p(o v T~v ri~pWv ToV uiOO ToV

Cw6pt.lnou i&iv

Kat OOt::O~ofu (U. 17.22}.

This straightforwardly describes the. period during which the parousia was e.xpected and did Mt come. It is presented as a prediction of Jesus, S l) that Christians of Luke's tirne-c.ould be rea.o;sured d1at Jesus knew that the parousia would not haptJen as soon as they had hoped. and that their predecessors had been mistaken to expect it. The saying has no parallel in Matthew. and should be regarded as a Lukan 13. Cf. J. T. Cartoll, ' Luke's Ponray-al of the PMrisccs'. CBQ 50 ( 1988). pp. (!04-2t. 14. Soc tascy. ..\ramai< Appmad1 to(!, pp. 161- ?3. 15. J. Lcb01.uficr. •£ntos hymbn. lc scns":.u milieu dcvollS.. cst·il po~si blc'.''. Bib ?3 ( 1992), pp. 259- 62.

224

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

e.onstruction oo the basis of the tradition which luke ioherited. It is d ear frorn

the three Manhean parallels already discussed d1at the three following examples of 6 ui6c; ToiJ CtvOpcSrrou have come dire<:tly from Q (Lie 17.24,26.30//M L 24.27,37,39). In all three c.ases. it is a title orJe~us at his parousia, the s.arne u.o;age

that Matthew inherited and developed. Like Matthew. Luke inherited it from Mark. aod he re-edited one-of the pa.,sion predictions hcrt-.at Lk. 17.25 (see-eSp. Lk. 9.22 fro m Mk 8.31). though without repeating the tenn 0 ui6c; TaU CrvOpc.>nou from the pre\'IOUS verse. The plural Tc:)v ~}.Jtp~v at Lk. 17.22 has caused problems 10 somee.cHnmenl!uors, but it has a straightfOrward origitl in the foll owing passage from Q aod il fig in with

Lukan usage mud\ better than is usually thought The plural is used of the days of Noah in Q a1 Mt 24.37//Lk. 17.26, ond where rvtauhew .eters to Jesus in !he secood half of the .saying with~ rra pouala ToV vioiJ Toli O:vOpc.lrrou, Luke has ~v Talt; -.i~ipa1t; ToG u'uy:J Toli O:v9pc.lrrou, very precisely pam.llel to i v talt; -.;~£palt; NC>~ in his versioo of the same verSe. This is quite uarural, because the 'days' M a person's life was a common description of the tirnes ifl which lhey lived (e.g. Lk. I.S; 4.25). luke's expression iv talt; -.i~ipa1c; t oG uioU t oG O:vOpc.Jrrou (Lk. 17.26) looks lbr'''ard 10 a c.onsiderable period after the sec.ond c.oming. This \VOuld be a period of'blis.t: fOI' Je-sus' rollowers, and this is whatlhey are expected (0 look f(uward to at Lk. 17.22. Similar e-xpressions dl) nm occur earlier because e-arlier expechnion roc used on the moment of Jesus' return, as we have seen in discussiog Matthew's treatment of this is.:;ue-. Luke does this coo at Lk. 17.24,30; 2 1.27. The passage of time. c.ombined with the need for the.church not to be dismayed by the deh1y M the single day of the Son of man's rerun1, has Jed Luke to h)Ok at the whole or the later period in a dillerent way at lk. 17.26 and then in editi•l8 Lk. 17.22. The perceived problert\ at lk. 17.22 has led some liC.holars to propose ao Arrunaic sotmion. Tomy proposed that the Aramaic la~tdii' •very much', had been misunderstood and hence. mistranslated as the sign of the accusative te, followed by /J(i&i' ·one·. The original meant ·you will lo-ng very much to see the-days of ..: . TI1is explaoation wos ent1ltlsiascically tOIIow·ed by T. W. rvtansoo. 16 h should no! be accepted. It embl)dies a li\miliar errol' of method. The text has beet~ deemed unsatisfactory. so an attempt has been made. to alter i1 by guessing at the change of a single word. without even showing th.u the .saying ewr had an Aramaic original. SecondJy, the change of a single word without reconstructing the whole sentence means that objec.tions to an Ara1\laic t)riginal have not been raced. Another anempt was made by Black. though like Torre.y he did not work it fully through." He appears 10 suppose llt.al the original Aral'naic '''a$ -x~iJK -u; K'Dl' 10 iii. which he c.on.sidered to be-idiomatic Al'amaic fOI' •a cer1ain Day oafOI' the.Son of Man'. In the expressioo -x•m· ll'l iii, however, Aramaic is no! as dillerent f'rom G~e.k Ol' English as Black suggests. nor is his English translation. To establish the supposedly idiomatic use or the Aramaic li'l in, Dlac.k quotes Dan. 7. 16, where tn)\\'ever K"'.'ll\j::> 10 iii n..eans t6. C. C. Ton'Cy. Thf! F(lllf' Gruptls. A Nt>h'1iv.nslttriotl (loodoo/Ncw York: H:arpt'r. 19J3). p. 312. rollow
Oilier Synoptic Sayings

225

'one oflhe bystanders': on this aoalogy. ~ -r.n~ i7.l 1n would mean •one of1he days', so it would not help with the perceived problem. Since. they do not reconstruct the whole saying. neithe-r Tt)ITey nor Black considers 1he meaning M (l\):dJ(K) , J in an expres..~ i on such as Ki!Jl\ -a1 K'm, li'l 1i1. With (l\}oiJ(K) 1~ still being a normal term for ' man', it does not have eoough refe.rring pl)wer to single ou1 Jesus or an)' other particular (son of) man. Ooce again, we 1ind that just at the pOiEU \!/here we have. good reason to posit cremive writing by an evangelist. the saying \1.:ill not ll'IAke sense in any propl)Sed Aramaic. We must accordingly reject these Aramaic. proposals, and return lO the view e-xpressed above-. that lk. 17.22 is a deliberate Lukan introduction to the edited versions of Qsayings which follow. Verse 23 begios the se<:tion of Luke I 7 which is drawn from Q and Luke's special material. We have seen Matthew selecting 1he Marc.an version of this saying (Mt 24.23 ediling rvtk 13.21) and 1-evising 1he Q versioo (1\t1t 24.26). In Mauhe-Y.', as in Mark.. the-subject of the sayi1lg is 0 XPlOTcil; and the context is the presence of fillse-prophets and pSe-udo-messiahs. In Luke, the refere.nce is directly to 1he Son of man, and tJ1e contexr dictates that this saying refers. to false expectation of the. second coming of Jestts, which is wnrded off. This makes eve-n better sense of the comparison or 1his e.vel)t to lightning (Lk. 17.24/JML 24.26). h eusu re~q that the visibility of the lightning is the cemre of the entirely appropriate c.omparison. and makes it~ destl'uctive force less likely 10 come to people's minds. The terl'tl 0 u"10c; ToU O:vOpc..)rrou mus-t have stood in Q be-cause it is found in both e-vangelists' versions of the saying, and we have seen that the speciaJiy Matthean ~ napouola ToG uloU ToU OvSpc.l nou is secondary. For this part Luke has 0 uiO:; t oU O:v9pc.lrrou iv tfi ~~ipq: aVToiJ. This is likely to be the old Qtradition. since the e.xpectation of the. parousia was greall)' influenced by existjng tradilions about tJ1e Day of the Lord. h is all the more noteworthy that lhis pan of the saying will not make proper sense in Aramaic. We could attempt a recoostruclion as fOllows: :101' J KIYJl\ , J ~,;1? FJ. l lcre again the tenn (K)\71(K) -a doe$ not have S-llfl'icient ~ferriog pO\Ver to single out Jesus or any other partic.ular (soo of) l'nan. Consequently, the saying does not make proper sense. This is further evidence that this part of the Q material was composed as well as edited in Greek At 17.25, Luke inse1t.~ into the Q material his own version of a prediction which he has edited elsewhere. h is closest to Lk. 9.22, where Luke is editing Mk 8.3 I (cf. also Lk. 9.44; 18.31-33; 24.7). Its major c.oncem is 10 make absolutely cle-ar 1hat tl1e coming of the Son of man was neve.r regarded as imminent during the ministry. and was. always to be prec.eded by his suffering and death. This same concern is. evident ch)se to Lk. 9.22, iu the editing of Mk 9.1 at lk. 9.27-28. In this passage, Luke altered Jesus• prediction of the c.o.ning t)f the kingdom in powe-r within a generation to engineer its fulfihnent in the folh)\\'i•lg narrative M the Trans-figuration. We have noted tJ1e simi lar conce-rns in the editing of the opening part of the eschatologicaJ section here in Luke 17. and again S4>me way ohe.ad at Lk. 19.1I. Thus the insenil)nof this p~di cl i on at 17.25 is wholly in accordance wilh luke's editorial c.oncems. and his ins.e nion of something impo11nnt to him into Q is in accordance. with his normal editorial habits. Since the main point h) be-made was the-neces..~ i ty of JeS\IS' passil)ll

226

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

long. before his second coming, an abbrevimed prediction was also in accordance with luke's needs. The p1-e<:ise tenu tile; ytvui<; t aU'tl'}C; will aJso have been chosen to set up the following. comparison with the days of No~1h. a conspicuously riglueous person chosen by God fro m one.of the most evil genemtions of all.

Despite some differences in wording. panty and pe-rhaps wholly due to the editorial activity of Matthew, the comparison with the.days of Noah is basic-ally the $; (Lk. I 7.26-27, cf. Mt 24.37-39). As ! noted above-. it 1t1ust rnean that the final coming of the Son of rnan will involve large-scale destruction

of sinners who have ignored the message of early Christiani ty.• ~ The passage. of time gave Luke no reasoo to alter this. h is reinfor-.'00 with a sirnilar c-
It is usually infe-rTOO that Luke moved this saying here. from the Matthean position which it held in Q. This should be accepted. It makes beuer seose straight after

several sayings which imply a IOl of corpses. The c.ollection of sayings thus ends a note of,iudgeme.nt upon l)Utsiders, il.ltd it makes it ele.ar that the e11d has not ye-t come. The parable of the unjust j udge (lk. 18 .1-8) ends this e..~c h atolog.ieal section M Luke. There is an obvious sign of Lukan redaction in the narrative use of 0 KUptOI; Otl

18.

See- I)(). 213-22 above.

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

227

as a description of Jesus right at the beginning of the eschatological application of the parable (Lk. 18.6). The application as a whole (Lk . 18. 1,6-8) c-learly reltrs to the peril)d of the church awai,ing deliverance at the time of the sooood C01t1iog. It advocates constant prayer at this ti me, a significant Lukan concem. and as.')u~s the-

faithful that God will avenge them quickly when they are crying to him day and night This eschatological section of Luke ends \\1ith it') fifth Son of mao sayiog:

This rellecu; luke's Genti le world. in whic-h most people were not Christians. Sorne years ago, I explored the-pOSsibility or a.n Amrt\aic recon~truct il)O. and the best I

could produce was this:

J.\ S I commented at the time. ' It is very di t1i cult to fed any c.onfidenc.e that this saying e-xisted i n A.tarnaic be-10•-e I made it l.lp.' 1') It has a per tCct Sil:; im Leben in the ear ly church at the 1irne \!Jhen Luke's Gospel was written. The parousia, or the coming

of the kingdom, had been delayed and there was an obvious risk that some people. would lose heart and slip back into the Gentile world. This is where this conce.p~ of rrionc; appears to belong, some-thing Christian Y.' hidl could be lost. While •So1l of man· and ·c.oming• together indic.ale some i1l llue1lCe of Dan. 7.13, the saying itself seems very I-t-mote-from those in which this inlluence origioated. We must conclude that the saying originated in 1he Gree-k-speaking c.hurc.h, and is probably a Lukan oonsttuc-tion. This is funher evidence that, for Luke. as for Matthew. 0 u'1 6c; ToU O:vOpc.lrrou was an imponant Christologic.aJ tide i, Greek.

Before going on to consider Luke 21 . which is an eschatologicaJ discourse and thus fron1a fonnal p0i1U of view luke's basic parallel to Manhew 2 4 as a whole, we must c.onsider how much information about the previous history of 0 u'tOr; ToU O:vOpc.lnou we can draw from those Q sayings which a1-e fouod in l uke 17 and r...l atthe\\' 24. Luke c:reated his introduction to these sayings (Lk. 17.22). and moved the saying about vuhures h) the end, cre.ating his O\llu introduction (lk. 17.37). In

other respects, however, Luke stayed close to the Qsour-ce. notably in the three Son or man sayings whidl both e\•augelists inherited (MI. 24.27//Lk. 17.24; t>.+lt . 24.31il Lk. 17.26; Mt. 24.39//Lk. 17.30).

Despite some unce-rtainty ove.r details. the basic.interpretation of all three sayings has eme.rged d e
in the lukan versions as in the Matthean sayings. which have. the ste.reotyped and secondal)' expre$sion i) rrapouoia ToG uloU ToG O:vepc:.)rrov. The first saying (Mt. 24.27//Lk. 17.24) \\'
Thjs was certainly intended

10

invoke the suddenness and visibility of lightning.

and perhaps the des1ructive forc.e evident in the second saying: (Mt 24.37//Lk. 17.26). This cotnparod the l ime of the Son M man•s coming with the days of Noo.h. 19.

Cascy. Smw/Man.p. t9(,.

228

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

This hl1d in mind the large-seale d estruction of the wicked, and the sa l vatio•~ of the relatively righteous. \Vho Ct)ufd only be identilied with the C hristian chul'('hes. T he

third saying is of exactly the same kind. and it is likely to haYe. followed the similar Ol)IUparisoo \\1ith the days of Lot (Lk. 17.28-29) rathe-r than to have c.on1e at the end of the comparison with Noah a.,:; well as the beginniog (Mt 24.37 .39). Be that as it 1nay. illt)() could ooly have in mind the large-s.c.ale destructioo ofthe wicked, as well

as the salvation of Christians. It follows that in all three Q sayings, as in f>.•lauhe\V and luke. 6 uiOt; ToU O:v6p(.)rrou was already a title for Jesus at a second coming which would bring judge-ment on outside-rs as '~e ll as sah 1ation lOr the followers of Je~~ us. tvforeover, '~e

ha"e seen that no version of any of these sayings can be e ffectively reconstructed in Aramaic. It IOIJows funher 1hat in the Q source used here by both evangelists, 0 u'1~ ToU O:v9pc:.)rrov was already a title for Jesus i11 Greek. This is an important

result, which can be properly assessed only after all Son of man sayings have been djsc.ussed. I turn next. then, to lk. 2 1.5-36, Luke' s parallel to t\·fatthe'' ' 24 a!;; a tomplete

eschatologic.al discourse based on Mark 13. The opening part is noteworthy for an addition to the words of those who will mislead many: they will say 0 KO:tpOt;: ~YYIKEV (Lk. 2 1.8). This intensifies Luke's rejectiorl of the apocalyptic hopes which

characterized both the ministry of Jesus and earlier Christianity. There are also some notewonhy additions to the predictions of the persecution of the disciples, which are re1ained and expanded as a reflection ofthe sullfrings ofChristians in the prolonged

period of the church. The most striking change is at lk. 2 1.20-24, where in plac.e of the abominatiM of desolation and related tn)ubles \\'e find 1he siege of JerlL'>alem: ''OTo:v & i&ln t::utr:XouJJi:vrw UrrO oTpo:TorriSc..w 'lopouooA-.liJ. T
This rC-Ilects the siege and sack of Jerusale.fn in 66-70 CE, \Vhich explains why

Luke was so concerned about the delay in the c.oming of the kingdom and the parousia. A oonsiderable time had passed since the historic ministry of Jesus. The last word~ leave optn the pos.~i bi li ty that there will be a. significaot gap aller the fhll of Jerusalem. Luke also on-1itted the prediction of Mk 13.20 ac.C.t)rding to \\'hich the Lord would shorten the days, for by the time Luke wrote the Lord had clearly not shottened the days. Only a1 this stage does Luke predict heavenly phenomena fOIIO\Ved by the COn'ling or the St)U of rnan. omitting Mark's prediction thai he \VOuld .se.nd his angels to _galhcr the-elect (Mk 13.27): t::o:'1 TOn ~VTO:I ...Ov viO-v ToU Ovepc.)rroo ~pxOIJtvov iv vf¢<
Here Luke has re.tained the use of 0 u'u)c; toG O:vepc.lrrov as a title. of Je-~o;us at his part)lL'> ia. This reioforces the evide.nce of luke 17 that it ,...-as very itnponant

to him. as such. We can see him making one. change which was important to him.

229

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

the altetation of Mark's i v vt.jlEAa1c; to iv veq>~An. This fits in '"ith a very literal tutderstiAn suggests that Luke-was not aware of the Danielic reference. for it is such a straightforward move. away fro m the sacred text. lf this is so, luke will have believed that he \\las re,!lriljng f\•lark to make his picture of the second coming more. accun11e. and he will have accepted from "'lark the title 0 v'tO;- roU Ctvijpc.lnou i11 Greek as a true representmion of the te.aching of Jesus about his return. but nO£ as a scriptural reference in the way that Matthew and ~·lark saw it. In place of Matk's prediction that the-Soo of man will send out his angels aod gather I he eleci (Mark 13.27), luke has a prediction whichagain implies the paliSage ortinle before the final e.verns begitl (Lie 21.28).Tilis also refers to~ O: noAUTpU)ou; U~i:)v in such a way as w make clear thm it is the deliverance of Christian disciples which is robe expected. luke pn)Cceds \Vith the parabolic material frotu Mk I3.28.29, clarifying it by saying that whe-n these various eve.n l~ have happened. iyyVc; i oTtV ~ ~aatA&lo toU &oU. This is e-xactly what he has been m such pains to show was not due to have happened e.arlier. and should not have been expected thert. Jn this light. his retention or Mk 13.30 \\1ith ooly slight alteration has p-uzzled scholars: Ouiw My(.) UJJ.iv On oU

tn1

napiAI)o ~ ytv.:O: oiiTfl €<.>; .Xv n.Xvta yivt}Tcu (Luke:

21.32).

If a 'generation' is interpre-ted chronologically as a period of some 25- 30 ye-ars. if we a.~sume tha1 I) yevtd aUTil rnusi be Jesus' own generatjon, and if we funher

assume perfect consistency between what Luke leaYes in and his editoriaJ aims, then this saying is dillicult to 111 into Luka.n theology. lleoce Nolland went so far a.o;; 10 claim., 'This verse is a standing etnba.rras.lltnent ro all attemp•s to see the deJay or the Parousia as a major l ukan preoc.cupatiOtl. •» The rest of the evidence. whic-h I have sorveyed on this rt\alte-r should not however be downgraded in this way. It is not S\trprising that some scholars have argue.d that y~v~a aliTT) has been interptt-led by Luke a.o;; luke's l)Wn generatjon, rather than the generation M Jesus.:• h is however dinicult to tit this iotetpretation into a s-peech by Jesus edited by Luke-, bec.ause he has been so careful elsewhere to distingtUsh between the time of the life. of Jesus and the time of the eschatological events. We should mther note what has hapJJened to the llebrew equivalem "'11 in the Qmuran comrnentary on Jlabakkuk. I have already pointed out lhe trouble caused to the community by the perceived delay in the cortling of the End. Nonetheless, they still desc:ribed llabakkuk's prophecies

n

20. 21.

Nolland, Lul:.t'. p. 1009. E.g. Filzmycr. Lul:.t', p. 1.353.

2JO

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

as aimed at ll1rH\:l 1 lT.1, 'the last

generatio•~'

( lQpl lab Vll,2). They evidently did

not interpret ll1iiXil '11i;'i chro•wlogically as a period of some 25-30 ye.ars. We lliUSt take the same view of luke's I) ~vt:cX alit11.:: The criticism o r his ' generatil)ll' by

Jesmo, and his threaB ofjudgement against them. has caused Luke to keep the term 'generation· for people. fi'Oil'l the time of Jesus right dowo to his 0 \1/n times. It is nor too long for some. people to have liwd through both. and for all we know such

people may have included l uke himself. luke omits the sayiog about the Son's ignorance-(Mk 13.32}. At Ac-ts 1.7, the

risen Jesus tells his apostles that it is not for them to know the limes which the Father has set, which again reflects the disappOinted expec(;Hions or e-arlier Christianity. Dy luke's time., the \!Jhole idea of the Son himself not kno\lling the time had become

insupportable. The shift into the Gentile world was a factor in this. as well as rising Christolo,g:y. Jo Second Temple Judaisrn, Je\\'ish people constantly revised their pred ic1ions or eschatological event-:;. \1/ithout finding fault with their predee.essors for expecti ng events whic-h had not take-11 place (yet). Greek.spe.aking Gentil~ \\'ere however more likely to suppose that predictions of e\'ents which did not take place as expected were mistakes by the pe.l)plc who made the predic1ions. Luke's editing

has carefully and consistentJy removed Je-~o;us from that group of people. Luke concludes his eschatological discourse with a warning to Christians to live properly and be on the- alert for the last tithes. and a waming that the j udgerncnt will be universaL Christians should hope to survive these things, Ko:l ota8~vcu t~.JTTpooet:v TOU uloU t OO a vepc..lnou. This is an additionaJ Son of man saying. referring to JestlS as the-eschatological j udge. The-re are no signs of Dan. 7 .13, as there were at Mt. 25.3 I. More simply, Luke has so completely ac.(:epled 0 uiOc; ToU O:v6pc..lrrou as a Gree.k tjtfe for Jesus in the last times that he has used it cre-atively as the last word.:; of 1he. eS(:h.atologic.al d isC-t}u~e-. In 1his ~spec.t he is j ust like

Manhew. We have now stl.ldied the maj or groups or Son of man l>ayings \\'hich do not go back to Jesus. and we have found that both ~·latthew and Luke inherited and used 0 uiO; ToU Ctv8pc.lnou as a major tjtle or Jesus ~een in his role in the final

eve-111s. We mlLo;t conside-r next the remaining secondary uses in each ofd1e synoptic evangelists. before proceeding in the next chapter to discuss the transition from Jesus' use of (x.}oiJ(x.) -u to each of 1he synoptic evangelists' Yiew of this Iitle as a

whole.

3. MmY! So11 t)_/ M all Sayiugs ill Mallhew

I n0\1/ proc.eed throt1gh the remaining sec.ondary Son of n\o'ln l\ayiogs in tv1auhcw. The firsl is pe-rhaps tl1e-s trange~t of all:

'22. Cf. E. Ui ws t3m. Jtsus a11d "This Gem~mlitm". A ."-1t'll' Te.\'tamenl Sludy (ConBN'T 25. S1ockholm: Ahnqvisl & Wikscll. 1995}. pp. S t- '7.

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

231

0Tav .S18tWI((.)OW viJae; £v Tfi rrO>..tt roUTo. ¢~Nyrn ti~ rr!Y hipav· O~n)v yelp ).fy(.) U~iv. 00 ~n) TU.{Ol)n Tdc; rrOM.t.-; ToO 'lopco)). (w.-; civ {Mo 0 uiOt; roU O:~pc.)nov f~ft. 10.2Jt

Thil< sayiog appears at firS-! sighl to be placed during lhe hiS-h)ric nliniSliY of Jesus. h is part of a l'nissionary discourse. ,~,~hen the 1wehre were sent out on a mission to Israel, men1ombly deti1led al Mt. 10.5-6: E!.-; OOOv ifh.Wv IJtl citTiAtrnn. ~:o't Elr. rrOAIV IaiJOPIT~V J11i tioik&rrn: rrop;:V.ofk &i IJci>.).ov n~ nl npci(3ou: ;c( cXrro>.wAO; a o'tt:ou 'lopo;JlA..

This is an excellen1definition of the scope of lhe historical ministry. and it has an e..'(cellent Sil:, im Leben where Matthew has placed it. The e-nd of the discourse is likewise set to perfect ion in the historic. ministry, and it appears to be a piece of deliberate Mauhean editing to this effect: Kat ~yivno On hd.£orv 0 'lnooiir. .StarOooG)V Toir; &.>.Stt:o IJ06f1Tair; o:U'l'OU, IJEri~ll it
h is unde!'standable, lherefol'e, lh
This has dear reference lO Dan. 7. 13. and this is what is difticult about it. We shall see good reason to believe. that all such references are secondary.2! In Aramaic or Greek. this also reinforces the poin1 that the coming of the. Son of man in Matthew alwa)'$ rerers lO lhe. parousia of Jesus. Sif!Ce this is how he interpreted Dan. 7. 13. Thirdly. if this is what the saying is really supposed to mean. it is extraordinary that so careful an editor as Matthew retained it. when he could so easily have left it out. Christian scholars. in the patristic and mode.m periods :.dike. ha\'e not liked this interpretation for t:he.dogmatic reason thai it attributes to Jesus a mistake-n prediction. J.\ oy mistake by Jesus does not iil io witll lhe dooetic Chl'istology cha.racterislic of supposedly orthodox Christianity. and these same.Christian scholars. fervent in their oominued belief that the Son of man will come on the clouds of heaven e \'entually, 23.

A. S.:hvodt1.cr. Tht QueJJ uf lite Historical Jtsll.f. First Complttt' Etlitiml (1111ns. W.

~fonlgorn.:ry 11 al.; London: SCM. 2000), p~l. 327- .U.

24. 25.

C3r.
SCi! PI,· 24:!- 5 tk'low.

232

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

have regarded this as an important matter. Consequently. this interpretation would make Jesus responsible for an imp011am mis1ake, rather than a trivial one. Accordingly. a variety of implausible interpretations have.been adopted.~ The most l'nundaoe suggestion is that the eod of the ve.rse re.ally meaos ' until I join you· .:7 This involves an i mpossible interpretation of the temt ·son of man• ir1either Aramaic or

Greek. and people who thought it meant this are most unlikely to have considered it wonh pre.11e.rving. M
suggestion is that Jesus was refe.rring to the- faJJ of Jerusalem.!ll This replaces: what the-•ext says with romething more convenient If Jesus meant this, he \VOuld

surely have said it. and if Matthe.w meant this. he would surely have written it lnterpre~ations of this kind cao hal'dly be

re-garded as c-ritical scholarship. Tiley show

a total lack of respect for what the text says, and assen their own meanings: to avoid the conservative Christian problem that Jesus appears to have. been mistaken. Por once. recem redaction criticism has come to the rescue. By the time we reach w . 17-1 S, what is to us a fundamental shift M lbcus has d early taken place-. Some of the predic-tions: no longer have a satisfactory Sit:, im Lebe11 in the historic ministry of Je.sus:. but belong rather to the period of the early church. Jesus predicls that the disc.iples will be haoded over h) sanhedtins. Hogged in synagogues, and brought

before rulers and kings: for a witness to them Kai Tole; E'Ov~OlV. This: happened in the period of the early church. but not during the historic ministry. Consistently with this. there are clo-se parallels to some or Mauhew•s comments in the eschatoh)gical

djsoouJ'seof 1\.·l k. 13. from which Matthew has notably omitte.d some of them (see esp. l\•Uc 13.9-13 ). rvlauhew has shilled frOI'll the fortheoruing missioo t) f the disciples ifl

the historic ministry lo the.Christian mission in the period of the early church. From his perspective. this was a reasonable thing to do. He regarded the mission of the c.hurc.h as a contir\uoltiOil of the mission of the first apos.tles. I le also bel<>ngOO to a c.ulttux.· which interpreted propheC)' as pat1ly fulfilled, p
and partly referring to the future. Apocalyptic writers wrote with the same schema deliberately in mind. Once we have got this Slnlight. we have the correct frame\IJOrk lOr ir11e1prtting

Mt. I0.23. lis Sit;, im Leben is in the period of the early church. Whi le the mission to the Gentile$ was ofeemrul importaoee, and indirectly re ferred to at Mt. 10.18, there was also a mission to Israel. We should not 10rge1 eithe-r •hat in any given city, the Gentile mission nomlally be.gao fmm the synagogue. h thereforx: flourished in maoy c-i ties which had long-established. pro~pen)uS and successfUl Jewish conununities. Mmtl•e,v's cooccpt of ' the cities of Israel' may therefOre have. been bn)ader thal'l 26. For the hi!<>HH)' of scholarship up to 1hc time when i1 "''a.s wl'iucn. SC\: .\ 1. Klitui. Dt1s NuhtnmltliJigslogime Mutrhhr (Sic-bec-k). I 970). 21. E.g. J. Dut>Oill. "'\lou!< n'll•trcz t):lll achc-"t ks viii~~ d "ls.tatll sva.nl quc- lc Fils de l'hommcn.c vienilc" (Mal. X.23)'. No••T2 (t958). pp. 228-44. 2&. E.g. A. Fcu ill~l. "lcs. ol'igini.'l> C€ Ia ~igni lk:uioo de Ml t0.23b: Comriblllion it l'~u.tdc du

protMmc c~c-Mtol ogiquc-•, CBQ 23 ( t961). t)t). 182-98.

Other Synoptic Sayings

233

ours. including cities whe-re people of lstael dwelt, not only c.itjes which were physically in Israel. We must imerpret the saying Jilerally. The c.o.ning M 0 u·,~ ToU O:vOpc.lrrou refers h) the parousia M Jesus:. a.:; \Ve ha\lt just ~en throughout Mt. 24 and at 25.3 1. This saying reas..rmres djsciples of Jesus that the-parousia will take place-befOre the mission 10 Jews, and i t~ Jewish places. is completed. This fits in c.ompletely with Matthe"•'s editing. l ie believed that the parousia had been delaye.d, but that it was no\v at hand in his own time-. 11 was this great event \!Jhich would bring the. pe-rsecution of the church to an end, with salvation for the disciples and judgement on outsiders. In iB present fom1, the saying canum go back to Jesus, lOr its Aramaic. is problematic and it has no proper Sil::. im Lebm in his teaching. It has a perfect Sit:.. im Leben in the editorial procedures of Matthew, and no paraJlel in Luke-. In it~ present forn1, therefore, lhe-saying is a rvtauhean creatjon. though "'e cauf!Ottell whe1her Matthew re-edited an older sayiog for his ow11purposes. Be that as il may. this is another example of 0 ulOt; Toli O:vOpc.)rrou as a title of Jesus in Greek. used with reference to his parousia. tvlatthe\11 took his nex1 secondary saying frOOl Q. It has also caused a Jot of punlemeot lO commentah)rS, rmm the ancient period onwards. It is a response to a fL'<JUC"St fOr a Sif',ll. Matthew gives Jesus' response as rt)IJOWS:

r £1/Eci novqpci: t:a'• ~o•xo>.ie; OTtiJEiov t rnU &&r)ona1 aUTfi et 1.1~ ;0 Ol'(~tiov 'lwvci Toii npo$~Tov. &mp yctp ~v 'lc.wcir; i:v Tfi IC<>t>.iQ: TaU .crj;oor; Tpri~ iu,ii por. .:oi ;piit; vUno::t;, OOn.>~; t'o ;ae 0 uiO;- TOO O:v8pc.)noo iv 1Co:p6IQ -rijo; y~ TpEit; ~IJipor; ~::a'1 Tptic; vUncv; (M1. 12.39-40, cf. U . t1.29-30).

To understand the origins of this Olidrash, \Ve m-ust go in the-llrst place to a genuitle incident J\.'C.Orded in our oldest source, the Gospel of Mark (Mk 8 .11-13). Mark

thm some. Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign from heaven. He refused. with some considerable annoyance. con1plainiog about ' this generation' seeking a sign. His refusal begins with one of the characteristics of his ipsiss ima ''erlm. and C.c.)ntinues with an idiom oarural in Aramaic and in Ilehrew, but not in Greek. lima>' be reconstmcted a~ follows: rec.ord~

.i1X j1 K177 zr-n· ;x .rr~7 ;;:1\ ,1!:-> jl'!X An\cn I say 10 you. a:~ign will Cffl~i.nl y not be giwn 1o 1his gc-ncr:ui\'M'l !

h is this incideot which wa.~ fastened on by a midrashisL Frofn it eome$ the seeking ror a sign, .Jesus' critic.is1n of the gc•leration contemporary "'ith him. and his declaration that a sign will nO( be given, a passive which refers to God at least as much as to himself. The midrashisr has qualified this somewt1at with his rc iCn~nc.e to Jonah. We know that Mauhew took this from Q bec.ause he has so muc.h in common with Luke. Both of them have the foUowing: '(tVtcl fi0\n¥1c( . .. OTIIJli OV (f: nl)~nni. ICO:I OI'( IJEi0\1 oU &&r)o;Tal olfrfj ti J.lli T6 Ofl1J £{ov 'IG.lvO ... yOp ... 'twvW; . .. oiiT~ io-ta t 0 uiO; -rOO O:v&pc;)rrou ...

Thjs is more than enough ro show that there wns a Q version. which Matthew and Luke e;.tch inherited in one form or another. The midras.hist turned to the book of

234

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Jonah. and produced a scripturally based piece which Manhew was happy to inherit. and whic.h Luke feh a need to alter. The following pan of the Matthean version is a straight quotation from LXX Jon. 2.1:

Thisisstrongevidence that the midrnshist was working in Greek. Moreover. the.whole midrashic comparison make$ excellem sense in Greek, provided thm we understand what the three-day interval means. I have alre-ady brought fC:uward evidence that it may refer to a short time.1" In rabbinical literarure it refers :unong other things to the period before the deliverance- of Israel by means of the re.surtt'ction of the dead.

This three-day iurerYal was supported from scriptures such as I los. 6.2, •oo the third day he-will raise us up'. Jon. 2. 1 is somc.timcs ll'led in the same midrashic.passages. f>.·loreover, }t!$uS himself used the l1uee~y interval with reference lO a relaljve.l y short tinle ( Lk. 13.32-33). l11e Q midr.:t.'lhist worked with a sifnilar concept of a

short time. This is what he meant by the three days and three nights, and he will not have thought that he. was contradicting the. teaching of Jesus. Rather. the midmshic comparison between Jonah and Jesus showed that the de.ath and resurrection of Jesus was the only sign his gene-ration would f!el. and from a Pharisaic perspective, that was not the sign from heaven for which they had asked. The next secondary sayings in Matthew are both in the inte.rpretation of the parable of the tares. It is generally agreed thal the interpretatiotl is completely secondary, and has been c-On1posed by Man hew. It has oo satisl3ctory Sil;. im Leben in the rninistry of Jesus. It presupposes that the parable is an allegory so obscure

that no one could understand it unless Jesus lOid them the interpre.tation. This is contrary to the aims and nature of l11e public teaching of Jesu..~. The interpretation has however a perfeclly good Sil~ im Leben in ~·latthew. who attached the greatest irnportanc.e to the final judgement, with the salvmioo or the e-lect and the punishme.nt

of sinners. The linguistic argument for Mauhe.an composition is especially strong. aod includes some poinl'l which are dillicuh to understand in Aramaic rather thM Greek..;" NO\\'he.re is this nlore obvious than in the first son of man sayi1lg. " 'hich identifies the origioal S0\\1er of the good seed in the field:

Here.me.Greek term 0 uiOc; ToU Crvepc.lrrov is a Greek title. considered by Mauhe\v be quite sufficient on its own to identify Jesus. This C< - luld not be done like this in Aramaic. fOr (K)~J(K) 1~ w·as a nonnal word for man. Consequently, it \VOuld have to be qualified to make refere-nce to M y pru1icular person. In the light of h)

Lhe other passage$ which we haYe already discussed. we must further infer that Matthew regarded 0 u'tOc;- ToiJ Ctv8pc.lrrov as especially appropriate here because of his eschatological role. This is expounded with the second occurrence of 0 u'u)c; ToU O:v6pc.lrrou at Mt. 13.4 1. Here the. Son of man sends out his angels. and the result 29.

Sec t>t). 207- 8 3bovc.

30.

&c csp.._'Ci:JU)' krcmias., Pamltlts, pp. 82- 5.

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

235

is the punishment of the wicked and the salvation of the righteous. points whkh we have seen to be central in the eschatoh)gical J>rCseotation or Mauhew 24. h is e.videm that Mauhe\\''S knowledge of the Aramaic origins of 0 u'1 6t; ToU Ov6pc..)rrou in no way inhibited his creative use of it as a Greek title. 1l is also significant that 0 uiOt; ToU O:v9pc.lrrou is associated with f!aoiAEia in this passage. especial!)' in v. 41. If Jesus had really taken ·son of (nan' fi'om Dan. 7.13-14, \\'here :zfJ~ 1D receives u7o, this association would have beeo uont1al in his teaching. Instead, \VI!'find this association only in an evangelist who certainly did make-midrashic. use of Dan. 7.13, and who found 6 u'u)c; ToG O:vSpc..)rrou as a ChristoJogicaJ title in this wry text. Mauhe\~J's next Son or man saying has been edited into his tvlarcarl St)urce.ln the inta)(Jucrion to Peter's c.oofes.~ i on at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8.27}. the rvtarcau Jesus ao;ks his djsciples.

This introduces genuine material recording verdicts that Jesus was really John the. Baptist, Elijah or
To understand these editorial chaoges. we nllL~t begin with Matthew•:: two main point<;, his revised version or Peter's confessio n and lhe extraordinary delineation or Peter's Je.ading position in the chuJx:.h which fOllow'S. His versioo of Peter's confession has h "O of lhe church's rnajor Christologic.altitfes:

31.

s~

1)1). 201- 9above.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

2J6

Jesus' re$ponse has Pc.ter pia)' lhe leading role in the churth which he did i n l~lct play in the years immediately succeeding Jes-us• death and res-urrection. h c-Ontai ns

the famous pun with Peter being the rock on which Jesus will build his c.hurch. a puo which works as 'veil in AraJnaic with ~~''as in Greek with niTpoc;. and in American English with Rock. This is extremely coherent, for we know from Act~ and the Epistles that 'Christ' and 'Soo of God• ' vere two of the three major c.onfessional titles of the.early church. Moreover, whereas KVptoc; has a very broad mnge of meaning and is frequently used by Matthew (c. 76 time.s) throughout that range, these (WO titles ' "ere by this stage rnore spec.ific. TI1e term XP•aTcil; tended to be used with partic.ular reference to Jesus• role-itl salvation histol'y, atld he was by now •ron of God' in the :.pecial sense M being especially closeI)' related to G(>d and chosen by him for his outstanding role in salvatioo histOI')'· Pete.r 's collfession is accordingly to be regarded as a model Christian confes..~ion. We can now see why 6 u·,&; ToU O:v9pc.lrrov has been removed rrom the first IXI.$Sion predictiotl. h is not 1hat tv1auhc'" consideted 0 u'tOt; ToU O:vOp<.l rrou in any way unsuitable for passion predictjons. He uses this term when editing ~·lan:an pa$sion predictions at Mt 17.12. editing r-.•1k 9. 12; t\'1 L 17.22. editing Mk 9.31; Mt 20.18, editing. Mk 10.33: and Mt. 20.28, editiog Mk 10.45. Of these pas.:;ages ML 17.22 and 20.18 are especially d t)Se to the present passage. f>.·IL )(l.2 1. Maubew also uses 0 v'u)c; ToiJ clvijpc.lrrou in a passion prediction of his own inse.rted at Mt. 26.2. It was thereli.)rC in his view ao entirely suitable tenn for Jesus to us.e in passion predictions in general. He had e-ntirely positive. reasons for introducing this first prediction with 'll)oo~. with or without XPtOT<X . and simply referring back to Jesus in this capad ty as o\m:Sv. What Mauhe.w was dete-nnined to do was to me-ntion Jesus personally by name in a passion prediction which immediate.ly fOllows the tWl) ll)ajor confessional tirles, 0 XPlOT&; and 0 ulO:;- ToiJ OeoU. He has also replaced Mark's o.oaaKEt\1 cxUToVc; with 8ttKvU~·v Tole; pcxOnr cxl c; cxUroU. so revelation direc.ted personally at the di~c i pl es short!)' be.!Ot-e Ptler, jwlt pre-s t.Jltcd as lhe Rock of the church. makes the. catastrophic mistake of tr)ring to persuade Jesus not to uJlde-rgo his atoning death. This first passioo prediction is tl1e-first presetmuioo of what was for Matthe.w the centre of salvation history. So it is 'lnooGc;. tJ1e human being who has lo die. but who is also 0 XPIOT0;- and 0 v't61; TOO &oU, which made his death of central impot1ance, who is deliberately mentioned here. It is \\1ill1all this editing in rniod that Mattl1e\V inserted 0 v'tOt;: ToU O:v9pc.lrrou ioto his introductil)fl tOthe whole-sec-tion at Mt. 16.13:

tradition did not like this. with most ~·ISS interpolating IJE as at Mk 8.27 and Lk. 9 .18, and C W having it in a diflhent position. We-must hO\\'ever fOllow N. D 579 al., a sound MS tradition which did not have-rcasot\ 10 leave- IJE out unless it was absem from their sources. We must infer that Matthew regarded 0 u't 6c; ToiJ O:vOp<.'m ou as an unambiguous term for Jesus himself, in Greek. He has deliberately insened it here as a correct reference. to Jesus. preceding the false an$wers or uncomprehending people followed by the lrue confession of Pe-ter. It

The

mamL~cript

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

237

fom1s an inclu:sio with 0 uiO:;- ToU OvSpc..)rrov m 16.27-28, \!Jhich mark~ oil a c.omplete e-pisode-in which Matthe\Vltas used a ll l1u-oe of his major Christo1ogical tille-s in a vigorous presentation of Jesus' fo11hc.orning death, n::surrection and sec.ood coming for salvation and judgement. The next occurrence of 0 u"uX- ToG OvepWnov, at Mt 16.27, is an edi1ed version or a genuine saying foutld at Mk 8.38, so 1discuss 1he original saying c.lse-whe.re:'l Matthew has omitted the tirst pan ofMk 8.38, of which he has anmher version at Mt 10.33 (//Lk. 12.9):" He has also developed the second pan of the saying. The result is an unambiguolL;; reference 10 Jesus' second eiuuing, followed by judgement: !li).~u yv ci~~v oVroU. t:a·,

Tirn .Xno.Sc.lott E~eOoTG,> Ko:T
This saying also h.as the refere-nces to 'Son of man• and ·corni•lg' ·which are c:rucia1 indicators of the in1luence of Dan. 7. 13, and we have already seen Mauhew rnakiug c.onscious use of this text in describing Je-sus· parous i a . ~ Glory, God and angels are alw to be found in lhe Danie.tic cou1ext, and Mauhew•s add ilion of the final '''otds are strongly scriptural in orientation IOl) (cf. LXX Ps. 61.13; Prov. 24.12). Thesepoin t~ are.crucial ror unde-rstandirtg Matthew·s editing l)f tv1k 9.1 10 IOnu MI. I6.28. Mark's predic.lion of the-comi1lg of the kingdom "'as no! quite d e.ar enough for Matthew, so he edited it to make absolutely clear that the seoond coming of Jesus would take place during the. lifetime of some of the dise.iples who were presem during the historic ministry: o.,~v Aiy(o) VIJivOTI €ioiv TIW:t; T~V c.\& f:oTc.>Tc..lV ohlvt(; oV ltit yEUoc..l\'TOI ao:vchoo (c..y,- O:v i&.>o1v TO\.o uiOv TOO civ&pc.)TTou ipxOIJtVOv i:v -qlj3.o:otMiQ: aVtoU.

llere again we have the collocmioo of 'Son or mao' and 'comiltg', the c:rucia1 indicators or the runhe-r inlluence of Dan. 7. 13. TI1is time we also have a refetenc,e to the kingdorn, which is given h) the •-nan-like figure-at Dan. 7 .14. We have seen lhat it is a standing weakness of the theory that the Gospel tenn 0 uiOt;- ToG O:v9p(o)nou is derived p•·irnarily frorn Dan. 7.13-14 lh
1)1). 191- 3 above. SCi: further pp. 189--92. See ,,,,. 21 S--6 above. s~

2J8

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Finally, we see. once. again d1at Mauhew considered 0 u'u)(; ToU O:v9p<.lrrou an t:IHire.ty natunll tenn h) ulte when expt)mlding Jesus' ~ond corning ill Greek. In us ing it at Mt. 16.27-28 to fOml an indusia with Mt. 16.2 1, in which it is lL'>Cd as

generally as possible as a description of Jesus in JXUiicular, he further shows bow mud1 it was at home in the exposition of Gospel traditions in Greek. There is one more secondary use. of the term Son of man to discuss here, in r-.·tmtiiC\V's versit)n of the Q saying, Mt. 19.281/ Lk. 22.30. TI1e origimll sayiog must have been very remarkable. for it h.ad the Twelve siuing on twelve thrones in a scene which must belong somehow to the last judgement. Unfortunately. neither f>.·tauhew nor Luke seems to have be-en satisfied w ith the introduction. whic-h we can 1'10 looger

recover. The ~·lauhean ve-rsion is as follows: 'Ap~v Myw UlJiv On UIJt~ o'a ciKok>u&Qoo:vtie; IJOt. ~v -qj na>.tyytvtoi'q:, O;av Ko:&ion 0 u'•O:;- ;oU Ov6pWnoo Etri &p0\10\J .S~I')C; aU;oO, t::a&iptofh: "o'aU~Jtl~ f:tri SW5n::o: epOvooc; t::pivovw; ;cil; .SW.Su a ¢'uAW;- ;o.:i lopa~A.

The iirst part of th is saying is remioiscent o ftvlt. 25.3 1, the onlyotherNewTestame.nt

text in which the Son of man sits on the throne of his glory. We have already seen that th is is secondary, and that it \1/.i\S paJ1ly fonn ed by c.ooscious use ofDan. 7.9-14. We must make the s.ame inference here. The introduction cannot be satisfactorily 1\.<>construc.ted in Aramaic, which has no proper equivalent for rro:A1yyEvt:oia. All this evidence is entirely cohere-nt. The spccilically Matthean iutroduelion ro a Q saying has a perl'ect Si~ im Leben in "'latthew. and cannot be reconstructed as part o f the teaching of Jesus. This is moretwer tvlatthew's dominant use of 0 u'16c; roU

O:v6p(.)rrou in sec-ondary sayings, with reference. to the-last times. This concludes our study of secondary Son of man sayings in Matthew. We have seen that Mauhew found the. term 0 viOc; ToU <XvOp(.)rrou in both scripture and tradition. He e-xpanded freely and creatively the usage which he found at Dan. 7.13, \\1he-re he Sil\1/ a picture of the second coming of Jesus. Jo the escharologic.al chapte-r s 24-25, the <:.entre- of his expectation was tl rrapouata ToU uloU ToU O:vep(.)rrou, con1ing 01~ the d ouds of heave.Jl, bringi1lg salvatioo and judgeme-llt. This is .also reflecte-d in his other seco ndary say ir)gs. vi1t ually all of \Vhich also

refer to the last times. These sayings were created both with and without reference h) the prin1ary te-Xt Oao. 7. 13• .and to mher texts. The ne-arest w an exception is Mt. 16.13, where. hO\\•ever l\•latthew is clearly editing .a c.o mplex or material in which the term 0 ul~ ToU O:v8pc.lnou has been taken rrorn r-.•lark 8.31 . It is Moetheless instructive, because in this text it is so obvious thai Matthew regards 0 viOc; roU

O:vSp(.)rrou as an unambiguous refere.nc.e to Jesus. without any funherexplanation. Othen\1ise. all Matthew's sec.oodary sayings refer to the las t times, when Jesus would C.OI\IC in g lol)• for salvation aod judgement. We kMw fro m the l'C$t of the

New Testament how important the second coming was for the early church. This is the- reason for Matthew's secondal'y use of 0 uiOc; ToU O:vOpc.l nov. It does not l'tlatter that this tenn is vi1tually absent o utside the Gospe-ls (excepl Acts 7.56 w ith the .articles, lle.b. 2.6. Rev. 1.13 and 14. 14 \1/ithout them). Matthew knew nothing

about that. He found 6 ui(x; ToU <Xv6p(.)rrou in tradition and scripture. and in bolh

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

239

of them it was already used with referenc.e to one of his most profound needs, to ponray creatively the second coming of Jesus. That is the reason for his e.;uensive secondary usage. 4. Man• Srm tij'Mall Sayiug.\· in Luke

I have already considered most of Luke's sec.ondary ::ayings. because they are c.onc.entrated io the eschatological sections lk. 17- 18.8, 21. I fo und that, like to.·1atthew, Luke used 6 uiO:;- ToU O:v9pc.lrrou as a major title li.)r Jesus in his eschatological role in the last times. He differed from Matthew in making d ear that these time.s were nO( imminent at the time of Jesus or soon afterwards: rather they were at hand in Luke's own day. I also IOw1d that he cannot be shown to have been aware of the deri\'ation of 6 u'u)t; ToU OvOpc.lrrou fi'om Dan. 7.13. For hil'n it was a traditional title for Jesus. btn we cannot show that he regarded it as scriptural. I also found that he did not share the extl!nt of tvlatthew':; creativity. He himself produced only two sayings, one of them a passion prediction based on his other passioo predictions (Lk. 17.25). •he mher the c.onclusion to his final eschatological di:ocoursc (Lk. 21 .36). These are the two rnajor definable categories ir1 which he found the term 0 ulO:; ToU O:v9pc.lnou in his sources. His usage should therefore. not be regarded as very innovatory. Similar remarks apply to the majority of l uke-'s other sec.ondal'y sayings, though not perh ap.~ to the lirst. TI1is is a Q saying:, at Lk. 6.22: IJO:(Op,oi ion 0Tov p~Ol)owoiV UIJCir; o'• civ&pwn:o•. Ko:i 0 Tov 0:¢-opiowoiV Uuci~ Ko:i OvruSI0<.)0\\1 l:a'• i:~&Ac.>otv TO OvoiJO U11Wv iY; n:ooqpOv ~\I!KO ToU uioU TOO Ov6p<.)nou·

Here the Son of man is obviously Jesus. a fact so ob\~ous ro Luke that he uses il without explanation at its first occurrence bel~·. Luke's audiences will surd y have tJ1ought of persecution in the days of the early c.hurch. which they may not have distinguished from the times of the historic ministry. Thus 6 u·,o..; ToU Ov6pc.lrrou is not used with an eschatological reference here. This is perfectly in accordance with the traditions which Luke inherited. h is however very difficult 10 tell whether Luke himself invented or merely inherited this panicular occurre,nce. Matthew has (vrK(V E~-toU (r\-1L 5. I1). II ha.~ often been a1-gued thou Man hew is so keen on 6 u'• Oc; ToU CtvOpc.) rrou that he would not have removed itl.S We. have however seen that il was probably he who did remove it fn)ll'l the authentic sayi ng:.~ - Mt. I0.32-JJ (//Lk. 12.8-9, 8.38)3' - and he may not have liked the very mundane nature of thil< -u.sage. which refers neit11er to Jesus' esc.hatological role nor to anything sigoilicant during the historic ministry. Discussion of the Aramaic level of lhe tradition however SU£gests that 6 u'10t; ToU OvOpc.lrrou is indeed secondary. One might auerupt a rect)ttS-h'uctjon a.~ follows: 35. 36.

E.g. Fitzmycr, Luk~. p. 635. s~

1)(). 183-6above.

240

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem •'r1:1 ;tl-:o jU1!C; P iOJ: l"7Cio1 jUll" 1'~0 1:< l'IIUK 1":1'1::

Blcs...;cd tate) you when

(P.,."'OJ)) ~)

hate yoo and 1'\:\'i lc (you) Mid remove your nan\o:!' as C\·il

bec-ause of me.

luke's Greek iK~cihGlotv TO Ovo~a U~Clv is peculiar, and a natural Aramaic idiom can readily be- rec.or)Strucred for it, while Manhew•i< editi ng has produced more l1uent Gree k. Black suggested ll1e Aphel of p:>J a.;; tl1e- unde.rlay lbr i~
Jesus. h is ba.,ic.ally a sornewhal stronger w·ord li)r removing,. but the C!tt<:ial point is that il is used in 1wo earlie.r 1exg fOr removing someone.·s name, in a similar SCIIS.C and conte.xt to the hostility of the pre-se1H passage ( KAI 225 9·10; 228A 14·15). In this context il would be dillieull lo traoslate, and iK~cihc.lau.. would be an entirely re.asonable rendering. I have however fl)IJO\ved Mauhew in rec.onstrucling ~. The use o f(~)WJ(~) "U at t.his poinl \VOuld oot be satisraetory. because il is indefinite.josl at 1he poinl whe1e we need a clear referenc-e to Jesus. We must therefore infer that ToiJ utoU ToU Wepc.lrrou i.~ i11dood secondal'y, and that it replaced the fil'l\.t per.wn pronoun when the traditioo was being tr.msmitted in Greek. Whether it was Luke. personally or a predec.es..<>or who did this mus1 remain unc.enain. The tem1 0 v'16c; ToU O:v6pc.lrrou was clearly an unambiguous teml for Jesus when the tradition was be.ing transmined in Greek. and it was used of the eanhly Jesus during his ministry. Either Luke or a predecessor may according!)' haYe. found it appropriate here. The next sec.ondary saying is lk. 11.30. whic.h 1 have already di~cussed to some extent inc.oosidering the Q parallel at tvlt. 1 2 . 40.~ \Ve have seen that this sa)'ing was developed fro m a genuine s.aying of JeslL<>. in which he refused a request for a sign fro m heave.Jl (tvtk 8.11-13). The Miuthean ve.rsion was produced by a midras:hist who used the. book of Jt)ft.ah iu Greek. luke's version is significantly shorler than that of Matthew: .:aei.:.; yOp (yiw.To ' twv~ Toi.; Ntut"uiTatr; OfliJ(iov. oihwc; £oTOI I(OI .0 viCe; TaU bvep~nou "rfi yulE~ TaVTIJ.

We know that the title 0 v'16c; ToiJ OvOp<.)nou wns in the Q version. because it is reproduced by both e.vangelists. We should probably infer that Luke has abbrevinted the Q \'e.rsion. As a Greek Gentile Chris1ian. he will not have been happy with the logical implication that Jesus would be in the. enn h for three days and three nights. His abbreviated version does nO( home in on any particular feature of Jonah or Jesus, excepl the un i quen es...~ of eac.h of them in being God's ooly sign lOr their generation in their plac.e. The use of the te.rm 6 uiOt; toV Ctv9pc..)noo does not bring 31. 3&.

Black. Aramaic Approoch, p. 165.

See- t)t). 2H- 4 3 I)C)YC.

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

241

any particular implica tion to this. Luke h.as ;.tcoordingly accepted it from the traditjon as an unambiguous reference to Jesus, as he does elsewhere. Apan from Lk. 17- 18.8, the eschatoh)gical sayings discussed above. the next secondal)' saying in Luke is unique to him. It c.osne-s at the end of the-story of Zacchaeus. which is unique. to l uke.as n whole. When Zacc.haeus has repented and promised restitution, Jesus announces salvation for his house. nnd conc.ludes with a saying in which Jesus explains his own function: M&v yO:p OuiOr; TOO O:u6pWnO\I
This c.annot be an original saying in iL~t present form. bec.aull-e (K)WJ(K) 1~ would not have sullicient re lfning pO\\'e-r to make d ear the reference to Je~us. It makes excellent sense in Greek. for by this time 6 ulOc; toU O:v9pc.lrrov was an unambiguous and uoique title of Jesus. Moreover. it correc.tl)' represents a signific:uu aspect of the ministry of the historical Jesus. and it has an excellent Sit~ im Leben where we now find it. Whether Luke inhe-rited it from tradition or wrote it hin1self as an .appropriate C-O!lclusioo to this story, \\'e call no longer •elL In eithe-r case, he-regarded it as an unan1biguous title.of Jesus. perfectly in place with reference to the historic ministry as well as to the e.Yents of the last day. There is one tinal saying which is secondal)' in its prese1H place, though it is obviously hosed oo old (fadition, and I have argued that the-sayings on which i• is based go bac.k ultimately ro at least one.genuine prediction by Jesus of his death and resurrection.3., Luke altered the Marean tradition that the resurrection appenmnces were in Galilee. In preparing Cor his StOrie!'$ in which they take place in Jerusalem i n.~tte~id, he re-placed the instruction by Mark•s ange-l that the women shoold tell the disciples 10 go to Galilee with a reminder by his two angels of the prediction whkh Jesus had made. when he was in Galilee (Lk. 24.7). This fo nn of the prediction is clearly based on Luke's other predictions. and simply show-s that Luke was ver)' happy with 0 uiOt; ToU O:vEtpt.lrrou as a title of Jesus, in passion predictions as elsewhere. Luke's usage is aceotdingly less extensive-than that or l\•lanhe\1/. Like Matthe"'• he has a majori[y of secondary sayings with an e.schatological orientation. Unlike Matthew, he has very few secondary sayings outside his main eschatologicaJ sections, Luke 17- 18.8 and 21 . One orthese sayings is fl'Om Q. one from the Marean tradition M predictjons of Je~~us ' pa~tsion and resurrectil)n. and it is possible that both the other {WO sayings are drawn from tradition. Two Ct.)uclusions fOliO\~. In the Jirst place. Luke was entire1y hnppy ''~th the title 6 ui.Oc; toU O:vOpc.lrrou, which he. inherited fro m ,. _.lal'k and Q. 0 1l the other han d~ Luke did not make great use of this title when he wns creating new sayings. lie did so again at Acts 7.56. Ilere he wn.)te a shor1 speech lOr the dying Ilellenistic Christian Ste-phen. In it, he used 0 v'u)c; ToU O.v9p<.)rrou. the-reby showing again thi.ll from Luke's point of view it was an important title of Jesus alone in Greek.

39.

Se-e Ot. 9.

242

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem 5. Mark

Apnn from his development of the passion and resurrec.tion predictions. which are deri\'ed ultimately from two genuine sayings of Jesus and hence discussed in Chapter 9, Mark hall only two secondar)' sayings, M k 13.26 and 1 4.62. ~·• The first of d~ese two seconda•y sayings comes at the climax of Marie's

eschatological discourse. This contains a number of features which ha\'e a natural Sit:; im Lebe11 in the period of the. early church, rathe-r than in the ministry of Jesus. The most striking is in a context of the predic.ted persecutions which in fac.t took place during the period of the e.arly church. This is the. prediction that the Gospel must ti•·st be preached to all the nations (Mk 13. I0). The Gelltile mission doe~" not

ha\•e any Sit~ im Leben in the. teaching of Jesm:. He expected the kingdom to come too soon for it ro take place. and c.onsequently it does not belong within his teaching in ge-neral. Equally secondary are.the.predictions thm people will report the prese-nce of 0 xp•oT6c;-, and that ¥:u06xp10TOI \Viii arise (Mk 13.21-22). These are depende.JH on the deve1op11leflt of the title 'the Christ' in the eatliest period of the church} 1 It is only after this complex of secondary events that ~·lark presents sc.ripturnJiy based predictions of heavenly phenomena such as the darkening of the sun and moon. and the taJJiog of the Shlrs (Mk 13.24-25). There follows 1he climactic moment or Jesus' second coming: .:a'! TOn ~TOI T¢v u'cOv TOij &v6pt.lrtou {px01JfVOV no>.Air; w:ai ~ry;.

ro vt:!f!tha~ ~nO &uvci~ec,y;

The dcpellde-nce of this verse on Dan. 7. 13 is almos-t universally ~cogn ized . II has the c.rudal terms 0 u·,o.;- ToU O:vOp<.lrrou and i pxOiJcn. the distinctive douds. and the common elements of power and glory. As in Matthew and Luke. the reference of the tille 0 uiO;- ToU OvOpc.)rrou. already used of Jesllc: several times by Mark, is takell to be unambiguo-us. It follows that 0 u'• Oc; ToU O:u6pc..)rrou was alre-ady a Groek title-of Jesus, seen in Dan. 7.13 interpreted as a prophecy M his second c.o.ning. Moreover. it is d eal' 1hat this is part of a rnidrash on seve.ral Old Testament pa.-;;sages. Some of the. othe.r ones are diflicuh to locate with prec.isil)O. precisely because this is a midrash \Vhich utilizes passages creatively rathe.r than quoting them. For example, the-liilling of the stars at rvtk 13.25 may well be from !sa. 34.4, and the gathering at rvlk 13.27 could be Ji\)tn Zech. 2.10 LXX. Since people on earth see. the event of the Son of man coming. he must come from heaven to ean h, as the man-like ligure should be seen to do in the original text or Dan. 7 .13. TI1e passage should be in1erpre1ed literally. in accordance with tJ1e normal beliefs of the early ehun::h. h is inunediately followed by the gathering of the elect as for example at Deut. 30.4.

This passage accordingly shows 6 vi6c; ToU O:vepc..)nou already used as a tille of Jesus io 01'ee-k, and seen in sc:rillture a1 Dan. 7.13 in a predic:tioo of his retum. This 40. For mort dc~.ait~d d[!ieussion of some asp.."'tL~ of these tex-IS.. including considerstion of .some-of lhc older secondary lite.rtJturc.. S(e. Cusey. Son nfMan, pp. 165- Sl, 213-17. 4I . Casey. Fmm JewiJII Prop/ret tu G('nfile Gcd. pp. 4 t -'l. tOS-6.

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

243

mirrors the belief in his second coming found abundantly outside the Gospels in the NewTe$tamcnt, as already in a speech of Pete-r at Actll 3.20. It diOC!'s p n~cisely in its use of Dan. 7. 13 and the Iitle 0 u'1~ Toli O:v6p(.)rrou. This strongly su~gests that the. use M Dan. 7. I 3 io pal'tieular was due to the perce-ption that 0 viO;- ToV O:v6p(.)rrou was to be 10-und in the authentic sayiogs of Jesus which fOnnthe majol'ity of Son of man sayings in ~.oyrrfoU: (Mk 14.61).

There are two things wrong with this in itself. First. the term Xp•or cil; and its Aramaic. equi\•alent (~)n•txfu had not yet c:rystallized out into a tirle like this. Acc.ordingly, theuse of Xp•or Oc; must be.due to the earl)' churc-h. or to Mart himself. Second, whi le roU €UAoYTJTOU sounds like a e-ircumloc-mion for God. it is not attested as suc-h. Once-again, therei"Ore, we must see here the hand of the early church. But if the early church is responsible-fl)l" the questioo, it fl)uSt also be responsible fOr the lirst part of Jesus· aoswc!': •Eye.) tiw. Kol ~o6! --rOv uiOv TOU O:v6pc.lrrou £K s:;t~\1 KOeitiJv ~~t$~Wv Toii oUpovoU.

Aflcr his aHirmative aoswer to the secondal)' que-stit)U, Jesus c.ont inue~~; \\'ith the same-ruidrashic usc of Dan. 7. 13 as '''e have seen in the secondary tvlk 13.26. l lere again we have the crue-iaJ 6 uiO:;- roV Ctv9pc.)rrov and EpxO~cu, and this time also the very clear ~€ TO: ri:>v vtqteAClv r oU oVpo:voU. fiye \1/0rd~; runoing identic-al to the (pcl'fectly ac.curate) translation M Theodotion. Here too we hc; certainly dependent on the-opeoing of Ps. 110. l11is tex• is used more than any other in the New Testament .~ 1L is also quoted in Peter's ~arty speeC-h at Ac.ts 2.34-35, a speech ' "hich shO\""'S n'lany signs M beiog based upon early aod indeed auLhentic tradition. It was a very useful t~xt because it could be intetpreted 42. For de:~aiiOO discusskm of lhe primory soun:cs with a Full !"<'view or the. secondary lilcrotu.rt-. see Brown. Dtatil ofthe Mw;iuh. pp. .) tS-560. 43. D. M. Hay. Gloay al the RighJ Hand. Psalm 1/0 in Eor(v Cllri.stimzily (Nushville: Abingdon. 1 973)~ W. R. G. toa
244

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

of Jesus at the. righl hand of God, and consequently used. as Peter used it. as a proof lhat GOO bad raised Jesus from the de-act. This was espec.ially imponant when the mode of resurrection \vas not clear, and the. stories of the empty tomb had n<X ye.t been told. Consequently. the early Christians will have needed this text right from the beginning. just whe.n Luke portrays Peter as using it. Jesus' SC<'·l)nd c.oming is logically sec.ondaty

h)

this, aod Dan. 7. 13 d id not catch oo ifl the rest of the New

Testame-lll. as it surely would h:.we done. if Jesus had

lL<;ed

it in this clear way at

such a clim.aclic moment. From Mark•s point of view. this verse aiSl) brings the ·messiaoic se.cret' 10 an end. am>Lher secondary development '"hich has an excellellt

in the Gospe.t of rvtark. but not in the teaching of Jesus. The high priest's reaction lO Jesus' answer is equally problen.atical from a historicaJ point of view. He tore his garmenL~ and :.tccused Jesus of blasphemy. after which the.whole council j udged Jesus worthy of death. The high priest should te.ar hjs gam1ents after a conviction for the legal offence of blasphemy, a conviction unju.,.tified by what Jesus is supposed to have said. Jesus was crucified for sedition, whic.ll would be YCI)' dinicuh h) justify from t1lis chal'ge of blasphemy. AllllliS is accordingly too much to believe as a historical ;.tccount. We are dealing with the creativity of the.early church. and probably that of rvtark himself. There are two more general reasons for not believing in the historicity of Mk 13.26 and 14.62, apart from their Ob\'ious Si1~ im Lt>be11 in the early church and in ~·lark. and the historical problems surrounding their presence in evidently se<:.ondar}' •naterial.ln the S)'Mptic Gl)spels as a whole, Jesus ''ever reiCrs to his second coming except by using Dan. 7.13 and retCrring to the Son of rna.n C.01uing (except the parabolic rvtk 13.35, edited
1

Oilier Synoptic Sayings

245

imponance. 'The Greek 0 ul&;- ToU avepc.>nou \\•a.r; tonsequendy seen in Dan. 7. 13, and used in 1Hidrasbic cornbinalion with otlle.r 1t~-xts ro por1ray Jesus' sec.oOO coming. another belief of central impOrtance to the early church. I c-<mside-•· the nature of this transition process more fully in the next chapter.

6. Cmrclushms

The major conclusions of Ibis chapter are extraordinal)', though they are well enough known. Despite its origin as an attempf to translate the idiomatic use of an Aramaic. phrnse into Greek. a language which contains no suc.h idiom, 6 uiOt; ToUO:v6pc..lnou was an important title of Jesus in Greek. and that for all lhree synoptic evangelists. Mark and Matthew also found it important that the term was to be. found in Dan. 7. 13, which they treated a.:;; a prophecy of1he second coming or Jesus. Dmh Mauhew and luke have a definably predominant use of the 1enn in Sect.)Jldary sayings: lhey use it with rdt-reoce to Je$uS' role in the eve n t"~) of1he last cimes, a usage t
Chapter Eleven T'RANSLATtON AND THE

Use OF S CRIPT URE.

fROM S AYINGS OF

JESUS TO T HE S YNOPTIC EVANGELJSTS

In Chs 4-9, I discus.r.;ed authentic sayings or Jesus. All these were origi1lally s-poken in Ararnaic. Jo all of them, Jesus used the Aramaic:: term ( ~)tx.':(~) 1J in a pa11icular idiomatic '''ay, whicl• l e.xamined in Ch. 2 . Ju Ch. 10, I d iscussed secondar;• sayings.

In these, all three synoptic evangelists used 0 ulOc; ToUCrv8p(.)rrou as a Greek title of Jesus, the same Greek ti11e as they used in 1heir Greek versions of authe.ntic s:.lyings of Jesus. Matthew and rvtark both used 0 viCe; Toli OvOpc.lnou with panicular reference- to Jesus• second et)ming. '''hid• they saw predicted ou Dan. 7.13. The primary purpose of 1h is chap ter is to examine the transitioo from (~)IV;(~) 1:J to 0 v'•Q.; ToU O:v9p<.)nou. I exarnioe first the translation pn)Cess a.!;; applied to authentic

sayings. secondly the midras.hic creation of new sayings, and thirdly the rewriting of authentic sayings txuh ro modifY them and enectively to create-new Otles. l theo consider whether we c.an uncove.r an overall view of 6 ulOc; roG O:v9p(o)rrou taken by exh of the synoptic.evangelists. and by Q.

I. 71u! Tr(m.\'latiou Pnx:e.\'s

We saw in Ch. t that the question of the translmioo of (~)V;(~) -a to produce 0 u'u)c; roU O:vOpc.lrrou set irnpossible problems ll)r aJI the older schl)larship. I noted for example the clear statement of Wellhausen that this. translation was wrong. and that 0 ci-vOpwnoc; should have been used 1 Negative comments on 0 v'u)c; r oU O:uepc..)nou itself have also been frequent For example. in 1971 Jeremias described 0 v't~ roUO:v9pc.lrrou a.~ •a rather barbaric literal translation'.: Similar co.nr-uent;; have contioued irt rec:ent years. I have noted lOr e:'S have bee-n so \'t'ide-~;;pread thal Burkett. writing. as recently a.;; 1999, auributed to me the view that in authentic sayings \tsing (~)IVJ (~) 1~. ' the general reference. was m i.fwtderstood as a titJe referring lO Daniel 7. 13 ',and he classified I.

2. 3.

ScC (). I8ai)IWC. krcmins. Nr:w Talumem 71teolog)', p. 260. Sec pf). <1.1-4 above.

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Scripltm:

247

me with scholars wlh) 'have to as;sume that the Aramaic has been mistmuslmed' (italics m in e). ~ I have never expres.:::ed either view. Otl the c.ornrary, I have argued repe.aledly and at length thal 'lhe Jra.ttslalOr should be considered to ha,1e done as well as possible'.$ Marc-us. writing: in 2003 with m y p1-evious etTorts to c.onside.r the translation process available to him, simply c.hose. to c-.ast them on one side in favour of the.extraordinary assumption llt.at 0 u'uX; ToU Ov9pc.)rrou somehow must mean exactly what the historical Jesus said.(, 1l is reasonable lO eonlnlst lhe basic ar.d accurate s.tunrnary l)f t)fle M the world's leadiog authorities in Translation Studies: Transtalion is a ' 'e ty complex activity. and anyone ('nguged in it knows rull wdtthal thcr(' is no such thing as I!'uion t:~k~ pla..---c OA•hkh i.nnu~'f\Cts lhc decisions th:u 1.1\c trnnJ>Iators havc-•o tal:e.'

II tOIIO\IJS that a rresh auempt oo the- pn)blems posed by the 1ranslation or , J (K)l.?:(!\) with 0 ui6c; ToU
the subcuiiUre in which this work was done. this translation was the most naturaJ possible. To achieve. this resuJt, I again draw on the \ltOrk or our colleagues in other fields M study, especially bilingualism. translation studies and the LXX. Bilingualism, or even multilingualism. is an inevitable result of living where. more than one language is spoken. Consequently, people may be functionally bilingual without ha\'ing full c.omm:.md of both languages. ~·loreover. all bilinguals suffer from interferenc.e. The most important forms of interference are those which are visible, sufficiently ditTerem from the speec-h aod writing M monoglot users of the language for scholars h) be able- ro measure them. One of the least obvious forms of interferenc-e is accordingly relevant when it can be measured - the use of a linguistic ite-m more commonly lhan by monoglt)r spe.akers. For example, Danish students are repo11ed using the English definite article more often than monoglot speakers of English. This reftects 'the fact that Danish and English seem to have slightly different conceptions of what constitutes generic as opposed to spec.iflc 1>e-fere.nce •.ll More generally. a sample of the use.of the English definite artid e in translations from Finnish showed a more frequeot use than in a corresponding sample of untrnnslated 1e.x1. even though the translations fro m Finnish had been c.hec.ked by native English speakers." Translations from German 4. 5.

Burkett. ScJt t>f.4/(JJt Dtbutt·. pp. 90. 93. Sec funhc1• pp. 47- 8 above. Casey. 'fdjom and TrlUISla1ioo'. p. 177, quoting S011 ofMmt. p. 23t . 6. Mar-:us, ' Son or M:.n :~s son ofAd::lm\ pp. 43- 5. ?. S. Bassnctt, 'Text Types and Pow..-•· Rda~ions', in A. Tro~borg (cd.). 1i?xl1)polnsy a11d 1iunslotiml (B'Tl 16. Am!1 or Equiv:~lencr in TrJ1t~ta1ioo Studjc:i: r..·Juch Ado About Something'. Ttirget9 (1997}, pp. 20?- 33. 8. S. larsen. 'Testing the T~'SI: a ~u'Ci i min:~ry in\'t:uig:Jiion oflmn:o~I:Uillll as 3 1es1 ofwri1ing llkills', in S. U.rscn (cd.). Tn:mslaliort. A Mruns In 011 E11d ('0\c Dolphin t8. Aa1hus: Aathus Uni ~J., 1 990~ pp. 9 5- 10& (102). Q. A. CtlCSicmlan, Mt'mts (if Translation. Tht Spread nf Jdms ill Translarim1 T1JeOI')' (BTL 22. Afns.lo.'rd:lill! Bc11jami.ns.. 199?), l>t>. tl4-6.

248

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

into Hungarian, and to a lesser extent from English and Fre.nch into Hungarian. onen suner from too .oany inde.fi nite-arljcle-s, because the-se are more treq·uently used in English, French and Gennan than in Hunga.rian.' 0 This is especially imponant in unde.rsumding the anicles in 6 vlOc; TOU avepc.lrrov. We must make sure. that we unde-rst:md the.m in accordance with the ways that they might be understood by a Greek trnnslmor suffering interfe rence from Aramaic. rather than simply by Greek usage. let alone the assumptions whic.h sc.holars bring fro m their own native languages. This rel1ects another major 1'1!-S.UIL rrom the rnodem field ofTri'msl
Whereas bilinguals suffer from interference anyway. translators suffer fro m it much more strongly= be~use the text which they are translating always reinforces the ioterfet-e.nc.e. Svejc.er summarized the basic points: As 11 bilingu11t 1he tmnslatur is c:\posc:d 10 r11r g~.atcr interfc.n:-.ncc (other conditions being equal) th:m one who, in using bcterolinguistic systems. produces his uucrsnres on Lhc bssis of hi ~ own progr:1mme rtllf}CI' than :. soutcc·langll3gc ICXl .. • in translttti:ns it is a trsnJ~I:ni oo \o"'tlria.n.llhat is subject to choice ... The f:.ctors whi~~h dct~'fmi nc lhc chc>icc :.r~ also.--.dim:rcm: in trsnsl.mioo 1hcch,1icc is •pmgt:.mmed' by Lhc oom..-.u clf Lhc orig)nal. 'A'hc-reas in the- vtrNI acth·ity of a bilingunJ it is dC'temlined by the cxtcrn..1l conditiuns of lhc communka~h•e cw·.nt. 11

This may result in overliternl translation. For example. the LXX translator of Gen. 6. 14 put vooou:Xc; for Lny because it is usually the Greek equivalent lOr this llelu~w word. lie probably did not inlagine a pair of lions living in a bird's nest at the top M Noah's ark. but if he did, he put voootest: Schols:.~ica,

2003), t>t>. 383-S. I I. A. D. ~vcjecr. ' Litem! Transl:uion tts s Produc1 of Interference•. in H. Schmid! (cd.J. lnterfen>rt: ifl der TrtmslaJiort <"0bcrs.cl7.ungswisscns~h3filich~ Bciwigc 12. lci~l:tig: Enzyklopt\dH:. 19&9). tl(). 39-44 (39). 11. A . Ncoben. ' l mcrfcrcn~-cb\'twccn tangu.'l£CS :md bciW\'"Cil Tcxfs'. in Seohmidl, lrtteJftll"ll~. pp. 5(.-64 (56-7).

Tra11.rlati,g and t he U.t e of Sc ripltm:

249

and produced by tmnslators is not the same as the form of that same language.spoke-n by monolinguaJs. Moreover, the fonn of a serond or funher language produced by bilinguals and translators changes as they become.more competent and experienced. Consequently, some-scholars ' "ho \\·otk in these fields use the-tenn •interlanguage. Appel and Muysken describe it and comment as follows: (lmerlang:uago is) lhe \ 'eN ion or the \ 'atii:ly ofti)C latg:ct languago which is pan ofthl.' imt,lid l linguiS1k koowlcdge Of compc!cnc-t of the sccond-lansusgl.' Jesmer. 1-11.' 01 s.hc t>ro;.x:cd:> through a series of imcrla.ng;u:agcs oo the way to oomplc•c ma.~tery of1hc t:~tgct language . Of eoursl.'. mosl sccood-languagl.' leaml.'rs never re:•cb lhis stago ...

huerfi!rence is one of the 1hajor ft~ltu ~s which they select f01' discus.sion.._, This means that '"e c-annot expect Gospel writers 10 produce normaJ koine Greek if the.y were bilinguaLand doubly so if they were translating. This is especially important in dealing with 0 u'u)c; ToV O:v9pc.)nou, because this is a unique-expression. II should therefore be an obvious possibility that it was produced by means of processes normal :.\mong bilingual translators. Anmher majl)r result is that tnlnslah)rS have to deal '''ith two cultures. not ju.o;t two languages. They may lhen write for the tar~et culture. and make dlanges accordingly. Neubt"rt describes the diO'e-rence: ' In plain \VOrds, transl(l{ioll ret' aJts the original/or d{fferenl people . after an unavoidable lime lag and. a.'> a rule. ala diffen!llt plac e. It is displaced communication.' 14 This is aue of the synoptic Gospels as a whole. They were written for Christians rather than Jews. A lengthy time lag is obvious for Luke. A few years had already gone by beiOre ~·lark was writte-n. a fe.w more be.fore Matthew was composed. The Gospels were written in the diasporn. Some of the translating wns done before the composition of the Gospels themselves= but this is still displaced cort\munication fot the benefit of tl1e. Large. aud ienc~-. This is also a major fac.ror in U!lderstanding the Sit~ i m Leben of 0 u·,Q.; ToU O.v6pc.)rrou in the Gospels as they now stand. We have seen that, in secondary sayings. Mark. Matthew and Luke all 1reat 0 uiO:; ToV O:v9pulnou as a ChristologicaJ titJe in Greek. We must take seriously che pos..~iibility thai (K}xl <md TronslaJim1(0borsm:u.ng$wisllcnschaf•lkhc Ucitrlgc 8. Lcit,zi£, Enzyklopadtc.• 1985). p. &. 15. SCi: csp.xislly K. Rd O and 1-1.-J. Wmlccr. GnuulltSilfl8 eiJitr allsemcinm 1iunslarimJslhtorit (Li:nsuisti!~ehc Arbd t.,..n 147. TUbing.:-n: N km~yer. 1984). In English. C".g. H. J. Vcrm«r. A skopos tlleor)' nf IJYJJIJ/(Ifime (Somt atgtflll('n/s f or and ugaillSt) (Heidelberg: TEXToonTEXT. 1996).

250

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

which •d early arose from a c-.hange in the Cl)llununic-ative sit ua tio•~' . 10 She reckoned 175 discrepancies bet wee-n •he-source and t
have evidently been of prime importance. The same. applies to translators of our pe.rilXl For exarnple, at Num. 24.17, L XX has civOpc:.:nro:;- for oJ vi, and Tg. OJJqelos ha.o:; 1\fl'th:l. Both these renderings are deliberately interpretative. LXX fnake-s clear that Israel will be led to victory by a man. Targunl Onqelo.,·, wriuen later when messiatlic expectatil)nS had Ci)'Stallized rot1nd the figure of a fut ure Da"idic king, identifies the \'ictor as the Messiah. Given the kn0\1/tl shift ir1 meaning in the transition from (K)\ifl(K) 1J to 0 ulO:; ToU Ctv9,x.lrrov. and the Sit~ im Lebeu of 0 u'u).;: ToU Ctv9pc.)nov as o.l Christologicaltitle in all three synoptic writers. we must take seriously the possibility that it was much more welcome as a translation than

the older scholarship could possibly have imagined. More recent developme.nts of the Jk()pos theory have become known as 'flenctionalisrll'.17 This makes no serious difference to the. present study. The main concern of functionalism is still to draw auention to the ways in which translators n1ake alteratjons to salisfy 1he needs oflhc target culture. h is this which is itnponant

for understanding the production of 6 uiOc;- ro\i Ov9pc.lnou during the translation process. Translators who have in mind the.needs of their target culture are some.times very

tree in handling their text. It is well known that some of the Targwns come into this c.ategory. An outstanding example from the :.mcient world is the. Greek translation of the Teslllment af Ephmem. In general, Lamy eharocterized this lraos latjon as fOllows: • En comparaot cettc versil)ll au te-xte syriaque, il est facile de voir que-le traducteur grec a rendu le sens du syriaque; mais., visant a l' fl~gaoce., il:.lmplifie e-t fait une paraphrase plut6t qu•une lraduction.• Duval correctly went funh er: ' II e-SL regrenable que Ia verSion grccque ne soit pas lith~tal e e1 qu'cllc oous olTre autant une- paraphrase qu'wle- traducti ot~; le t-Oihtnentaire y rccouvre le fOnd au point de re.ndre parlbis m<X'.f.)IUHiissable Ia phrase s:yriaque. ... Ill line 124, for e.xample, he re.ndered N:ziru with Ov5p-o:, and lOr lOinJ 7J at T. Ephracrn 944 he put Tij«; TOU e~ou i:Kl<XI)oio:<;:. The firs:t example is fn.-:.e enough, and the sec-011d show-s that lhere is no 16. T. C. SCgui:oo1. ·n~cd i1i ng fune1ioo o fltttMbtion•• B11fletin ofthe CamrdiatJAssocialiun ofApplied LiliSIIi.\'lies 4 ( t982), pp. 151- 61. :~s reported by Ncubcn, Tat cmd Tnmslation, 1)1). 72- 3. and A. Neubert nnd G. M. Shre\·c:. 7iv.nslatiml as Te.tt (Tr.1nsltuion Studies 1. Kent, Ohio: Kcm Sl:Jic- tJn i\•., 1992), l)p. 87- 8. 17. E.g. C. N()(d. ·A Function:~! l)tpology ofTrnnsl.s tioos', iJI irosborg (cd.), Tw. T.HJolt'S>' tJIIdTransltttiml.pp. 43~16: C. No1\i. 1'raiiJialiJig as a PltrposefitiAclin'ly: Femctimwli.ft Appmuches £tplctilled (tvt:JnclK:stCf: St. Jc-mm.c, 1997): C. Sc-Milhcr (cd.). Trmulati
Tra11.rlati,g and the U.t e of Scripltm:

25 1

felt need to keep to the same-re-ndering of a single expression. The second example is also highly interpretative, and vigorously directed at the target culture. The unique nature of the.expression 0 v'rOc; TOO O:vOp<.lrrou, and those aspect~ of it which arc literally equivale-nt tt) aspects of (K)
On rhceotnt)lex qucstioi\Ssurrounding this rendering. s~ K. tiyv~rinen, Die iibt>rst't~mg

r011 Aquila (ConR<>T 10 . Uppsala: Almq\·isc & Wib cll. 1977), pp. 26- 9;. L L
Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

252

eoough to

pa~

as nonnal moMgl01 Gree-k, and Ps. 146.3 is sornewha1 lite-ralistic and ioterpretati\'e at the same time. It is important 1\)r understanding 6 uiO:; ToU

O:v6p(.)rrou in translated sayings in the synoptics that a translator could be both somewhat literalistic and interpretative at the.same time. A rele\'ant habit by some rranslators on the literal end of the spectrum is known to some scholars as •ste.remyping'. Tov describe-$ it as fOIIow;s: Many u:mslatOf'S rendered :JJI occu.n\'llC.:S of s gh•cn Hebccw w(lf'd. clcnl C•ll (e.g. 1)1\'1)), root or construc-tion :t.'i f.nr as possible by the same Grcc.J.: equivalent. oflen disrcg:uding the etlC.:-1of this type of trsnslmion U()l)l\ iiS qutdity. This U:l.d i tj(m (rnthcr thsn sys•cm) of consistently repttsenting wurds and rools by the s.1me cquh·alcnts prob:1bly dc-\·clopc:d in a schooi·IYP" milku and ma)' rcllttll.hc belief I.Mllhc words (If the Holy Bible sbould be rmdc.n:d consistently in order to remain us faithful ns possibk to the !iOOtCC languagc..111

When therefore we Jind e,•idence of a consistent decision by C.ospel translators to 1-ender (~)Wl{~) '"lJ in the singular with 0 uiOc; Toil
E. T1w, '1'he Sc-ptuaginl', Mikra (c. pp. 107- 27, ' Luc:-.nlanguagc :-.nd St)'lc'.

Ma:-.J~trit
2 1.

Tra11.rlati,g and t he U.te of Scripltm:

253

will do, either a.:; a genera] approach to a particular piece or work, or as a specific. approach 10 a particular' repe.ated problern. 1\"ord's appreciation of Rei8, one of themost imponant advocates of the skopos theory of lranslation, pul the underl)~ng situation io a outshell: 'She knew that real life presents situations whe-1X: equivalenceis not possible. and in some case-s not even desired.m The J'irst of these points is \'e.ry well illustrated by Aquila's rt-nde.ring of tlte-Hebre\\• n..:: with the Greek oUv + Accusative when ns. means only thai the next word \\1ill be the object of a verb. This use or nKhas no equivalent in Greek, so this is a straightforward exarnple of a ca.:;e where equivalence is not possible. The rendering oftdnJ 7:- at T. Ephraem 944 with Tijr; ToU e~oU i KKXI)olac; illustrates the second of lhese points equally well. for it is such a vigorous interpretative. rendering thm it shows that the translator was not even desiring equivalence. As lOr a del·ioition M \!Jhat a strategy is, Sc.halliter thoughi the-definition whic.h Clteste.nnan quoted front LOrscher worth repeating: a potl~ntially conscious procedure for the -solution of a probkm which tm indh·iduaJ is faced with when uanslating n text scgmeont from one: languare into aoolhcr.1 '

Aquila·s reodering of the-He-brew r"'" with the Greek oUv + Accusative is a clear e.xample of a ·conscious procedure lOr tlte-solution or a problent'. l\•lost translatorS have-preferred to omit the I lebrew ns. whe-11 ns. means only that the next word will be the object or a verb. This is •a potentially c.onsc i otL~ procedure for the solution of a pn)bfem' , S'UC-h an obvious: one thai it Jl'LaYbec.orne automatic to the point of not always being c.onscious.

2. The Trtmslmiott of (s.;vi;(s; 1.: with 0 viOt; roUcXv8pcJrrou

0 ui<X ToU OvGpc..lrrou is a perfect example or a trunslatt)rs' strategy. To understand it fully, we need all the insight:; from Translation Sntdies ske-tched above. together with a comple-te knowledge of ancient Ararnaic. First or all. we have 10 uoderstand what the strategy was. One of tltemost outstanding feature-S of the usage of 0 u'tOt; ToUCtvOpW rrou is that it almost atways refet·s to Jesus alone. Tit is c-Ould not however be true of (K)~l (~) 1-~. This was an ordimlt)' tenn li.)r ' mao', which Jesus was ac.cording.ly bouod 10 have used with reference to other people-. lltis supplies us ·with the tirst part of the translators' strategy: 0 u'u)t; TOO OvGpc..lrrou is 10 be used as a translation of (K)1.!il(~) 1~ when it T he tratlslation of (s.}'dJ(K) -u with

22. Non:l. Purpos4ul AdMt~:, t,· 9-: cf. n. 15 ahm<:. and the c:.tly work .:~f K. RciO, MOglichJ:.t'illm tmd Gnm~m da Ubtrset::ntrgskrilik (Mll.Mhen: Huebner, 1 97 1)~ Trattf!utioll Critit'ist/1- Tltt' Pottllli~Jis uttd Limifdlimrs {'Ttatl:l. E. F. Rhodes: Manchester~ St. J<:mmc, 2000). 23. C. Sl~Mffnc•·, ' Str:.tcgics of1'mnsbting Polilkal Texts', in Trosborg (cd.}. 1i.rr T)pn{ogy and Tromlalimr. pp. l t9-43 ( t20). quo ling_ A. Cllestcrmal\. ' From " Is" 10 "Ouyl\1,.: Law!~. Nrutn.~ and Sua tcgi~~ in Ttsnslatioo Studi~~\ Targctr 5 (1993}. l"ll· t- 20, ( 13}. quocing W. Uirsd ler, 1huularimr P~rformmlC't', 1iunslaritHJ Ptuctsr and TrOJu!dtitm Strat~gits. A Ps.\·cholirlgllislic /m•tsligilti<m (TIIbingc-n: Narr. t991), p. 76.

254

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

refers to Jesus. and not oLherwise. Where words such as
should not detract fro m our appreciation of the strategy as a whole. As a speaker of normal Aramaic, Jesus wa.:;; bound to have used (K}WJ(K) 1J with refereoce to people other than himself: 1he translators' strategy explains why 0 u'tbc; ro\i O:v9pc.lrrou almost always refers to him. The next part of the ~trategy concerns the plural (K)tf){K) 'Ill. This expression was also such a normal pru1 of Aramaic discourse that Jesus was bound to have used il too. In the Greek of the syooptie Gospels, however. the plural o'• uiol TC:.v OvOpc.lnc.lv oc.curs only at Mk 3.28. We must i11fh that the basic: strate._g)· wa..; not to usc the plural o't uio't r&.v O:vOpc.ltrc.lV. Natural ahematives include the s~.r.~ightforward plural o't O:vOp<.:~rrot. As in the case of the sin~.ular O:vOpc.lTTOI';. we can no longer tell where o'i OvOpc.lTTOl may have bCClllL'>ed to rendet (K}Wl(K} ,n Again. bow'ever, there are passages where our Greek leX! has clv6pwrrot, art:~. Here too, we cannot verify any individual example. bm the genernJ point should be regarded as unassailable. The almost oomplete abse.nce.of o·, uiol TC:.v ci:v6pcim(...)v from the synoptic Gospels must flow fi'om a decision not h) ulie-it a.~ a traoslation of (:<)Wl(K) ,ll. The three exce-ptions to this strategy illustrate ho,,~ difficult it is to carry through a strategy for the translation of the. idiomatic use of 0 viOc; ToU Ctv9pc.lnov into Greek. We have seen that at Mk 9. 12, Jesus used (~):oiJ(N.) 'U io a reference to the deaths ofbmh John the Daptist and hi n'L~e l f. 11lis meant that the •ranslators' strategy was very diOkult tt) appl)'. I have argued lhat they selected the level of meaning whidl was most important to them. the re.fe.rence. to Jesus .:-~ Hence they decided that they would use-0 vi~ ro\i O:v9p<.'m ou. For monoglot Greek-speakers ~adiog or hearing the text, il is sirnply um intelligible, and in the first churches to hear r-.•tark's Gt)spel, the passage will have needed explainiog. This is due to the lack of e.quivalence between the sourc.e text and the target IMguage. It is not appropriate to blame the. tr.mslator. as if they could have done something better. Moreover. the translator was necess~ly bilingual. and will accordingly have been able 10 see the original Aramaic idiom in this Greek translation. Anotl1er diverge-nce from the- agreed stra!e-gy '"as at Mk 3.28. llere I have argued that the translator wa.~ worried abou1 the sett."lle, fOr stl1e did 1Wt like the idea thai sr)eaking against Jesus was forgivable. 11ley thcrx:fOre took (x):o.~(x) -a to be '24.

Sec p(). 125-31 3bovc.

_,

? --

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Scripltm:

collective-. and as part of a very explicitative translation. they rendered h with the plural toi c; u'1 oic; ti:lv civepcSnwv.ZJ The third divergence from the agreed strategy was at MI. 10.32-33. Here. the 1ranslator l)pted fOr d1e firSt person pronoun iyi:> in place of 0 u'u).; toU O:vOprrou re-moves the general level of meaning for uninstructed monoglot Greeks. the use of the firSt person singular re-moves the general level of 1t1eaniog c.o mple-tely. We l"lll1.~t infer that the translator believed that Jesus would be the. only imponant witness for ot again~t people at the last judgement, whe-n he w-ould give deci.si,re testimony to God. It follows that these three divetgences from the ttall.SiatorS' strategy do not cast doubt on what that strateg)' was. On the contrary. they illustrate the above comments on the limitations of strategies in the dinlcuh c:ircumstar.ces which cause 1ranslators to adopt them. ll)e translators or Mk 3.28 and of tvlt. I0.32-33 are espec.ially likely to have been very pleased with themselves bec.ause their trans1ations include. explicitative alterations as a result of which the sayings mean very clearly exactly what their respective translators thought they ought to mean. The next point to discuss is why the translators should arrive at 11/is strategy, choosing 0 u'i.Ct;- TOU avepc.lrrou in particular as their fe!lderio.g of (K)t9J(K) , J when it refers to Jesus, as well as having a general level of 1Ueaning. 1 ha, e. noted the uncompre-hending criticisms of conventional scholarship at this point. with Wellhausen and A.Y. Collins among_ those who suppose that the translators should not have used uiOr;. and Hare and A.Y. Collins among those who suppose tJ1at they should oot have used the definite articles.!7 Neither verdict is justified. I begin with v'• Oc; in the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the Bible of Lhe early Christian c.hurches. It wa.:; lherel\)re a Bible with whic.h all the Gospel translators and e.vangelists were familiar, regardless of how well they also knew the Hebrew Bible and/or any available Targurns. Those entrusted with the translation or Gospel traditions from Aramaic. into Greek are likely to have had some knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. Any who may have undergone any kind of appre-nticeship or training, or who attempted to train themselves. are likely to have used the Se.piUagint as a model for seeing how to translate material from a Semitic language into Greek. They are likely to haw bee.n familiar with the stateme-nt of the problem by the grandson of Jesus son of Simch. and if they did not know this passage. they would soon en-counte.r the same problems: 1

1

napCO((.()..ofX o0v IJ£1', nivciiat; Ka'i npoooXJY. Tl)vcivciyvwcll\.' ltOIEio6o:tKO't ovyyvt..ip.f(V ixuv tq,' o\t; .iv 8oK~t.tv ci&vaiJEiv· oVycip ioo&.vo:IJEi aUTCi tv iauroir,- EI3Po;'io-rl MyOmvo Ka'• Chav !JrtaxOI:l tk fTEpav yM;)ooa.v· 00 1J0vov S! --ro.Vto:. ci;).AQ Ko:l o:U,.e; 0 vO..to; roi ai rr~T)nia t Kal ;0. Aotnci t~v P,tP,Aiwv oV IJtKpO.v fXE• Ti}v Sta¢1opclv Ev EauToir,- Aryc)IJ~VO:.

25. 26. 27.

Se-e pp. 140- 3 above. Set' funhM pp. 183- 6 t~bo.·w~. Se-e Pt). 18. 4~ above.

256

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Be cnooumgcd therd()t(. to conduct the reading with goodwill and aLtcntion. and to be:. indulgent in C'Mes where we- may !
The problems posed by translating Aramaic into Greek are very similar to the problems posed by tmnslnting Hebrew imo Greek. They will have been very obvious to the translators, who will certainly have been familiar with the results in the Greek Bible, even if they varied in the exte-nt to which the)' understood the processes of its production. Moreove-r. even in the c-ase of translators less familiar with the process of translation from the Hebrew Bible to the Se.pt11agint. the translations of u'•&; produce. patterns which were always liable to be repeated in fresh translations from Aramaic ill h) Greek which had to cope with phra..;es i1lcluding the Artunaic 1J . We rnust consider next, the.refore, the translation or 1J and 1J with uiOc; in the S~Jru agiru. with a sample ofTargumic equivalents. Tile lirst point is that these three wordl> are ve.J)' preci!Oe equi"alents in the 1najori[y or instO used wheo 1he be-haviour M sons in ge1leral is diSClL')Sed, as when Prov. I0. 1 contrasts cun p with 7-'10:> p ,LXX uiO:; oo4!0c; and viOc; d¢.pwv. Tg. Kn~Jn "l:: and rb:>o K1 J. These are not however merely facts about the sacred text, which our translators mlL~t have known. The.y should alen us to the fact that every single bilingual translator of Gospel sources used and heard 1~ and uiO:; as precise equivalents thousands of time..s during the course of their daily lives. not only when conside-ring the net of translation. This set~ up a massive disposition within a bilinguaJ (0 regard these terms as equivalents for purposes of translation. Another very common ·usage is in descriptions or nations. Num. 20. I is one of many pa_.-.,sages i1l which the Israelite$ are-described as ~1i.9' "JJ.. LXX oi viol 'lopanA. Onq. 71\IV:.. 'D. Natural Aramaic has the same expression, as at Ezra 6.16 7!"1i.9' 'JJ.. LXX 2 E$d. 6.1 6 oi ulo'1 'lopartA. Pesh. 7·~tD'K 'l~. AI Ps. 77.16, they are described a..'> l)Ol~l Jj7li' ~JJ, LXX ToUt; u"1oUc; 'lo:K<:.:J~ Ko:l 'lwo114' (Ps. 76. I6), Pesh. ~Ol''l J lj?ll" "JJ. The-Je.wish people-may be addressed as ,o;; 'JJ , as li.)r exarnple at Ezek. 37.18, LXX oi ulol TOO AaoU oou, Tg. :"j:;):l •:o. Alter the di~ppearance of the twelve tribe..s. and the exile from Judaea. the Jewish group are described at Dan. I.6 as ;i1'\.1~ ' JJ. ThMd. T~V vitw 'louOa, Pesh. ;111:1' •:o. Other nations are de$Cribed in a similar way. as are tl'ibal groups within Israel. Examples include the fOllowing: Num. 2.2.5 n 'D. LXX T(.)v v'•(.)v 6av, Onq. n "'JJ.; Deut. 2. 19 flO>' 'l~

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Sc ripltm:

257

(his) and u1? ':O, LXX uiWv ·A~J,J0:\1 (his) and tote; u'1o'i'c; A(..)t . Sam. JlOY ~J~ (bis) and 01; "D; Josh. 19.23 ,J~t..... 'JJ. LXX u'1~v ' looaxap, Tg. -ui&'t'" 'JJ; Amos 9.7 o . . 'WJ ~l~, LXX uiol Ai9tcirrwv. P...:.sh. ~V'!J 'D: Ezek. 16.26 O',:l.?:l ':lJ, LXX t oUt; u'1 oVt; AiyUrnou, Tg. 0"1Sl.l "JJ: and Ezek. 23.7 11\ifx. "JJ, LXX u'1ol Aocrupl(o)V, Tg. 1lnK 'J:I. This is a natural extension of the primary usage, sinc.e there were widespread stories that these groups were descended from single individuals. Educated Greeks would also be reminded of the Homeric desc.ription of the Greeks as uit<; 'Axa,~v. an alternative for ·Axatoi. There were similar expressions with rralc;, such as rrai.S~<; 'EXX~V(..)V (A. Pers. 403) for the Greeks., and 1\u.Si.lv rratOo:<; (Hdl. I. 27) for the Lydians. All 1his means that bilingual trunslators w-ould find aU such expre.ssions entirely natural in their Greek trunslmions, and that this would also massively dispose them1o regard fJ, u and u'1 cic; as preds.e equivalents. Prie~.:;t ly groups could bedesc.ribed in si1nilar 1enns. So we-find l'or e.xample at Le.v. 21. I 111:1K'lJ. LXX tote; viotc; 'Aapwv, Neof. 11:1K1 'UJ; at Num. I8.21 'l? 'lJ, LXX Toic; vlotc; 1\t vt. Ps.J ·1?1 ''UJ; and a1 Ezek. 40.46 1l'r.l 'JJ. LXX oi uiol ! atitiouK. Tg. 111:i ':lJ. These gn)ups \Vere also believed to descend from the individual oarned in each one. With all this established within the range of normality. it is naturaJ that there should be a somewhat broader range of descriptions of social groups. An e$pecially nmable one is: 1\)uod 1\)r exartlple at IV Kgd1HS 2.3: oi uioi rrpo4>11t~v. fot o'K'JJ;i 'JJ (2 Kgs 2.3). Pesh. N~~ ':lJ. This renn sirnpl)' means 'prophe·L~ ' , so it is analogous to some Gree.k terms which have rrai.S~c; rather than ulol. For eumple. at Plato. Utws VI, 769b, oi ~<.lypci.Jl(.;)V rrai &c; are simply painters. and Lucian describes doctors as io:tpilv rrai.S~c; ( Dips. 5). The presence of s:uch tenrL~ in ll3(ural Greek will ha\'e. helped to ensure that bilingual translators would simply as..~ume. that their formally similar expressions were perfectly satisfactory Greek. Similarly. at 2 Esd. 22.28 we find o'1 u'1oi Tilv ~OOvr<.lv lOr D"1! 1.9o;, 'JJ (Neh. I2.28), and they are simply the singers. Such examples typify further the precise equi"alence bet\\'eeu p . 1~ and v'u)c; which is the major l'aCh)l' atTecting less direct examples in the Septuagim and fundamental to understanding our Gospel translators. The Sepwagint has fUither examples of somewhat less straightforward sociaJ groups. For example, at Judg. 6.3 we find o'• v'to'l ci:vaToXWv lbr Dl?~J~, Tg. !\11m ~JJ,; a! 2 Kgdms 22.45 u"to'• ci:.AAOTp•o• tOr 1:-J 'D (2 San-~. 22.45), Tg.. ~'Wli ~JJ; at 2 Esd. 4. I o·t u'tol ~ 0: rro•Kiac; for ;iro.1 ~JJ (Ezta 4.1), Pes.h. \'\1'1~~1.7 ~JJ; at 2 E.sd. 6. 16 uiClv 'JJ, Pesh. 10!01 K;li' 'JJ. lllese examples illustrate agai1lthe precise perc.eive.d equivalenc.e bCh\ ef'-n p , 1~, ; fot m':l •:a (I Sam. 26.16), Pesh. KnlO uJ; at 2 Kgdms 2.7 uloVc; .Suvat~ for ?11 ~l~ (2 Sam. 2. 7), 1

258

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Pesh. l\7'ii "J:!; at 2 Kgdms 7. I 0 u'u); O:~ udac; fOr ;in;."J:! (2 Sam. 7.10),T g. ~i!Wl ~n; at 2 Kgdrns 17.I 0 u'u:t; tiuvciiJ~~ for 7"11 p attd u'1ol &.rvciiJ£(..)1'; tOr ?•n ~JJ (2 Sa111. 17. 10), Pesh. l\7vi uuand N7'r. .,m; at 3 Kgdrns 20.10 u'100:;- rrapo:vO~c.lV li.)l' 7Y'7:t 'D ( I Kg.-; 21.10), Tg. ~-:z.'-1 'l:l: a.nd at Ps. 8823 ulO:; civo~lac; for ;1;1~ 1J (MT Ps. 89.23). Tg. -u XYiXI'"'\. n,e more these examples appear to be somewhat diOel\."'11t from nonnal moooglot Greek u:;age, the more they uuderJjne the-precise perceived equivalence behl/l!t'll p , 1J,

and u'u:~;: n:uural to bilingual translators. Anotl1er idiom rnusa be noted. (he use o f p, 1:1. and u'16c; to describe a persoo's age. For example, a1 2 Kgdms 5.4 David is described as u'16c; Tplci:Kovrcx iTilv fOr ;u:V D"i.=71.9 p (2 Stun. 5.4), Tg. l'J'.1 rn7n 1:r; and at 4 Kgdms: 14.2 Amaziah is

described as uiOc;

nivn hC>v for ;-ut& !Ifum zr1i.1"Y p {2 Kgs 14.2), Tg. rJ\1 ~'l:lnl l'10Y 1~. This is not normal ll'I Onoglot Gree-k usage, but it is c:o.wentiOJlal in the Septuagint. and this further underlines the prec.ise perceived equi\•alence between p . 1J, aod vi&; naturaJ to bilingual rr.mslators. All this provides the cuhural c:ontext for the conventional ~nderi u.gs ofo1~ lJ with v'1Ct; civ9pc.lrrou and ofo'n\(;-;) •:a "'ith (oi)v'•o'i t C>v civSpc.lnc.:Jv. The 106e:«11llples of Lhe singularv'u:.; ciuepc.lrrou arc i1l ellOCt fewer tlu'ln the)' appear at li!St sight. because tlle-93 examples of the vocative u'•S O:vepc.)rrov in the book of Ezekiel re..suhed from a single decisio1l. In additiOil to this. hl)wever. there are still a dozen examples spread over six dilloreru books: Num. 23. 19; lsa. 5 1.12; Je.-. 49.18 (LXX 30. I2); 49.33 (LXX 30.28); 50.40 (LXX 27.40): 51.43 (LXX 28.43); Ps. 8.5; 80.18 (LXX 79. I6); Job 16.2 I; 25.6; 35.8; Dan. 8.17LXX and Tilet)(L. Tltere-i..;; ooe mioor adjustment in the additioo of ~ at Nu!'n. 2.1. 19 (some doubts about the text or Job 16.21 and 35.8 do nm all~t tlle rnain point at is.~ue). There i..:; also an aheration at Ps. 146.3, \\rhere the plural v'1oU«; O.vOpc.)rrou (LXX Ps. 145.3} has bee:n used: in this case o-n\ p is obviously c:ollective, and parallel to the-plural o•J•1llen rendered with u·,a.; ci:vOpc.'mov, by both LXX nnd Theod01ion. We should also nole. u'100 civGpc.lnou a1 Dan. 10.16 Theod.. where hov.-ever t11ere is a textual problertl in the MT: and lhe renderiog ofthe analogous 1.91::1\ pat Ps. 144.3 with u'10; Ov9pc.lrrou (LXX Ps. 143.3). The only genuine exception h) d1e normal ~ndering is OC:Cl)rdingly atlsa. 56.2, \!Jhere O'n\ p has been ~ndered \\'ith CivOp<.:~nat;, making good parallelism with cXv~p (MT l.?l:<.'\). Tile main message fi\)rn these renderiJl£..~ should therefOre be clear. The precise perceived equivalence between p , -a. and v·,o.; natural to bilingual translators has caused several different translators to use v'u:):;- for lJ in DTI\ p, and likewise for 1J in the siogle e.~a.rnple of tfJK Ll. The Peshina and lhe Targums normally ~ nder the singular 011\ 1J \Vith 1~ {K)i!J(K). Tile rnajor exceptioo is Ihe-Targm11 10 Ezekiel, which notoril)lL.:;Iy has 1~ OlN. It is irnpor1ant to count this correctly. Ahhough there-are 93 examples. they resulted fro m a single decision. Acc.ordittgly the majority and n
Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Scripltm:

259

these examples illustrate the main point From the perspective of translators into Ara.naic. the natural pel\'eived equivale.Jll of .om 1J was (K):zil(K) LL As always. ho'"ever. a de.libcrate strategy 10 the contrary ('...)uld be adopted, as with 01K ,:! in the Targum to Ezekiel. Equally. the normal perceived equivalent could be departed from if the translators found the sense. of a bib1icaJ verse problematic. as with mrua traoshttorS of Num. 23. 19. 11lere are also 48 e.xampk'> or the plural Dil\(;1) "JJ in the He-brew Bible. h is normally translated into Greek with (o'l) uiol (T6)v) OvOpi:Jrr(.)V, some 32 times. This figure would be much highe-r but for the abnonnal be-haviour l)f the exceptionally literal Greek translator of Ecclesiastes, who used (ot) uiol To\i Cxv6pc.lrrou t:.l l times. The standard translation with (o'1) u'1ol (Tilv) O.vep<.)rrwv usually has both articles eve1l for the anar1hrous DIN 'J.J , though eac-h possible \'ariation is ti.)und somc.where. For example, ai l\•lie. 5.6 we find uioic; civ9pc:.)rrCt:~v for DIN ~l:!; this is a generic reference to humankind, so the addition of the anicles in Greek was not tlecessary. The Peshiua and Targum both prefer the singular tdJK -a, which gi, es a sirnpler par.tllel ro the singular ttf>K, Tg. :ziJ ~, Pesh. ,~. At LX..'< Ps. 10.4. we find toUt; u'1olc; Tilv OvOpc:.)rrCt:~v for D1K ~JJ (t>.•IT Ps. 11.4): this is anothe-r generic. reference to humankind. and he.re the £eneric articles have been added in Greek, a.:; happens se-veral times. The Peshiua and the Targum both use the definite state. ~i.'~(K) ~JJ generically. At I Kgdms 26.1 9, on the other hand. we find the atl.arthrous viol O:vepc.)nwv for 011\.1 'lJ ( 1 Sam. 26. 19). Here the translamr may have felt that an article with ui61 \VOuld have rnade the expre$Sion 100 definite. Although the expression could be interpre.ted as a generic reference.to men as opposed to God. it is also a reference to an inddinite group M real people, and that might be the lila in point. No such problem aO'ected Tg. Pesh. 1\"tdJK 'lJ, bec-ause the Aramaic dctinite state does th)l necessarily have the s.1rnc implications as tJ~e- Gree-k defi1lite articles. At LXX Ps. 32.13, \\'e fin-d ncivtac; toUc; u'loUc; TC>v O:v9p<.lnwv lOr O'TI\:1 ~J:! 7:> (MT Ps. 33. I3). 11ere the ge.neric reterenc.e to the-whole ofhufnankjnd is re.tained by using the Greek articles ro represent the Hebrew artic.le. The same effect is achie\'ed by the delioite-state ~:VJ 'J.J (Tg., Pcsh). lllus the maio point from the majority of exan~ples reiniOrces the results whic.h I have already put 1\)rward: the-precise peJX:.eivcd equivaleoce behveen p, ,J.. aod uiOc;- natuml to bilingual translators cauS\.-..d several differe-nt transf.uors to use v'1oi tOr ':O in 01K(;·i) ~JJ. I have-noted that the translawr of Ecd esia.:;tes was u1~usual in using (oi) uio'1toU OvOpc.lrrov c.ll times: the exact figure is slightly uncertairl due to textual problems with the first l\\'0 e-xamples. but the rationale for his view makes il probable that he was c.onsistent. and that some scribes interfered with the expression untillhey realized d~at it wa.:; not a mistake. We may et)nsider two exa1hplcs. At Ecd. 9.3 we find uiC>v ToU CxuOpc.lrrou 1\)r om:1 ~J~; here there is no article with u'1C>v equivalem to ;i, tlu)llgh the generic article would have made perfect sense. At Ecd. 9. 12, we find oi u'1ol r oUO:v9pc.lnou lOr .01~:1 'J:!; he-re he has kept the generic article-. which he used in rendering D1K;i with 0 CivOpwn01; earlier in the same verse. 'The use of the singular Toti Ov9pc:.)rrov should be ascribed to exceptionallite.ralism. This trnnslmor was so literalistic th.at he has been compared to Aquila, and sometimes even thought 1

260

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

to be Aquila.u l ie has Aquila's best known characteristic. rendering the l lebrew r..,'\ \\'ith oUv ..,. ace. when n.'i: means only that the next word will be the obj ect of a \ 1Crb (e.g. Eccl. 1.14; 7.29). The Hebrew DiK is of c.o urse literally siogular. and the

Greek singular 0 ciutlpc:.moc; on its own may be generic. as for example for !)1N;1 ill Eccl. 3. I I; 6. 1; 8.9, and for Oil\ preceded by ar1 inseparable preposition ai Eeel. 1.3; 6. 1 I; 8.15. It is this viC\1/ ofo1K io Zl1:\(;i) "'JJ dlal eatlsed him to use the siJlgola.r

toU OvOpc.lnou in the expression (o'1) uiol to\i CtvOpcSrrou. This reminds us of how literalistic a translator can be. but we. do not suppose that the translators of Gospel material were this literalistic because they do not have any phenomena comparable 10 oUv + ace. TI1e Peshitta is perfecdy straigluforward, witl1 N:oiJ(K) 'JJ all but once { the sg. ?\:dJ"u at Ecd. 9 .3). Do;pite its massive midrashic expansions, the Targum is also relati vely straighll"orward. with ?\;o;iJ(K) •:o the normal rende-r ing. The Hebrew Bible al.so has two exarnple.o;; of the Aramaic K1iJ?\ ~JJ.. both of them generic. At Dan. 2.38, the maverick LXX 1ran.slator has civ9pc..)rr(o)V. while Theodotion has the norm.aJ o'1 ulol TWv civ6pc.lrrwv ( Pesh. K~~N. 'D, unchanged fi·om t\ff). At Dan. 5.2 1, 11let)(lotion has Tc:lv civ9pc..)rr(o)V. while LXX has nothing I'C$embl ing this verse (Pesh. has the conventional KliiJ'D). We must c.oosider aiSl) the exceptional rende-ril)f;.S of the l lebrew D'iK(;,) 'J.J. At Oe.m. 32.8, we find utoU<; 'At5ap for D1K ' JJ. I Ie-re the context l)f the Song or Moses ha.o;; moved from creatjon (32.6) to the separation of people into diOe-re.nt natjons. The oarrative account of this in Gen. 10 is carried through in genealogical tenns, and thiscontext has caused the translator to think of the Adam story and accordin~,ly tranSI't lil 01K a.o;; Adam. The Samarilan transla(Or wa.o;; Sil'nilarly anected and put 'JJ 01~,ju~tli ke 1he-MT. whe.re-as othe-r Aramaic translations (N'oof., Onq., Pesh.• Ps-J.) have some fonn ofK~:.{ N) 'JJ. Isa. :52.14 is pan of an exce-ptionally di llicuh passage to translate. h is C·l)ncemed with the appearance M the suiTering serva1H, which is compared unfavourably to Lhat of human beings in general. The Lrans:lator put ci:rr6 civ9pc..)TT(o)Vfor v-"'1\.'j, a11d ci:rrO T<:lv civ9pc..)rr(.)V fOr U1?\ ~JJll. We-should infer that he thought espec.i ally carefully about what he was doing. and came up with sonle.thing perfectly satisfactory. The fact that the nlaj ority rendering is -with u't&; shows how muural~v that came to most translators:, not that d1ey were incapable of taking differeot ded sions. A t Ps. 49.3, the uanslator had h) render both U1K ~JJ and, inunediatel)' afler it, iif'K ~JJ. fl)f :;h\ 'lJ m 01~ 'D m. he came up \llilh o'i T~ YflYtvEl.; Kal oi ulol T<:lv civ6pc.lrrwv (LXX Ps. 48.3). Here the translator has evidently not wanted to us:e o'• uiol TWv civ9pc..)rr(o)V twice (unlike. the translator of Ps. 62.1 0, st'e LXX Ps. 6 1.1 0). The Targum went for ;ii'Vl1ii' 01?\ "JJ. \Vith J Y:l'i "U~ fOr the fOllowing iif'K ~JJ. The Peshitta is very close 10 the LXX with l"li'1K 'JJ fi)r D'R\ "lJ,_
,,p.

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Scripltm:

261

10. 16 lhete-are problems wilh 1he 1e.xt. TI1e LXX XHpb;- Crvepc.>nou presumably read O'TN. T', as 1he rrogmenlary 6Q Dan, wilh ahe- feminine form :1!>l{).J jusl about surviving, preS\Jnlilbly did 100. Whether Tileodotiorfs uio\i Q-v6pc.lrrou ahere.d "JJ 01~ or read 01~ p we cafUil)l tell. bul in either case-1he use.MuiOc; is conventional. In such cir<:umslances, nothing significanl can be squeezed frorn 1he Peshina's ~IVJN. l11e Peshiua and the-Targurns 1Wrmally rende.r the plural 01N. 'D wit11~tdJ(K) ..JJ. One or 1wo exceptions have been noled above. TI1ey do Ml in any way upse1 1he obvious tac1 thai 1he Ilebre\11 ~JJ io the expression 01~ ~n wa..:; generally rendcrod with the Aramaic 'lJ in lhe expression ~19;(~) "JJ because or perceived precise equivalence. All these e;(ampfes point in the same direction. The precise perceived equivalence. between p. -u, and uiOt; natural to bilingual translators has c.aused several different translators to use u'•tX: ror lJ in 011\ p , and the plural uioi lOr 'JJ in 01N(:1) ··JJ. This is the natural and nonnal rendering. Its undet l)•ing c.ause was the pe1-c.eivOO precise equivale-nce bePween i:J, ,J., and u'u:W; throughout normal usage in these three languages. II follows thai the-use or ui6c; io 1he translbnnation of (~)!I.;J(X) -u into 0 u'1~ Toli O:vepc.lrrou is enlire.ly natural. From the perspective of the translators, it was hardly even literalistic.ju::.l norfnal h) 1he poi1U of being alrnost universal. l11e wlil)fe raoge of lhe usage of p , 1J, and uicil;: is accordingly reflected in the synoptic Gospels. The Greek vi&; is found in its most literal usage. when men and boys are said to be son of another person. So for example, we find ·lciK~oc; Ko:t 'l(.)ciVVllt; o'1 u'lol ZE~EOaiou (Mk 10.35). Whe-n Elizabelh came h) the condusil)ll of her pregnancy. iyivvqotv u'u5v (lk. 1.5 7). This is the ba.~ic usage. whic-h e$tablished !he precise pe.rc.ei\rOO equivaletlC.e between p , 1J. aod v'1cil;:. The use with reference to nations is also found. as whe,n the angel of the Lord predicts that John lhe Baptist will bring back to the lord rrol.l.oo~ rc:1v v'oc:1v 'lopanl. (Lk. 1. 16). More meraphorical uses are also lb uod. AI Mk 2.19. a parilble of Jesus refers tool utot Toti vu~¢6)voc; (1/Mt. 9.1 5//U:.. 5.34). Jesus· nickoame. fOr the sons of Zebedee is ooJrectly rranslated uiol ~ovTi)t;: (f..,lk 3. 17).!., Matthew contr.tst~ the. riglueous and the wicked as o1 uio1 Ti;c; ~aotMiac; and o't uioi Toti novllpoU (Mt. 13.38). luke similarly contra.:iiS o'1 uio'1Toti atilvoc; ToUTou with ToUt; u'1oU<;- ToU ¢(.)T~ (lk. 16.8). He also refers 10 a dec.eut kind of person as ulb;- €ipr}vl)C;(Lk. 10.6).

All this is entirely normal and relatively consistent. The precise perceived e<Jlli\1illence between p , ""lJ.. and ui6c; was natural to bilingual translators bec.ause of the extensive use-or lhese wo1'dSa..:; equi\'alents. II rollows 1hat the.use of u'l()c; in the. transfonnalion or (K)'oiJ(x) ""lJ into 6 uiOc; ToV O:vOp(l)rrou wa.~ also entirely naturaL I lum ne.xt (0 1he arcjcles io 0 uiOc; ToiJ O:v6pc.lrrou. We have seen that this has also c:aus.ed e.ndJess trouble to C-01Wen1ional scholarship. II ha.~ been inre-rred lhat (x)Vl(~) ,J in sayings of Jesus must have always beetl ill 1he deli1 1itc s1me, whiC-h is not consislent \\1ilh Aramaic evide1lC.e about it~ idiomatic usage. h has aiSl) been supposed that, if the idiom had a genemJ level of me-aning. which we have seen 29.

Ca\t.cy, Aramaic SoUit'E'S ofMark :f Gospel, PI)· 197- 8.

262

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

that it did. the ank les would not have bee-n necessary. The solution to all these problems is h) pay c.areful auention once again to 1he-traoslators' strategy. I have already worked out whm this strategy was: 0 u'16c; ToU CtvOpc.)rrou is to be used as a translatioo of (~)1.9~~) 1:l when it refers to Jesus, and not otherwise, and the plural is not to be used. I C.OilSider next the etrecrs M this strategy, frorn the perspective M

bilingualtr:msfmors and then of Gospe-l writers. The first nomble cOl-ct of this strategy is to proc.tuce a major new Chr istological title, which cleatly refers to Jesus alone. This is just what the dfUI'Ch needed. The negative aspects of the strategy helped to ensure that the new tille was unique. as

nothing like uiO:; O:vOpc:.lrrou was used with reference to anyone other than Jesus. The positive aspects of the strategy, keeping u'16t; and using the an icles. ensure that the refe.rence to Jesus hi mself is always clear. This is why the use of the articles is of such central importance. Some reference to Jesus himself is always c1ear fro m the. context and the. anicle is a normal way of making dear a reference to a particular, previously known person. There was therefo1-e m) chance that the first article could be taken ail si111ply generic. It is also important at thii> r)oint to keep in mind that the original idiom could not be exactly re.produced in Greek. Whe.reas the original Aramaic had both a general level of meaning and a pan icu1ar reference to Jesus himself. the Greek translators h.ad to opt for one meaning or the other being d ear tt) monoglot Greek-speakiog Christians. The ulle-M the articles ensures that the primary refe.rence to Jesus himself is retaine.d clearly for everyone to see. Bil ingual translators could themselves perce.ive the original idiom by interpreting the tirst article as generic as \\fell as particular. They will there-fore have thought that in translming examples of this idiom in this way. they had done as well as pOSsible. From the perspe<:tive of both bilingualtranslatt)rs and monoglot Gree-kspeaking Christians. they were quite right. The.original idiom could be perceived by bilinguals. and the most important level of meanin£. the reference to Jesus himself. could be seen by everyone. The second anicle is simply generic. The generic article. was very common in Greek. Consequemly. statements about humankind could be. made using the an id e with ci\16p(.)tr01';. without there. being any risk of confusion over which man was being referred to. For example, in commenting on a Spanan embassy. Pericles made a very general reference to the plans of human beings. rOt; 01avoia<; ToU O:v6pc:.lrrou (Thuc.1, 140,J). Jlere ToU O:vSpc:.lnou is obviously generic. and there is no possibility or a partic-ular man being thought or. Again, Paul opens Ron'lans 7 by remi1lding his audience-that the Jaw ha.l) jurisdictiOil ove.r people only as long as they are alive: 0 vc)pOI'; KVpmiu r oO Ovepc:.lrrou i
See- (). 260 3 bi)\' C.

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Scripltm:

263

refe.rred to as human be.ings. with the generic artic.le used with the singular noun, 01~:1. TI1e. Sepmagim 1\)Jiows. traoshn ing 01~:1 with 0 O:v6pc:.lrro:;. Here too the-re is a general rererence to the Israelites as human beings. and there is 110 pos.~;ibi li ty or a particular •nan being dlought oC At Mk 2.27. a saying organically linked to theSon of man saying at tv1k 2.28. 6 dv9p'-lnoc; refers to the siwation of the primordia] creation of the sabbmh for humankind, even as everyone kne.w Lhat it was kept by Israel: TO ocil3~aTov !Su:X T0v &vOp<.lnov ~yivno Kai oVx 0 civSpc:.lrroc; .Sui TO oci~aTov. 11 Here both T0v civ8p'-lrrov and 0 dvOp<.lnoc; are generic. and there is no possibility of a single person being exclusively thought of. ewn though the story ofAdaJn may have c
Here 0 civ9pc.lno.:; would na1urally be interpreted generic-ally in v. 28, an obvious interpretation already guaranteed by the t\'lO examples: of the generic 6 dvOp<.lTTOI; in v. 27. Thus the-1-e is uo panicular re ferenee to Jesus at all. Tilis is accordingly quite disastrous. and not remotely c.omparable with the successful production of the. 31. 32.

f(l( dC'tait.:-d djscullllion, sc.:- pp. 12t-5 :~bo\'C'. Wc-.llhauS<"n. !Jradilischt' uml JiWisc:lte- Geschiclllt'. p. 3t2 n.1. SC'C p. IS :~tkwc.

264

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

importam Christological title 0 uiOc; r oUO:v9p<.lrrou. It is also dillic.uh to se.e the force of Kal before r oUoo:(3~cirov. since humankind has not previously been said to be lord of anything else. We haYe see-n that it ~\!.a lly refers back to f\•lk 2.1 o. but 0
translators should have used the.simple
TO oci~O:TOV 8ui TOv ®6pc.:moc; iyivt:TO 1(0:.1 oUx 0 av&pwno; 8uXTO oci~cnov, i>on kVpt&; ioTtv O:~pc..)no; !::a't ToU oo:~jXiTou.

Here. avep(.)IT<>C; WOLtld narurally be inte-rpreted in an indefinite and generic way. In view of God's creation or the sabbath ror the benefit of humankind, any mao, by vit1ue of his position as :.t human being, is lord of lhe sabbath. This is very little djffere-lll from the previous suggestion. and equally disastrous. bec.ause there is no partic.ular reference to JeslL~ himseff. This too is nor remotely comparable with the succesful produc.tion of the imponnnt Christologicaltitle 0 ulO:;- Toli CtvOp~nou. l lare made. ao alten1ative ~uggestiou, again on the supposition •hat I might be right abou1 the idiornatie use of (:\)liiJ(x.) "'J. If •1hey wished to be more literal or n~ore poetic', the translators might have u.~ed u'u)c; CtvOp<.lrrou.~ Let us therefore try this at Mk 2.27·8. TO oci~cnov 5ta T0v ci~PQtrO\I (y(vno Ko:i OOx 0 tivE!pcuno; 8tci TO oci~cnov, i>on kVpt&; toTtv uiOc; O:vepc.)noo t:o'• T.oU oo~lk(too .

This is more. Semitic, but not io any significaot way dillerent fron\ Hare's other suggestion. Here uiOt; OvOpc.lnou would naturally a.Jso be interpreted in an iodefi•lite aod generic \1/ay. In Yie\\' of God's cre~n ion of the sabbath li)r the benefit of humankind. any son of man. by virtue of his position as a human being. is lord of the. sabbath. Once again, •here is no particular relercnce. to Je:Sus himself. This too is not remotely c.omparable with the succesful production of the imponant Christological title 0 u'u):; Toli O:vOpc.) rrou. Similar cormnents apply to all sc.holarly sugge.stio.u: that (~)1.17~~) -u ln this idiom might re..asonably have been translated by anything other than 0 v'u)c; Toli O:uepc..)rrou. This illustrrues by c.ontrasl howsensible the translators were to produce this major Christological title out of the translatit)ll process. Afew genuine Son of man sayings would have been more amenable toahernarive translations. and for all we know might once have. bee.n translated differently. Perhaps •he best example of this i~ Lk. 22.48. This is from the morHent at which Judah of Kerioth identified Je$uS as the mao \"horn the thu.gs from the chief priests should arrest. Here.Luke's special source intOnned him that Judah approached Jesus h) kilt.q; him. l reconlOtructed the original sayiog M Jesus: inCh. 8: 33. 34.

Hare. Sm1 (if Mmr. pp. 249-50. Hare. Stm cifMtm. pp. 249-50.

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Scripltm:

265

.;;J.,:...:..,l "t::K u? vv: ,;;n;• Judt\h. kissing :tithe soo of mttn and you bclt:9y him!

Let uS Ll'y c.n11 a CrtUlSiation of this \!lith \Vellhausen's view that the trallSiaror should have used 0 civOpc.m oc; 10 translate (x.)WJ(K) , J.

This is uncomfortable Greek. but at le.astlhe referent-e to Jesus c.ould not be avoided bec.ause of the n:urmive context. Moreover. it c.ould be improved by omitting the. article, which the translah)r might well have dl)Oe ir the saying did in r.1.ct use , J iO!Jx. in the indefinite s-tate. In chis ca.~e,
-.J.

This would also be sufficiently clear, given the narrative c.oote.xt. Although •he.re w-as no established Greek idiom fOr using tl1e-indefinite uiOv O:vOpWnou with reference. to a pruticular person. the expression could n(){ mean anything other than a person, and the refere.nc.e to Jesus is guaranteed in this version too by the fac.t that Judah had jus1 identified Je,;u.~ with a kiss, thereby handing him over to his e-nemies. At this point it becomes impot1ant that we do nO( have. before us the work of severaJ different translators. We have the work of three Gospel writers. two of ,vhom, Matthew and l uke, finished their Gospels and used the work of their p1<edecessor. Matk. The relarive consiste.ncy M uS<\ge \!Jhich \Ve no'" find can be verified t)flly a.~ the result of a C-Ofnbioed ei101 1 whic.h was c.ompleted by these three editors. If, for example., Luke inherited one or the above altemative-translations of lk. 22.48, he '"·ould be very strongly lllOtivated to pill the Christological title 0 u'u):; ToU O:vOpc.)nou in place of whichever alternative he found. We have seen that he was \'ery happy with •his title, fOr he u$es it no Jes..:; than 25 times. None of tl1ese pl)SSible. alternative versions is a proper example.of previously known monogl()( Greek idiom. Much the most important aspect of the meaning of the saying to Luke c.ould only be. the. reference to Jesus himself. No alternative version could survive this combination of c.ircumstnnces. ~·loreover. such ahernati,·e versions would be most unlikely to be C-reated lOr most genuine sayings because. a.~ we have-seen ror Mk 2.28, they would geoerally ('.reate ullWeJc.ofne uonse-•tse. h is only in the fe"' cases where s-uch a version is fe.asible that a change of this kind may haYe raken pi;.\Ce. 35.

H:ttc, Son of Mall. pp. 249- 50.

266

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

There are two more reasons why we should not imagine Gospel translators working too inde.peodently

or each other. One is the widespread conununications

between different c.hurches. Christianity originally spread through networking ba.lJed on the-e-xisting framework of Jewish con-ununities throughm•t the Grec.oRoman diaspom.u We know from Acu and the epistle$ that major figures in the

early church tr.l\'elled around this network. and we know from Jewish sourc-es that travel frOI'II diallpora comnmnities to Jerusalem for tnajl)f feslivals wa.;; a regular

and -common event in which many people from many different communities

participated. Any sig.litlc.ant mat<.·-rial frol'u Jesus' historic ministry will have had to go along these routes. The number of bilinguals available to carry through the translation process is likely to have been ve.ry limited, because. by the standards of Jewish!Chri:stiantGreco-Roma•t cultu1-e, traul>lation from Aramaic. into G~k was a relatively specialist activity. It is therei'Ore e.rltire.ly plausible h) suppl)Se that the translators of Gospel source materials consulted each other, e.ven before. the evangelislS themselves made the translated material relatively uniform. Finally there is the. relative uniformity of the. acn1al resulrs. All three synoptic evangelisL~ were very happy with 0 u'iO:;- ToiJ clvijpc.lrrou as a Christological tide. n vo of the three e.xc.eptions to the translators' strategy. tvlk 3.28 and tvh. 10.32 -33, are the 01d)' signs in the wlu)le of the synoptjc. tradition. of translation of (~)IV;( s) 1~ with anything other than 6 u'u)c; ToVCtvOpc.lrrou. We must infer that the tradition was genuinely uniform in tt::U\SIO'Hing (~}'9l(~) 1~ with 0 u'16c; ToiJ Ctv6pc..)rrou.

3. The Creatio1t of New Son of Malt S~ryings ha~o·e seen abundantly in Chapter 10 that the synoptic evangelists ah~l) created new Son of man sayings in which they used 0 uiOc; To\i Crv8pc.lrrou as an imponant Olristologicaltitle i11 Greek. lm)w rec.CH)l>ider major aspec t~ o f this. before puttiog together the evangelists• overall view· of this title. We have seen that only two sayings in our oldest Gospel are completely secondary, l\•lk 13.26 and 14.62.J7 Bmh these sayings make evident midrashic use o f Dan. 7. I3, and both use it iu C.Ofnbination with otller biblical te-:
We

36. Full djsC'tJS..;ion or lhi ~ c:ltlnoc be offcl\.--d here, Sec cspcd:llly W. A. Mceb, 111e Fint Ur/)(111 Chn'Jiians. The Social \\briJ of the Apostle Paul (l oodoa.+N ' c1v Ha~n! Yale UniYtrs.ily. 1993); R. Suwk. The Rist' (ifChriJtiuni(\'. .-\ SociolosiJt ReamsiJers History (Princeton: PrincC'ton U.P._ 1996). 37. Scc pt). 24:!-Sabo\'£.

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Scripltm:

267

Moreover, while Christians learned in the scriptures would pick up the reference to Dan. 7. 13~ the major refe.reuce from everyone's perspective \\' to Jesus hint:roelf. It was his corning on the ch)ucl.:; of heaven for which the early church profOmldly hoped. We must infer thm Mark was aware of the use of 0 ui6c; ToV O:v9pc.lrrou in the translation process. As we have seen, the production of this title wa.~ 3 natural outcome of the translation of genuine sayings of Jesus from Aramaic into Greek h would not however be entailed io the sa!lle way by midrashic use of Dan. 7.13. because the midrnshic use of biblical texts is too loose a proc.ess t'O necessitate this. We have seen this in the context or Mk I3.26, \\'he.re mher biblical 1exts have evidently been employed. but so loosely that we cannot tell which ones with any degree of ce11ainty. We should note also Rev. 1.7, whe1-e Dan. 7.13 has been el'nployed together with Zcch. 12.10-14, but the title 0 uiOc; ToU O:vOpi:. rrou is not used. If Mark did no• know· 0 v'10t; ToU O:vOpi:.rrou from the translation process, he wo·uld h:;w e had m ) ~ason to invent it here. h fOllows that Mark regarded 0 v'1Q.; ToV O:vOpWrrou as an importam Christological title used by Jesus himself in his teaching. This is how .Mark ca!'ue to see it in Dan. 7.13. and thus use it with retC.rence to Jesus' pan)usia. This also explains how the paue.rn according to whic.h Jesus US\.~ 0 viOl; ToU 0:-vOpt.lrrou with reference to himself, and without any explanation, came to be established. From t\•lark's point of view, this was a lre~idy a teamre M genuine sayings of Jesus. and the fnc.t that 0 uiO; ToV O.v6pc.lrrou referred to Jesus himself was too obvious for Mark to feel any need for a speciaJ explanmion of it. With aU this in mind, we c.an see how natural it was for Mark to use 0 v'l()c; ToU O:vOpc.lrrou in his development of Je:-.us' p•-edictiOtlS or his death. We have see-n JeslL~ discussing his ll)rthcorniog death v1ith two genuine ul\e,~ l)f'Son of man' at Mk 14.2 1. and we.have seen that the prediction of his death in the Son of man saying at Mk 8.3 1 is largely genuine. We have aiSl) seen his death refe-rred to. together with that of others. in genuine Son of mao sayings at Mk 9. 12 and I0.45, where !he usc.of the major Christological title 0 v·.~ ToVO:vepc..)rrov would be obvious to everyone, and the general le-vel of meaning lost on uninstructed monog1ot Greeks. This means that f\•lark aheady kne\1/ the- major Christo logical title-6 vi6c; ToU O.v6pc.lrrou as a feature of sayings in which Jesus looked forn:ard to his atoning death predicted in the scriptures. This explains why t\
268

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

man at Mk 8.3 I. Mk 14.4 1 is more di ffkult 10 deal with. 0\1/ing h) some disnubance

or

in the lexl. h is not h0\1/Cver the- Son '"an say ing which is difficult. and Matk n1ay have added it in order to clarifY something which he knew was diflit\1h. The

term rro:po:6ic5oTal is found with 0 uhX- ToG O:vap~nou in the pre.,tious Son of m"n saying at Mk 14.21. and Mark will surely have.had this in mind as he sought to describe the situation clearly. l\•la rk•s handling M the tradition is accordingly quite c.tear. I le inherited

6 vi~

ToUO:vOpc.)nou a.!;; a major Christoh)gica.l title in 'he G•-eek versions of sayiogs of Jesus. He therefore.continued to use it when he. needed to rewrite these traditions as he-put toged~er a whole-Gospel. lie also fOund it in sc.riprure at Dan. 7.13, and used it io h\'0 midrashically composed pas,.~;ages whic.h employ other scriptures as wd l. h is e.specially important to note that secondary uses of 0 uiOc; TOUavepQrrou are. to a large extern due to its usc in the Greek trallSiations of genuine sayings l)f Jesus. II follows that we must be ve.ry c.areful not to infe-r that most Son of man sayings are ge-nuine si1hply Oil the grouods 1hat they are largely conlined h) sayings glot Greeks as a resuh of the dillkult proce.ss of translating it from its originaJ Aramaic. source.35 Mauhew's ve1·::ion is entirely coherent, a1ld io it 0 u'u~; ToG 0v0pc.lnou is a title l)f Jesu~ alone. w·hereas the incohere-nce io Mark's oc.couut was due •o the original reference of (~)iVJ(K) 1J h) John the Baptjsl ali welL This shl)\\'S the major shift of meaning chanlcteristic of the ttansl;uion process to be fi.)lly in accordance-\Vith the needs of the evaogelists' editing. Like Mark, Mauhew also prOOuced a new prediction. on the basis of existing tradition, when he feh his narrati...e oeeded il (MI. 26.2). This has 0 u'1 6t; Toil O:vSpc.lrrou and rrapo:cS\OoTo:t

n

38.

Sec pp. I !i- ll 3bt>YC.

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Scripltm:

269

from the tradition, with a reference to c-r ucifixionadded in ffom the passioo narrati\1e, as already in Mauhe\1/'s editi1)g of the third major pas..~ ion p~d i c.tjon (Mt 20. I9, editing Mk I0.34). Mauhe\1/'s editorial procedures als.o explain hl)W the pauem acc-Ording to which Jesus used 0 ui(w; TOU avepWnou with reference [0 himself. and without any e-xplanation, was continued. Mauhew inherited this patre-rn from Mark. and probably also froru Q material. We have seen that he considered it ro be a n'lajor Christolog:ical title-in G1ee-k, and he knew it fr
270

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Son of man was l)evcr i ntended 10 take place as soon as it was e.,pecled, so we find

him producing a new Son of man saying with reference to the siwation when aJI the final ea11hly eveurs are completed (lk. 21 .36). l lere lhe believer will fina lly stand f}J rrpooOtv ToU uioU ToU O:v9pc.lrrou, a signific:uuly modified version of the

earlier eschatological and judgemental refe.reoee of 0 ui&;: roU O:v6pc..lrrou. luke's continued use of this title shows how important it was to him. Luke also continued the developmem of the passion predictions. Like Mauhew) he notably altered Mark's accurate and l'igurative ~-tnO: Tps\o; ~lJEpac; to Tfi r plTI) ~IJipQ:, now understood as a literal relerenee ro the inaccurate swries ofJesus' bodily resurtt'ctil)l\ (Lk. 9.22; 18.33. omiued from 1he moth abbrevia1ed Lk. 9.44). He also produced another predic.tioo on 1he basis of tradition and edited it in at lk. 17.25. using a \m)v to refer baC-k to 6 v'u)c; toU O:v6pc..)nov in the Q saying reproduced in the pre.vious vet~e. He ioterpolate.d a flashback prediction at Lk. 24.7, where he recalls the ttaditiuu of Jesu~' predictions of his death and resumction, using 0 uiQ.:; ToU i:w8pc.lnov as in the traditions which he inherited. as well as T1J t piT!) tliJiP\1, now actually placed in the resurrection story. These passages show Luke entirely happy with 0 u·,o.:; ToG avepc.lnou a.-r; a major Christotogical title in Jesus· predictions of his death and re.surrection, to the point where he edited in fresh predictions at points where he fell he needed them. I have noted two more secondary occun-ences of 0 uicX; toU O:vepc.lrrou in Luke.J" One is at lie 6.22, where the 1enn 0 ui.O:;- ToU O:vOpc.lrrou clearly refers to Jesus as central to the life of persecuted Christians. and the. term is absent from the parallel at Mt. 5. I I. The other is at Lk. 18.8, \!/here a purely Lukan conclusion 10 a parable- looks forward to the eventual return of 0 v'•&; t oU CtvOp~rrov during the pe.riod of the church. luke's edirorial procedures. like. those of r...tauhew, further explain how the pane.rn according (0 which JeS-US used 0 vi.<); t oU 0v0p~TTOU with reference. to himself. witholll any explanation. was continued. Like Matthew. Luke inherited this pattern from Mark. and probably also from Q material. We have seen that he c.onsidered it to be a majot Christological title in Greek, and he knew il ffo1n sayings of Jesus himself. It wa.~ blindingly obvious to him, as it was 10 t-.·lark and tvtauhew, that 0 viOc; ToU avop
Sec Pt). 239-4t 3bovc.

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Scripltm:

271

the translators• str.Hegy ln Q material: or it wa..~ translated by or for the evange-lisrs. in which case we simply have the translators• strotegy operating in the tinis.hed documents of two evangelists both of whom loved 6 ulO; Toil O.v6pc..)rrou as a major ChriS'h)logical title-. One genuine saying. Mt. I 0.33//Lk. I 2.8. survives in two diiTere.nt translations. The later one. lk. I 2.8, follows the established strrHegy or retlderiog (K)lliJ(K) ,J with 0 uiO:; roG O:v9p<.lrrou. The earlier one, ML I0.32, h0\1/'ever, dl)es not: il has (yc:.). in the. fom1 K
FM full di ~.:ws.ioo. induding 11n alt\'mativc '·icw, sec pp. 179-94 s bO\'C.

4t.

SCi! PI,· 215--8. 225--8 above.

272

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

It follows Lhat the Q material basically suppOrts the vie.w or 1v1atthew. Mark and Luke that 0 u'16c; TOO O:v6pc:.)rrou is an important Christologic-al title. in Greek.

4. Couclll.tlon.\·

The following conclusions should therefore be. drawn. The Greek title 0 u'1 &; roU O:vOpc:.)rrou ernerged in the first place frorn the translation of genuine sayings of Jesus from Aramaic inm Greek. AJI these genuine sayings used the Aramaic tenr) (~)~oll (N) 'U in a parLicular idiomatic way. In all c.ases Je.sus said som eLh i t~g. about himself. but the idiom also included a more general leve.l of meaning. The impo11ance of this level of n\t"aJ)ing varied. In a ICw cases, iL '"as o f genuine imponance. as in the proposed death of the St)nS of Zebedee (Mk I0.45). or 1he practic-al conditions to be endured by a pOiential disc.iple on a migratory mission (r-.,tt. 8.20//lk. 9.58). In many cases, 1-u)wever, it was not of particular importance, sinct" most people did not forgive sins (Mk 2.10) or expect to rise shordy from ahe dead ( Mk 8.3 1).

The idiom itself could not be aanslated into Greek, because Greek has no such idiom. The translators therefore adopted a strategy. Up to a point. they proceeded literally, rendering ,J with its p1-ecise perct"ived equivalent u'i.O:;-, and (K)~ZfJ(K} with its precise perc-eived equivalent O:vOpulrrou. They also had to take a decision about whethe-r to use Greek anicles. because the.original Aramaic might use either state of (~)IV:(~). Tile)' decided to use both detinite articles, to give tht"m the Christological titJe 0 v'16c; TOO O:vGpc:.)rrou. This was a wonderful creati\'C outburst, not some sort or mistake. IL selected in the target language the rnos1 important reJCre-nce M the original idiom. the reference to Jesus himself. Any other decision would have been a failure., because the reference to Je-sus himself would have been lost, and that would not have been in accordance with the needs of the earliest Christians. BilinguaJ translators suffering from interference could continue to see both original l.evels of meaning in their translation. because the articles could both be interpreted ge.Jlerically, as the ~condo ne always must be. It \Vas however much more important that all Gret"k-spe-aklng Chri.!Hians could see the refe-rence 10 Jesus, for this wa..:;; what was most imponant to aJI those Christians who heard the Gospe.ls read. To avoid confusion. the translators also decided nO( to use (0) uibt; (TOO) CxvOp<.)rrou. with or without the Greek articles:. when fill original (N)liiJ(K) -a referred to anyone other than Jesus. and not to use the. plural. The res1.1h of this major Cl'eative outburst was a Christological title 0 uiOc;- Toli O:vGpc:.)rrou. Mark liked it so much that he used it 14 times.. Matthew used it 30 times, and Luke 25. Jo addition to the translation of simply genuine sayings. al1 1hree evangel ist~ cooL inuOO 10 use-it in expanding and developing Jesus:· predictiOI'LfJ of his d~Lh and ~surrection. Mark aiSt) round this tenn at Dao. 7 .13, and constructed two major predicLions of Jesus· seco1~d coming by cotnbining his \1Se of this Lext it1 midrasbic manner wilh other texts (Mk 13.26: 14.62). l11is accounts lOr all Marie's Son of man sayings. Matthew continued this midrashie creativity. using other texts

Tra11.rlati,g and the U.te of Sc ripltm:

273

to amplify his piclure M JeS'lL
using 0 v'10t; ToU CvOpc.lrrou on ils ownas a title of Je-.sus. especially in sayin£S with an eschatological refere.nce. Luke, writing somewhat later, was careful to make it d ear that the see.ond c.oming of Jesus should not have. been expected too soon after his earthly lili::. In the process.. he removed verifiable rererenc.e to Dan. 7.13 from both Mk 13.26 (lk. 2 1.27) and 14.62 (Lk. 22.69). lie noncthelc~'!S retained 0 u"16c;

ToU O:vOpc.)rrou as an imponant Christological title in eschatologicaJ as well as other contexts. It follows that 0 u"u)(; ToU O:vOpc.lrrou wa.:; a rnajor Chris.tological title lOr all three synoptic evangelis1s. ·They did nO£ need to explain that it always referred to Jesus himself becalL~C. this was blindingly obvil)lL;; to cveryl)ne frorn the first. This

usage and reference continued in the Johannine community.

Chap(er Twelve THE JOHANNINE S AYINGS

I . Jmmductio,: The Orisi11and ·"1eani11s iif 0 viO; roli O:v6p~Airrov i111he Fmmh Gospel The thirteen Johannine Son of man sayings belong for the most pa11 to a different world from those in the synoptic Gospels. The Johannine Son of man does not do eartllly things such as c.orne c.ating and drinking (ML 11.19i/Lk. 7.34). Nor is he !logged and pul to death (ML 20.19h'Mk 10.341/Lk. 18.33), •hough Jesus sum~ rS this fate without j g being associated \\1ith this term (Jn I 9. 1. 16-30). Nor does the Johannine Son M man rise rrorn the de.ad (Mt. 16.2 11/Mk 8.3l/llk. 9.22; Mt. 17.9// Mk 9.9; Mt. 17.23//Mk 9 .3 1; Mt. 20.19/!Mk 10 .34//Lk. 18.33; Lk. 24. 7), though Jesus most ce.~tainly does rise. and appe.ar to the disciples through closed doors and the like (Jn 20- 2 1). Nor does the Johannine Son of man do anything like come on the clouds of heaven (Mt. 24.301/Mk 13.26. ct: Lk. 21.27; Mt. 26 .64HMk 14.62). The Johannine Son of man does unsynoptic things suc.h as descend and ascend (Jn 3.13: 6.62). Whe-n his death is referred to. the authors tell us that he ,vill be lifted up or exahed (.In 3.14; 8.28; 12.34), t)r even glorified (Jn 12.23). Unless yt)Ueat the tlesh of the-Son of lhiln and dri11k h is bh){)((. you have no lite io you. whereas people who do eat his flesh and driftk his blood have e-lemal life, and Jesus promises to raise them at the last day (Jn 653-54). These differences are e.xtreme, and scholars have been right to try to explain them. Taking these- di O'erenc.es seriously h.as lh)Weve-r had an unfol'tUit.ale- sideellect h has c.on.bined with other faclorS to cause scl1olars to h)ok ougide Christiao traditil)l\ for lhe origin and meaning of this term. I sw·veyed the major the.ories it1 OJ. I, and some main points must be rec-alled here. Some scholars auempted to Ol)nstruct an anc.i ent figure M a Jleavenl)' Man. who had fealUres suc.h as asc.eoding and desc.eoding in common \Vith the Johannine Son of mafl. One i111luential auempt was by Bultmann. He drew on Mandean. Manic.hean and Gnostic. material to form this picrure.1 Another major auempt was by Borsc.h, \Vho also drew on a 1t1assive range of text:; to put IOrward a mythic.al pic(ure of a prirnaeval Man-King. All S'uch I. R. But!m:.nn. 'Die- Bcd.,..ulu.ng d.,..,, ncu.,..rschlo~scn.,..n mancW~ch.,..n und m:tnkh!lisch.,..n Qucllcn nlr ds~ Wrsli(ndnis des Joh:ulllCSC\'Mlgdiums'. ZNW 24 ( 1925). ~lp. 100-46: rept'. R. Bulllnnnn (cnts (Ti.ibingcn: Mohr (Sicbo.--cl". 1967), t>t). 55-I 04.

275 haYe two maj or fil ults. ~ In the first place, they arc allrnode-rn oonstruc.rs. Each supposed lll)'th oocurs nowhere. It is a conglomenne drown in small pieces

anempL~

from a wide range of text~, many of them from a tater period than the.Foun h Gospel. Secondly, no such theory led to a proper explanation as to why this Gospel uses the. term 0 ui6c; ToG O:v9p<.lrrou rnther than 6 cXv9pc..:moc; 0 oUpclv101; or the like as a major Christological tit1e-. 11le second major scholarly resource outside 1he Gospels has been the Son of Man Concept. We have seeo inCh. I that this also has major fauhs.' In the first

place. it too is a modern construct, amalgamated from a few texts. Secondly. it relied too heaYily on Gennan or English transl
I low then do we explain the lf~jor difltreuces bel\veeo the Johaunine Son of man sayings and those of the synoptics. a~ indicated above'! By paying attention to the most ce-ntral feawre of the Founh Gospel: it consists aJmost entirely of rewritten history. This has been basically known for more than a century. and taking full ad ...antage M rec.enl work l)ll the rewri1iog of histl)ry, I have mapped il l)ul io a single book, for the arguments were not readily available in a single. pla<.-e. ~ This is the ke.y to the massive differences between sayings using 0 u'•Oc; To\i O:v6pc..lnou 2.

Se-e fmtho:-r pp. 23-S :'lbov~.

J. 4.

S~e 1>1). H --30 above. P. .\1. Cuse.y. IJ Jolm 'J GostJel Tmt'? (Loodoo: Rout!OO:gc, 1 996)~

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

276

in the synoptic Gospels on the one hand, and in the Fourth Gospel on the other. The authors of the FoUJ1h Gospel fully intended to rewrite the story of Jesus in accordance with the needs or the Johannint- cornmmlity at Ephe-s.us i11 the fate firSt

century. They hn\'e rewriuen sayings using 0 uiOc; ToU OvOpc.)rrou with everything else. They have rewriuen sayings usiog the od1er major C hristo logical titles with

everything else too.

Three other points from rec.ent scholarship are worthy or initial rncntiou. One is

the contention. associa1ed especially with the work of E. D. Freed. that 0 viOt;- ToU O:v6p(.)rrou is little more than a stylistic variation on other ways of writing about Jesus:' This is not lrue., but Freed's article was part of a process or clarifying some important points. It is notable that, with the exception M Jn 1.51, what is l1Aid of Jesus with the term 0 viO;- ToV O:v9p(o)nou is also said without it It fOII0\1/S that this docume11t does tu)t have a 'Sou or man Christology' which is separate frol'n the rest of its Christology. This is a great improvement on the various auempts in traditional scholarship to uncover a specific Son or man Christoh)g}' understood against a particular cultural background reconstructed from othe-r docurnents. h also follows thar we should not expec.t any particular distribution of the term 6 uiOc; ToU O:v6pc:.)rrou. This is good. because there is no obvious logic to its distribution. which is natural if this document was wriuen by poople who wrote thin~ about Jesus as naturally withom 6 u'u)t; ToV O:vSpc:.)nou as they did with it. A S\.~nd major point h.a.l:( been tl1e revival orthe traditional patristic view that 0 u'tO; ToUO:v9pc:.)rrou is a particular reference to Jesus' humaoity. ltiJ'CC.ent scholarship, the work of Moloney has been especiaJiy notable in prese.ming this v i ew.~ There is truth in this opinion too. Unlike AOyet; and uiO;-. 0 uiOt; toU Ctv9pc.)rrou is for the most part used \!Jith reference to the incanuue Jesus. Once again, however, \\ e must be careful not to exaggerate. At the c.limax of the prologue the A6yoc; becomes ocip~. not 6 u'uX· ToU CrvSpc.lrrou. and the (erm is not used once in the passion narrative. Moreover. Moloney geH into terrible tangle~.; at 3.13-14. whe-re. the term is used with refereoce to Jesus' pre~xistence, asceosil)n and subseque.nt pre-$ence io he.aven.7 Nonetheless. the way in which 0 u'•O;- ToG <XvOpc.lrrou is used for the most part is genuinely significant I shall conclude that it has its natural meaning, ' the son of humankind' and hence the most importam pe.rson there has ever been on earth. The third point is perhaps the most remarkable of aiL There has been hardly any work on the Ara•oaic.level of the tradition. I have shl)\\'11 elsewhere that largescale claims that this document was trunslated from Aramaic are spurious. I ah~l) noted that there. are problems with the. use of 0 u'16c; toV O:vOp<.lrrou in panic.ular.11 Smalley, on the contrary, claimed much earlier that lhese Son of man sayings go bac.k to an authentic Aramaic. traditiort. Yet apart from (K)'dJ(K) 13, his diSClLI:(Sioo 1

5. 6. 197&).

E. 0 . Fr~d, ' The Son of ).fan in 1h~ Foonh Gosp.::I\JHL 86 ( 1961), PI,· 402- 9. F. J. Molor)Cy. Tht- Jolrwmint' S<JJ1 of Mall (BSRcl 14. Rome: LAS. 1976, 2nd cdn

1.

Moloney. Joluumillt S<»r ofM(JJt. ,,,,. 53-67.

&.

Casey. b l t1hnJ GoJptl Tmt-?. pp. 87-97.

of Johannine .sayings notes only two Aramaic words, both take-n from Black, who subsequently dropped one of them.• I now proc-eed lO W01'k throogh the Johannine-Sou of rnao sati ng.~ in the order in which they occur.

2. John 1.51

This first saying occurs riglu at the e nd of a sectioo. l11e witness of John the naptist is ll)flowed by the iotroduction of Jesus' first disciples. Tile last of these disciples is Nathanael. a Johannine character who is abse-nt from the synoptic. Gospels. He hajls Jesus ru; Son of God. a centrally imponant Johannine confession. and a~ king or Israel. Jesus' reply ends with the.Soo of man saying: ·A~~v ci;.ulv My(,) UJJiv, 04Eo&E T(w oUpovOv Ovtt.;~y0To: Kai

Toir. cimAour; ToV &EOO

Ovojlo:ivovro:t; ~Col .:o:To(3o:ivovro:t; £n'e T0v u'eOv ToV Ovepc.lnou.

The. double. OW!v is distinctive!)' Johanoine. the com.nuuli(y's rewrittV uiOv TOU O:vepc.lrrou, the w rse also contains 0 oUpcivoc;, and the rvtauhean version also uses ErrL This is a massive-overlap w·itll Jn 1.51. The use M ~EoOt. perhaps derived originally from Zech. 12.10. 10 is especially Slrikiug be(".ause Jesus has just addl't"$sed Nathanael in the singular. e-nding with the very word 0¥,} (Jo 1.50). While Jesus' shifl to the plural ~o(n at Jn I.Sirnakes pertectly good Johanniue sense (cf. Jt~J.I0- 1 1), it is ,veil explained by the use of ML 26.64. r-.•toreover, most or theresa or each sayiog consists of the midrashic use of other biblical texts. So does the other synoptic text which combines ~1.10:1 with T0v uiOv TOO O:vOpc.lrrou. together with tJ1e angels, the Matthenn version again using 0 oUpcivoc; and irrl, and both authors adding additional biblical •e-xts (Mt. 24.30-31/&ik 13.26-27)." There are other signilicant fea(ures of M t. 26.64 which a1-e re-levant to the immediate conte-:ll\'laincd in the third cdi1ion: and l n 3.14. where Black. Art1maic AtJProach (3rd edn t%1), 1). t4t, oo1ins th\' W(l(k of pre,·ious scholars. has '*'"'&iivo:ebe an Ar.tmsi,.m. rcfleeling 'li'r. tO. Se-e furthN pp. 243-4 :.bow. 1I. Se-e funhc-r pp. 2 t 5- '1. 242- 3 :tbovc.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

278

response of 'lopanhll'fll; Ev ~ .SOAo:;- oUK ionv (Jn 1.47), a striking contra.llt to Joseph Caiaphas, a.;; well as the better knl)Wn contrast ro Jacob/Israel (Gen. 27.35). AU these points. take-n together, form an overwhelming argument of cumulmive weight The Johannine. comnrunity re"'rote. tvll. 26.64. i1l light of the pmblen'ls

sum>tuldiug Mk 14.6 1-62 arid Mt. 24.30-311/Mk 13.26-27 (cf. Lk. 21.27; 22.67-70).

They had devastating rea..~ons for doing so. The midrashicalty constructed texts of f>.
of God. which would ooly be possible-if they saw God himself. By the time that the Fourth Gospel was. written. everyone knew that this had nor happened. Luke altered the beginning of the prediction, so that it read: tirrO -roU vUv OE ia-to:t 0 \l'u)e; TOU O:v6pc:lrroo ~::o:&tl~fVOI; h: s.;t~V 6to0 (tk. 22.69).

*

&Jvci~c.,y; TOO

This the whole of l11e early church fim'll'y belie\•ed. It solves the same problern in a different way. ·The Johannine solurion is more radicaL panty because the Johannine. community had an even more serious problem. As the prologue put it programmaticaJiy: o~ov oUO~Ic; Ec.)po:KEvrrc:.)rroTE (Jn 1.18). This is repe.atOO in the body of this work (Jn 5.37: 6.46), as well as at I Jn 4.12. h fOIJow·s that the-belief that no one had seen God was very important to the community. This is a second re.ason why Jesus should not predict that his hostile judges should see God. The sec-Ond thing whic-h the hostile judges were h) see \\'v Toli oOpo:voU fi'o m his version ofMk 14.62 (lk. 22.69). 1 ~ The Jobannine solution to this problern was also much more radical. h indude.d the inventionof the Paraclete. who represented the presence of God with the community aller Jesus' death and resurrection. 1;\The-exposition of this is somewhat ambiguous. for experience-of the presenc-e of God is a mauer of experience. rather than of logic. It include-$ the. presence of Jesus, as w~IJ as or the Father aod the Paraclete.: OUx ci:4>~oc:.:> \.IJcit; 6p4>avoU<;, (pxo~al npO:; U~cic; (Jn 14.18).11le expectation of the paro·u.sia has l)llly just been retained in the append i;~ to the-Gospel (21.22-23). This also tells in story fonn of the death of all the first disciples, as if the expec::tatioo of the beloved disciple surviving until the parous.ia had been a misunderstanding. That is how the Johannine community saw it. They knew that Jesus had not come. and they restruc-tured their relig:io·us experience and understood it as Je.sus' reoewed presence in the activity of the Hoty Spirit. This gave. them a decisiYe reason for rewriting Mt. 26.64.

oteoet

12.

13.

Sec 1>1). 222- 30,239-41 above. Casey. Is Juh1t's GoJpr:l Tm~?. pp. 151-4, with bihliogrsl>hy.

279 A( this point, we must cons ider also the other major synoptic pa$sage ir\ which the Son t)f man is as.:r;ociated \\'ith the- angels ( Mt. 16.27-28!/Mk 8.38- 9. li/Lk. 9.26-27). The Marean ver:-.iou is bad enough. This has the coming of the Son of

man with the holy angels in one verse, follo wed in the. next by the prophec.y that some people standing there would not see death until they had seen the kin£_dom of God come. in power. Everyone in the Johannine community knew that this had not happened. Onee ag
thereby made the coming of the Son of mnn the substanti\'e-centre of the prediction. He added midrashically the final j udgement of the Son of man. in w-ords reminiscent of Ps. 61.13 (MT 62.13) and Prov. 24.12. lie also edited the Son of man into Mk 9. I. Mauhew's; readers would not be len in any doubt. Jesus predicted that someof the people standing wilh him would live to see the Son of man coming with the. angels to carry out the final judge!'nent. The on I>' t)thcr !'nention of the Son M man c.oming with 1he angels (Mt. 25.31) introduc.es a more extensive picture of the firtal j udgement. The vigon)USprese-ntation of the l'inal c.oming of the Son of rnan at Mt. 16.27-28 tOII0\1/S shortly after Peter's confessior\. 11le l\•lauhean \•ersion of this is fuller than those of Mart and Luke: oU d 6 XPIOTOc; 0 uiOt; ToV 9soU ToU~~vroc; (Mt. 16.16}. Nathanael's confession at Jn 1.49 is another \'er.sion or this, as much a..:; ofCaiaphas's questj on. In Manhe\1/ alone, Jesus responcL.:; to Peter's; confc:.sion

with a dramatic declannion. the opening of which refers to him as I h.twv Bo.p1wvci (Matt. 16. I 7). The-An:unaic Bo:p1
:Ol' ,~.

'.son of John', is translated into

Greek ar Jn 1.42, where Jesus also addresses him: oU t:l Ii~-twv 0 v'16c; ·l!olcivvou. The Mauhean Jesus addre$SCS him a second time, oU sl n Erpo:; (Mt. 16. 18). TI1e C-Or"reet Amn1aic., with a Greek ending which reJlects the name by which Peter was frequently known in the e.arly church (e.g. GaL I. I 8), follow~d by a correct translation. is supplied at Jn 1.42: oV K~TJO~cro KT}q>tic;, 0 £p~nvsUno:t n hpo:;. A11this is tar too exteosive to be coiocidernal. When the author.s orJn 1.5 I rewrote. Mt. 26.64. they had in 1nind the set or problems derived from .sayings M Jesus

predicting events which had not taken place. The two most notable e.vents predicted were the coming of the kingdom of God. the centml concept of rhe teaching of Jesus. and the parousia of the.Son of man, which appears central to people who read the synoptic Gospels as if they were a record of the life and teaching of Jesus. We know also that the Joharlnine c-Onlrt'lunity's rt'.aetion to these problems as a whole

was quite drastic. They vi11uaJiy wrote the kingdom of God out of the teaching of Jesus. taking the parable-s with it. 14 Apan from the one memion of the second 14.

0.-scy. /r Jt}hJt 'r GnsJWI Tmt?. pp. S J- 3.

280

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

c.o.ning io the appendix to the Gospel (Jn 21 .22-23). it has been replac.c d with the presenc.e oC God io the church. Til iS is \Vhy the re\1/J'iljng l)f M I. 26.64 has beef! so drastic that scholars have not seen it for what it is. Faced with a midrash of '*~oOE fi'om Zec-h. 12. I 0, and the substauc.e or the saying rrom Ps. 110.1 and Dan. 7.13,

the c.ommunity have retained ~oer fn)tn Zed. 12. 10, together with T0v ut6v ToU O:v6pc..)rrou and heaven rrom Oao. 7 .13. For the rest, they have re-hlined the li)rn'l of the midta.llh, but replaced these te:
on the ladder. since this is what ladders are for. This interpretation is also explicit in the LXX. where. aVn};- is feminine and can only refer back to K.~ipa~. From a pure-ly grammatical point of view, how·ever. lJ in the llebrew •e-xt could refer to Jacob. rather than to the ladder. This interpretation is found in later Jewish sources. It is best knowo ffom Gen. R. 68.12. We must nm pre-date lhe details or such a late source, bm the grnmmmical ambiguity in the Hebrew text is undeniable. and the Johannine community made use of it The Johannine conte:\:t has further evidence of midrashic use of a text about 1!>rael. h\ the rewriting of the witness of Joh1\ the Baptist, which replaces dle syMptic accountMhim actually baptisingJesus, we find John attributing to God the. revelatory words which enabled him to identify Jesus as the 01le t)li whom the Spirit dcseended. lie also identities Jesus as 0 iKA~n&; ToU ~cU. as we. muS-1 surely re-ad at 1.34 with J>S•-' ~\'. rnther than the easier reading 0 uiOt; rOO EkoU. 1s This sho·ws midrashic use M lsa. 42.1, whe-re the LXX bas the following: ·1-op001). 0 i K;\.fKT0:; IJ.OU ... i~"-'>Ka rO nv~UIJO: ~ou i n' alm5v. The Johannine conte:\:t also has furthe-r e.\tidence. of the midras.hic use of the Gene.o;is namltive. I have-noted Jesus' comment on Nalhanael at 1.47, ..Jbt ci:]..qSc:)c; 'lopanAI Tflr; i v ~ .SOAo:; oVK EoTiv. This is an obvious contrast with Jacob at Gen. 27.35. We should also note Joho dle-Baptist's double declaratil)n, Kci:y~ oUx l)&w aUrOv (Jn 1.31,33). This is strongly re-miniscent of Gen. 28. I6, where Jacobi Israel, having awoken from his drean1, declares. 'The LORD (LXX KVp•at;) is in Ibis place. and I did not know· (LXX iy~ 6~ oUK n.suv). This is further evideoce of the way in which our authors were inspired by the scriptural texts. After all this, \Vhat was Jn 1.51 actually intended to !'llean? The c.ofnrne-ntatorS are largely in agreement on one main point. which should be accepted. As R. H. Lighrfoot put it, •rne meaning of this important verse is like-that of 114 and Jl11; it is a description of the coming ministry in which His disciples will witness. their lt)rd's unbroke1l comnmnioo with the Father and will themselves partake in it. This uorestricted com1herce-(cf. S". 8!9) betwee-n the Father and 1he Sl)O of man is here pictured a.'l a never-ceasing activity..,,., This is not only correct in itself, it also fits this verse i1HO Ihe Gospel as a whole-. It enables us to se.e that, \VIiell properly undersmod. this verse is unique only in being a midrash: it~ meaning is perfectly

15. So .:.g. A. T. l·lsnson, 11ft' Prt>JJI!eric Gf).\'fJf!i. A Slruly of JuhJt a11d the Old 1~stament (Edinburgh: i&T Clarl:, 1991). p. 16. 16. R. 1-1. ligh!fMt ((d. C. F. E van~). Sr. l t1hJ1 's Gnspd. A Ctmll/I(JittJr'}; (0Xf(lf'd: Clarendon, 1956). 1). 99.

281

Johannine. The actual tenn 6 u·.ew; roG avep~TTOU clearly refers to Jesus during his e-arthly ministry. Many commentators have. endeavoured 10 draw much more out of this verse, with largely disastrous results. For example. Brown, arguing that the verse was originally an isolated saying, used as his fourth argt:unent, •1here is nmhing irl what follows 51 to indicare that its promise was ever fulfilled, if the-vision promised is to be taken literally.' Sanders and tvlastin infer that Jesus ' is 1he second Jacob, i.e-. the true Israel in his 0\1/n pe-rson •~ Burice.tt, headi•lf; fOr his vie\ll thal •J .SI para.! le-Is the Son or Man with the ladder', objects to the equation of the Son of man with Jacob, conunenting that •the Gospe-l p·uts Na1hanael and the other discip le~;:; in the place or Jac.ob as the recipients of the. vision, not the Sooof Mao'.11 No comments of this kind should be regarded as acceptable. Every one of them pre.supposes that Jn 1.5 1 and its background are piec-es of information fn)m which h)gically ordered deductions may be dra\VIl. It is nothing or the kind. II is an inspired nlidrash whic-h takes off li'om its sources and leaves them behilid. Its present ioterpre1a1ion must be inferred from its conte:tt. The problems which it sought to solve may be inferred from its backgrow1d, and we can find the texts fro1n which it took otf, but these texts do not control it. It remain_.<; to cor"Jneut ott civrc:.;>y6To:, which is not found at Gen. 28.12, tvlt. 26.64, or any other of the texis \Vhich I have so far discussed. Dillerenl fOnrL:; or this \re.rb are fOm~d in the accounts of the heavens l)peuing at Jesus• baptism. ~vH~)(61)oo-v at Mt. 3.16 and civtc:.;>XOqva• at Lk. 3.21. and there. are angels ministering to Jesus in the following accllutll of the temptation in both tv1atthew· and f>.•lark (Mt. 4. I 1//Mk 1. 13). We should infer that this is wha1 inspired the author M Jn 1.51 . He rewro1e the synoptic narratjves of John the Baplist's enC·l)unler \Vith JestlS at Jn 1.26-36, and he still had this in mind when he concluded the further revelations of this chapter. We have. seen that J1l 1.51 originated a.;; a rewri1e or Mt. 26.64. in the Jigh1 of the serious problems posed for the. Johannine community by this and other similar pass.agesofMatthew and pe-rllaps Mark. The re\vriting was done largely by remo\~ng Ps. I I0.1and S01\Ie aspects of Dan. 7.13. 1eaving however the important 1e.nn 0 u'•Oc; TOU avepc.lrrou. In it:; presenl I'Orm, Jn 1.5 I has been carefully integrated into its context. which shows many signs of be.ing written with constant aims and constam attention to pa.:;sages of both the Old Testament and or other Gospels, espec-ially Matthe\V. It c.oncludes the story M 1he witness of John the Daptisl and the call of the firSt disc-iples. II brin_g.;;; all these to a climax by predicting in midrnshic fOnn the constant contact between Jesus and his heavenly Fathe-r throughout his eanhly ministry. For this purpose the title 0 vi Or; roV O:v6pc.lrrou is especially appropriate. It is a Greek title. which uoquestionably refe-rs 10 Je-sus alone. It f>."lrticulatl)' refers to Jesus as a human being during his inc.arnate ministry on eanh. 11. R~~(>CC'Ij vdy. R. E. Brmm. 11re Gnsptf Auonli11g to John, vo l. I : (AB 29. lo1ldo1l: Cas11cll. 1966). p. &9: J. N. S~ulders. and B. A~ M:t.'l(in. Tltt' Gruptl AccordiiiS 10 SJ JlJhJt (BNTC. London: Bl:.dc 19<>&). p. lOS: D. Butt..-11. 111e Sm1 of .1-tfun in lht' Gmptl of John (JSNTSut) 56. Shellicld! Sheffield Academic). pp. 116- 18.

282

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem 3. 1111m3. JJ.J5

The next two Son of man sayings occur (ogether, and the second of them is c.learly another midrash: .:a'1 oU&It; dva~i~EY €lr; T<)v OOpavOv ti 1.1~ 0 iK TOO OOpo:\.'O'U tcoTo:jXir.-. 0 u'•O:; TOU O:v6pc.)trou, 0 c.lv Ev T~ oUpo:~. 10t
The easily verifiable use or scripture-in this passage. is the employrnent or Nunt. 21 .9 at Jn 3. 14 , so it is convc.nient to begin with it. Jo the \Vildemess. Moses made

a bronze serpent. and set it on a pole. so that people bitten by deadly serpents oould look at the bmnze serpent ""d live (~l]ona1, LXX Num. 21.8; <~n. 21. 9). In real lite, dte serJ>eiH was a cuh object, and Jlezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kg..~ I 8.4). In the Numbers 1tamuive, il migh1aiSl) be taket~ a.~ a magical object. La1er Jewish 1radi1ion

shows sensilivity to this issue, as already in the Wisdom of Solomon. This s.ays of the person who, being bitten. rumed to the bronze serpent oV 6ui: TO&c.:~poUIJwov io~~tTO• d:AA0. 510: anT0v nciVTW\1 own)po: (Wis. 16.7). \Ve lnlLI:il ioter that this kind of tradition \'las inherited by the Johannine community. This has helped with the comparison between Jesus and the.serpent. and has been developed in the light or the c.ommunity's beliers into v. 15: 'iva ncic; 0 monUwv Ev aUTc:;> Exn ~c.:~~v o:ic.lVIOV. What about T0v uiOv TOU avepc.lrrou? AI Jn 1.51, '"here it was preceded by ~o&, ltrac.ed il back to rvh. 26.64, \\'here the ultinuue source was Dan. 7.13. Jle1-e it is preceded b>• 0~1. This has rightly sent scholars to the major pas.~ ion prediction Mk 8.31//Lk. 9.22 (cJ: "-·It 16.21). ' vhich ah;l) ha.:; &II and T0v u'16v ToUO:vepc:.lnou. The ~·tauhean version. which has tie'i in the acrual prediction but T0v uiOv ToU O:vepc:.lrrou moved to 16.13, is in the same Matthean Ol)Uiext as Peter's conressioo and the problematic Son of l'nan sayings at Mt. 16.27-28. We ha"e seen that this passage. of Matthew was also important in the rewriting process which led to Jn 1.51 . We must inrer that this synoptic passion prediction was the sourte l)f &I T0v v'•Ov ToU O:v9pi:mou at Jn 3.14. The prediction was already a rewrinen version of a ge-nuine J>e in their description of how Moses djsplayed the bronze serpent. Its origin is to be seen in further .-nidrashic.work, using Isa. 52.13, \\•here it is said of the servant of the Lord. ~c.:~Or}nol Ka'• .S~aaO~oHcu o4lOOpo:. I have noted 1he rnidrashic:: U $e of lsa. 42.1 at J1l 1.32-34, where the c.hosen one is Israel, and the midrashic use of Jacob/Israel .at Jn 1.51. A fur1her c.oonectil)n is 10 be seen at Isa. 49.3, '"here Oo~aoOr}oopcu is used l)f the servarll. identified a.~ Israel. 6o~ci~c.:~ is also used of 0 vi6c; ToV O:v9pc:.lrrou at Jn 12.23 and 13.31-32. This is sllflicient for

283

us to have lO pul il all together: Isa. 52.13 is the origin of~QOijva• m Jn 3. 14. The n::tereoce is cle-atly h) Jesus' death. Tilis is explicit in the e-xplanation or Jesuii' use of ~Qe~ with reference to himself at Jn 12.32-33: Toiho cSE EAtytv OTJJ.I<Xi\K.)v rroi<:.:> eavch<:.;l 'liiJEAAEV cirroOvriaKuv. Thus Jn 3.14 continue.s the tmdition of Mt 16.21//r-.·tk 8.3 11/Lk. 9.22 in prcdic.ting Jesus' passion. only it does so in theological rothcr than lite.ral tenm. In Acts, the word U~QQ is used with fdhence to Jesus' asce.nsion to the right h.an-d ofGl)d (Acts 2.33; 5.3 1; e t: Urup#(.)oEv grnphy 10 previous scl'lol:ushit>.

284

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

already in the Jlaphel m Dan. 3.22; 6.24. McNa.rnara noted its use with reference to de.ath in Targum Neoliti I and mhe.r late sources. ·n is is lh)l as good a suggestion as 9?i, becm•.::e of the fate!' date oftheie sources. It is also less precise. The proposed double.sense has also been reported for the Greek U'I'Oc.l itse1L

but the passages concerned are too specialized (O illuminate normal usage. For example. Artemidorus claims that if someone dreams he. is dancing high up (U"'I'l~Oc;), he will fall ioto fear and apprehension, but if he is a c.rirninal he will be c.ruc ifie d (oTaupc:.lS~oe.TO:I) (AtteiHidorus Daldianus. Oneimc r i1o11 1,76). He also claims that i f someo1lCdreamt he was crucilied (Eot aup<3o8at), this would indicate glory (60~a) because of the high pMition of the crucitie.d

(6tci t O V¥1A6TCnov d vat t6v Eoto:up(o)I.Jhov) (IV. 49). These passages are however spec ific to the subculrure of dream intc1pretation, in which m:wy things in dreams are held ro indicate something quite.different in daily life. Such interpretations are not relevant to the normal usage of words.!II I tum now h) Jn 3.13. I have prioted above the longer •ext. in \Yhich the te-n n 6 v'•Q.; t oG CtvOpc.lrrou is qualified by •he expression 6 ilv iv t c:;> oUpcwc:;>. This is read by the majority or manuscripts, inc-luding A (with the original otnission of c:lv. reinserted by a correc•or). This puts 1he Son of man in heave.Jl even as Jesus is talking. about him here on eanh. This has c.aused endles..~ trouble to the commentators. many of whom n."g_ard the readiog as impossible rather than as the more ditlicull. : I We shall see however that it is already implied by civcxrx~nl(tV earlier in the verse. and that it makes e..'(cellent Johannine sense of a kind unwelcome to some of the c-ommentators. The other readings should be regarded as corrections of it by scribes who had the. same concerns as some of the commentators. The best a"ested is the short readin£. which simply omits 0 C::.v Ev Tc:;, oVpav4). At first sight this seems well attested. for Greek manuscripts which attest it include the apparently strong and early combination f"'!' P75 ~ ll These manlL~Cripts are hO\\'ever all Alexandrian. The shoner reading should therefore be. regarded as '' deliberate cotTection by Ale:\:andrian scribes who did not like the nan1ral sense of the text The conce-rns of the Alexandrian scribes are \\•ell illustrnted by the. two poorly .auested readi1lgs. In plac.e of 6 C:Sv Gv T~ oVpcx~. 0 141 80 syt~11' read 6 cSv iK ToU oUpavoU. This solves the perceived problem. According 10 this reading, the earthly Jesus looks back m his descent from he.aven a1 his incarnation. the eve-nt which enabled him to he the Revealer. This is perfectly Johannine, expounded progra.t\Oiatically in the prologue (Jn I. 14-18), and a.~sumed in the present context. It is too \\•eakly a"es1ed 10 be taken sel'iously a~ the original reading. 1t shows nlther that 6 c:lv iv tc:;> oUpavc;> was li.)utld to be too ditlkult by some scribes in the ancie-nt period. The other readjng is not even attested ill Greek. The 01d Latin aod some of the Syriac (cur pal) presuppose&; ~"' tv T~ oUpavc:;>. This is effectively the.same solution to the perceived problem. According to this reading too. the eanh1y Jesus 20. P. l t1mmxau. Jisus Fils d~ I'Homml' t't FiiJ de Dieu. Jtmt 1,23-3.36 tt Ia dou1J!e chri.\·to/(Jgit jolramtique (M omrCai/Pari ~: BdlannintCerf. 1993) p. 176 n. 155 addll Homer. lkiJrachomomyadtia. 81. and A r1 cmidoru~ II. 53, bu11hcsc arc 1)0 m(Jf\" 001\\'incing. 2 1. E.g. D. A Carson. Tl•e Go:.Jwl Auonlillb to John (LdeCS'.ct: IVP, 199 1). p. 203.

285

looks back to his descent from he.aven al his incarnation. the event which enabled him to be the Revealer. Accordingly, this is aJso perfec.tly Johannine. and will have satisfied the scribes responsible tOr it 11le pe.rc.eivcd proble-m with the longe-r' rcaditlg lies io Jesus' apparent referenceto his ascension as a past event. and his current presence in heaven, while he is still speaking here on eanh. This is already implied by the. usc of civa~E~flK~v earlier in this verse. In accordance with 1he classical usc of the Greek petf('(:l, this ought to mean that no one has gone up to hea\'en and is still the-re. except for the Son of man. The addition 6 ~v Ev T~ oUpavc::> then simply brings out what the text must mean in any case.. With the s.honer text in mind. but taking civa~i~T}KEV with its proper force. Burkett put the perceived problem of this verse as wrongly as. possible.: A<:oordi.ng to:. on~ view. tJ~e Sl:.tcnu•.nt an.'lchroniMically rdCN to k11u11' pos.t·t~>surtcct ioo asc~nsion. h was a slip of the Ev::mgd ist from who!IC ~rspo:•ctivc 11\C ascC1l~ion had altcady oocurcd. This explant~lion is 001 sal is f<~c1ory. since nowhere d sc. does the Evangc.lisl speal: an:.chrllnis•ic:.lly. 11 r~-quir<:s !l~e unfiJ:<:iy h)'()()ll\<:sis 11'131 11'1~ E\'angdi:u. writ~'!! from J.::sus· f'l\'I'Spcclivc in l.t-12. abntpdy shifts. to his own ~rsp.."'Cti vc in J. ll, thm tewns to Jesus· perspective in 3.14.:.:

Here. even the use of lhe word 'anachronistically' is anachronistic. It firstly presupposes that the evangelist could not possibly write from the perspective of line first-c.entury Ephe~~ u s and attribute his word~t 10 JCSlL~t. placed in a historical seuing during the historic ministry. Ye.t this was a normal habi1 in the culture fro m which the Johanoine COtlununity eme.rgcd. For ex:unple. Jubilees 50 presents thesabbath lwlakhah of i1s orthodox community= including prohibitions. of sex and of war, which were not part of the. normati\'e lwlakJurh of the Jewish comthunily. It presen L~ these prohibi1ions together with s1andard ones as if all \Vere. delivered to to.·Joses on Mt Sinai. We may feel this is anachronistic., but they behaved oth ef\\~se. Accordingly, eve-n the dc-::~cription 'att.achronistically' is prejudicial, :o.ince il sounds as if the authors have done something wn)ng. The te-n u 'slip' is equally prejudicial, since. it too presupposes that the e"angelist has unintentionally done something which even he would re.gard as. unfonunate. Most ceturally. the omion lhat ·nowhere else doe-~~ the Evangelist speak anachronislicany• is compte.tel)' incon~ct if we accept Durkeu•s use or the tenn ·anachronisticany•, and with this Durkctf s auribution h) hirn of abrupt shi fts in perspective is inaccurate. The perspective of the whole chapter, and indeed the. whole documcn1, is that of the Johannifle c.omrnunity in late first-celltury Ephesus. written within the-historical framework M Je-$us' min i stry. ~$ h begins wilh a visit 22.

Burkett. S<m ofMan in John, ~). 82. 23. For the. chapter a.<; un inte-nded unity. SC'C D. RensbergC'.r. Ovtrr
286

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

fi'om Nic-Odemus, a character abseot frt)tn the synoptic Gospels. Jesus' expositioo

begins with the -concept of rebirth. a Hellenistic conc.ept which is not found in the Judaism of this period. This is used to rewrite the teaching of Jesus about the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God has aJmost been written oul of the Fom1h Gospel. We.have seen ooe of its proble-ms at Mk 9. 1, where w me of those present \\rould not see deatl1

until they had seen the kingdom of God come in power, a prophecy rewritten to include the c.oming of the-SI.)Oof m:ul at tvlt 16.28. TI1is event had still not occurred

when members of the Johannine community comp1e.ted their Gospel. We have seen some-of the rewriting caused by tl1is and otl1er synoptic text$ a1 Jn 1.51. In this text, the parousia of lhe Son of man has been midrashically replaced with symbolic comment on the c.ontact between the. Son of man and hem•en.:• At Jn 3.3, funher rewriting has made.seeiog the kingdom of God dependent oo being bom again/ frol'n above (dVG.)8w). '''hich \\1a.:; perceived to take place at Christian baptism. This is fhrther clarilied at Jn 3.5. where 'entering' the kingdom of God is depcndcmt t)tl being born of water and the Spirit There :.\re. synoptic Son of man sayings in which ·e.nte1ing·the kingdo1n of Gl)d is presented as a future e'·ent, a.tld a1 least some of thern can readily be. interpreted C!"$Chatologically,jlL'lt like Mk 9.1 and l\•h. 16.28: see M1. 5.20; 7.21; 18.3; M t 19.23-24HMk 10.23-251/Lk. 18.24-25; M k 9 .47. ct: M I. 18.9: Mk 10.151/lk. 18.1 7. TI1is evidently constituted a problem for dte Johannine c-ommunity. Tite majority of t.he$e sayings use some I"Orm of EloiAOu v. and c.an readily be imerpreted of the single. moment of entering the kingdom when it is established at the.last day. Those which use the future can be inte.rpreted in tJ1e same way. The closest h) Jn 3.5 are Mt. 18.3 and Mk 10.15//lk. 18. 17. llmh have the concept of becoming like. a c-hild. which could be rewritten as rebinh, introduced with Nicodemus• quest..ion at Jn 3.4. Both ha,·e a d ear negative with 6loiAOt IV, used of not entering the. kingdon1if a condition of entry is not fulfilled. Both beg.i1l cil.tflV "Myc.l. for which cipi)V ci:IJflV )..{yc.l is the c.onventional Johannine rewrite. t'>'ll. 18.3 has the pre.c.ise conditional introduction EO:v J.H}, and the form yivl)o8f. which is Lhe more readily rewritten with ytvv1}9fi, sinc.e il C.t)uld be interpreted as 'be. borr1' as well a.~ 'bocoll\e'. tvlk 10.15//Lk. 18.17 is expressed in the third person., and has lhe precise form n)v ~ao1AEtav ToG &oU. We must conclude. that these sayings provide us with the. tradition which the Johannine community have rewritten. From their perspective, they have solved the pn)blen\s posed b)' the perc.eption that Jesus' pl\.'·diction.s about the. C01t1ing of the kingdom had not bee1l fulfilled. They have I'CI'noved the unwelc.on1e tifne element io the concepts of•seeing· and ·e.Jllering• the kingdom of God, and made both of them dependent on Christian baptism interpreted as beiog hom again from above. It follows that the opening part of the discourse is not written from anything like the perspective of Jesus: it is written from the perspective of the Johannine community. The discourse contioues with Je$uS' exposition or re.birth through the Spirit. Nicodemus has one final \VOrd 10 ask the uncomprehe.oding question, n&; 6UvaTc.:t "24.

Sec Pt). 277- 8t 3bovt.

287

To:UTa y~:viatla• ; Jesus ~plies to hirn per.oonally, addressing him in the .singular. El 0 6•6cioKa:Aoc; ToU'lopa-.lAKo:l Ta:VTa: oU ywc.lm:~•c;; This is profOUJldly ironical, for no •e-.acher or Israel kne-w about the Ilellenistic. coocept of re-birth used in the re.interpretation of Christian baptism. There is no further me.ntion of Nicodemus in this diseourse, which clarifies the tact that the discourse does llOt come from the minis1ry of Jesus. This is made even cleare.r as Jesus proceeds to shift fro m addre..ssing Nicodemus in the singular to address people in the plural: o~~v ci~ulv iy(.,) 001 IJO:p rupla v ~IJ~V

c;,.. 0 oiOO~~v Ao:hoU;u v Ka t 0 ((.)pcixa ~v ~o:prupoiiiJlV. Ko:l n\v

oU haiJ!l&vnl (Jn 3.11).

The-people addres..~ed are evidently the Jewish community, aod Je-sus· use of oi'Sa~w and {U>p-ciKO:J.JtVprepares the way for the presentation of him as the ReveaJer who reveals what he knows because he is fro m heaven. This is c-arried further in the following verse: •• , , ' ~ .... · - · · ' U•TO : myn a u9 nov \lj.IIV l"O:l,0\.1 fTIOTEUET€. nLo:l t; HW U ti(..) UIJ!V TO ~1i0Vpo;Vl 0: 1i

' 'n: IOTrUOE

This prepares for the prese-ntation of Jesus in Jn 3.13 as the only persoo fit h) reveal Tci: i rroupciv1a. for he alone has come from heave.n. There. is therefore no question of illl abrupt shill from Je-~~us' perSpective to the evaogelisfs perspective at 3.13: the pe.rspec.tive of the Johannine community has bee-n presented aJI along. and the pronouncement of 3. I3 has i>.'
288

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

aic.lvlov· 0 00 cim10~v

T~ ui4l oVK ~f,lncu ~t.ll)v, ci),'A •~ Opyi)

ToG &oU p(vu irr'

o.\m)v (3.35-36). This fu ll Christian witness is also the pe-rspective of the Johamtine

community. It folh)ws that 1Hany scholars, represented in the above quotation from Burkett, have C01Hpletel)' misconstrued the oature ofthis discourse. h is a prese-ntation oflhe pe-rspe-Ctive-of the Johannine community from beginning to end. In this pn)found sense, Ju 3.13 fiL~ into its context perfectly. when that conte-xt is properly appreciated. I therefOre proceed to more-de-tailed exegesis of Jn 3.13 aod its background io the C.Ollfl ict between the Johannine community and the Jewish comn1unit)'.

The ve.rse begins with the very strong smtenle-nt that 1!0-0ilt-has gone up to heaven

except for the Son of man. Scholars have naturally thought of Enoch and other sages who were widely believed to have gone up to he-aven and indeed to slill be there. So for example the book of Jubil~-s tells us that Enoch was with the.angels of God for six jubilees of ye-ars. 11ley showed hirn everylhing, and he wrote dow'fl e-.\'erythiog (Jub. 4.2 1-22}. I En. 14 has a graphic ac.counl of Enoch's ascenl to heaven, whe1'e he sees God. At I En. S1.5, a lle-r receiving re-velations, Enoch is brouglu to his house by the seve,n holy ones. and subseque-ntly he writes his revelations for 1\.·Jethuse.lah to preserve and pass l) l\ lo future generations. He is the central IX:\'e.latory figure in the whole of I Enoch, and at I En. 7 1 he is fi nally translated pe.nnanently h) heaven. Scholars have accordingly been right to associate- with the de.nial of Jn 3.13 the repeated comments, already noted above. that no one. has seen God. The prologue put it programmatically: 9£0v oUO~Ic; Ec.lpcuav rrc.lrron · povoywiJc; &Oc; 0 <3v tic; T0v K0Anov ToU na Tpb; i~«lvO'; E~rwr)ocno. Putting this aJI loge.ther. we have a very strong commitment to Je.10us as the only Reveale.r. He has seen God, he c.ame.down from heaven. and he has ascended to heaven and he is still there. No one else has done so. The re,·elarions of Enoch and other sages are not however likely to have been a conspicuous threat to the. Johannine community. A minority of scholars have accordingly been righl to look further at ch.ariot mysticism.ZJ The foundational ch.apter for chariot mysticism was Ezek.l. We have. known for a long time thm this was meditated on during the rabbinical pe1iod, and that people who meditated on it we.re thought to have gone up to heaven, and oome down again wiLh re.velations. This was a dangen)uS rroc-es..~:;. Orthodox rabbis like R. Aqiba might J;;l) up and c.ome down safe. and sound. When Elisha ben Abuya ascended and saw Meratron, howe.ver. he thought that there. might be t\ltO po\Vers in he-a,'e-n (b. l.tag 15//J E11. 16). He became

apostate. his revelations as serious a danger to Judaism as could be. We. now know fro m the De-ad Sea scrolls that this chariot mysticism did not begin in the rabbinical period. It ' "as a continuous 1radition from the time of Ezekie.l omvards, and passages such as the ascent of Enoc.h in J E11ach 14 were written in light of it.16 '25. See csp..-- dally J. J. Kag_snaraj, 'M)•stirism' iJtlht' Gospd of JoJw. All !11qt1iry iJ1to its lklckgmllml (JSNTSup 158. Shd ticld: Sheffield Ac:td~~nlic. t99&). 26. for :1summaty of rdcv:uu Oc:t\1 Sea lll:lll'l'ial. S(C J. R. Dsvils, 'The Dead Set~ Scrolls :11\d Mcli:;wah My:;1id sm', in T. H. Lim 1"1 ul. (cd~), Tht' !kad Sra Snv/l.f ;.., Tlteir Hist
289 We must infer that there were chariot mystics in theJewishcommunity at Ephesus. The.Jewishcommunity believed that they had gone up to heaven. had seen God. and had come down again w'ilh revelations. h fl)IJows from the strengll1 of the Johannine denials that these re.velations were most unwelcome to the. Johannine. community. This is not dillicult to envisage. The chariot mysti<:"~c: we.re faithful mernben: of the Jewish community. Accordingly they will not have seen Jesus m the right hand of God, or preparing places for the members of the Johannine c.ommunity. Possible revelations would be that he was a false prophet, and that his supposed deiry wa~ a blasphemous violation of the oneness of God. Such revelations are the only kind of reason which could cause the Johannine community to produce such strong denials of any means of revelation except through Jesus. This also explains the orde.r of evems in Jn 3. 13. Sages such as Enoch. and chariot mystics alike. had to go up to heaven from earth before they could come back "'itll re.velatious of heavenly thiogs. l ienee the tirst poi1H of the denial is that no one. has gone up to heaven. This de-nies the reality of chariot mystic.ism. and with it the stories of Enoch and others. This is sullicieut to exclude the possibility that anyone could have come down with revelations of heavenly things. We are then given the exception, the Son of man who came down fro m heaven. This is a reference back to the incarnation. which was expounded programmatic.ally in lhe. prologue. ending with the posilion of Jesus as the only Reve:.ller. His heavenly origin is explicit again tor e-xample at 3.3 1-32, where he who is from heavet1 be.arS witne-s..~ to what he has se.en and heard; like\!Jise at 8.23. Je.sus declares iyW iK T~V a\1(.) ~i iJi. He aJso refers to the glory which he had with God rrpO toV T0v kOOIJOV ~iva. (Jn 17.5). We shall se-e that he uses KO:to~cxivw of his descent from heaven again in Ch. 6. When this frame of reference is taken seriously. Jesus' position as the one \Vho desce.uded from heaven i1l the incarnation and who is the Revealer c.an be seen 10 permc.ate the whole Gospel. Sigoificaut passages include the irnmediatel)' Ji.)lh)\\'iug piece. in which God ·gave' and 'sent' his 'onlybe-gotten Son', an event alternatively described as the light c.oming into the world (Jn3. 16.17, 19).

We can now see the. fundamemallmponance. of the longer text of this verse to the authors of this document In Freed's tenn.c:, 6 uiOc; ToU O:vGpc.lrrou. 0 ilv iv t4l oVpa~ (Jn 3.13) is anod1er way ofsayillg ~ovoyrvr)c; 9~0:;- 0 t.lv ~lc; T0v K0Arrov ToU rratpOt; (Jn 1. 18). In fact the two statements are not the same. but they are\'CI)' closely related. Both present Jesus a.~ having returned to his position in heaven with God the Father. the JX>Sition which enabled him to descend to eanh as the.only \'alid Revealcr. Tile importaote.M Jesus' rerum to the Father is stres:>ed elsewhere in thjs document. Narrnth·ely, it comes towards the end of the original document, where Jesus te.lls tv1ary Magdalene h) SlOp holdiog on to him (Jn 20.17, cr. tvh. 28.9): o\i rr(o) ycip O-vaf3i~qKa rrpOc; T0v rraripa · rrop~Uou Oi rrpOc; ToUt; ao~A¢100<; JJOU Kal ~lnE aUtolc;, 'Ava~alvw rrpOc; T0v rraTipcx pou Kal no TEpa UpC:.v Kal &Ov ~ou Ka·, o~Ov U~c;)v. We shall see .le~us• return prc~.;ented in another Son of man staternent at Jn 6.62-63: EcXv oVv o~wpfin tOv utOv TOU ci:vepc.lrrou Ovo~atvovto Orrou l)v TO npOnpov, TO nv~U~ci ioTlVTO ~c.;>ono•oiJv.

290

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Jesus' ret\Jm 10 the Father also pen·ueates the l'i nal discourses. h is S4>metimes stated strrugtuforwardly: vUv ¢£ Unciyc:.l rrpO:; rOv ni~I.J.'o:vTC( ~n (Jn 16.5). II iovolves more complex presentation of the Johann in e community's experie1lCe of God, iuclodi•l g his continued re.\ 1elations to therH. God's presence may be.pn::-sented as Jesus' continued pre.'lence with them. as at 14. I 8: OUiri: ci¢ulo(o) U~Cit; 6p$avoU<;, ipXOiiO:I rrp6<; \IIJti~. Equally, it may be. presented as the presence of both Je.sus and the Father, as at 14.23: 'Eciv Tic; Oyo:n~ ~6- rOv AOyov J.IOU r qpr}oE1, .:o:i 0 rro:nlp IJOU ciyo:rrr)oE1 alm)v, ko:'• npOt;- o\m)v EAEuoO~t:Oet Ko:l IJOV~V nap' o:Un~ norno01Jt0a. Most corrunonly in the final discourses, this is presented as the work or the Parad ete. The first presentation of this is at Jn 14. 16- I 7: Kciy~ ipwn)o(,) T0v ncnipa Kal ciAAov rrapO:KATJTOV &.loE• U~lv 'tva ~Ee· VJJC:iv sle; tOv aiC>va fl, tO nvsli)Jcx tijc; .' EyW niv ciA~eua:v Aiy<.l Uplv, ou~.J$Epu U~.tiv 'Iva: iy~ cirriASt.>. ici:v yOp 1.1~ cirriAO(.), 0 rrapciKAl)toc; oUK iAnjoetal rrpOt; U1..uic;· (civ Oi. rroptve~. nE)J~(.) a\m)v rrpOc; UIJ.cic;. AcentraJ fac.et of the role of the Parac1ete is his teaching function. This is clearly presented a1 Jn 14.26. where he. is also described as tO nvEli)Jo: tO ' (avToU, ciAA' Ooa ci:KoUo~• AaA~ou. Ka'• Tci: ipxO~.Jwa civcxyyEXEl U~iv. The immediately following_ comments attribute aJI this new material to both the Father and to Jesus himself, speaking, asat3. J3. from within the narrative framework of this hjstoric minislf)': iKEivo:-;; i~~ .S~ciO~I. Otl iK toU i~.toU x~~~HCXI )(0:.1 civamA~i UJ,Jlv. ncivta Ooa Exs• 0 nati)p (~ci EoT•v· 61cX toUTo El rrov OT• iK TOO E~oU Ao:~~civst Kat civo:yysAEl UJ,Jtv (Jn 16.14-15). This legitimates new material via the Holy Spirit via Jesus to God himself. Christolog.icaJ development. which is such a notable feature of this document is included here. As well as iKtlvo:-;; ~J.I~ Oo~ciou at 16. 14, 1he commuuit)' declares 111 15.26, i KEt V<X; po:prup~OE-1 mp1 E~-toU. ! l We can now put the long text of 3.13 in iLo; proper place. as part of an e:tposition characteristic of the Johannine community and necessary to its being. The position of the Son of man in heaven. where he was before. is essential to his position as the only Re.vealer. Through the incarnation. when he became 0 iK toU oUpavoU KaTafkit;. he alone became the Revealer of Tci: i.noupciv1a. This process of revelation continues in the church. Now in heaven, he remains the Revealer. a role 21. On 1h~ Parncl\'lt, sc~ furlhcr Ca~y. Is Joh11's Gosptl Tr.tc?, pp. 151-4. wilh bibliogmphy.

291

which he plays fro m his position ~ic; T0v K0Arrov ToU rro:Tpcil;. This process may be perceived as c-.arried out through the Parnd ete. the Holy Spirit. who remains Gl)d in action, io accordance with Jewish traditioo. 1l requjred Jesus' death and his ascension. both referred to in Jn 3.14 as his exa.lt.nion. As a result of this. e\'eryone who believes in him has e.teroal life (3.15).

From n Johannine perspective. the term 6 u'1 6t; ToU O:utlp(o)nou was perfectly in order at 3. 13 as well a.:; 3. 14. At 3.14, it rel'ers to Jesus• demh, a characteristically humM experience not s hared by heaveoly beings. At 3.13, it refeno to Jesus' incamation, for \!Jhich his hUinanity ' "as essential. h also tits •he strong denials.

since it was human beings who were believed by some Jews to have gone up to heaven and c-
4. .ltJ!m5.17

The next saying is the only Son of man saying in all the Gospe-ls to be used without the definite articles:

The absence of the article-S has caused a great deal of controversy. Some of this c-Ontroversy horrot~l) as the Father does (Ju 5.2 1). There follo ws a signilicant parallel to 5.27, but with 1he nlajor Johannine-Iitle- 'tl1e- Soo' ruther than Son of man: cUeS~ yd:p 0 rrcxti)p KplvH oUcSi va , OAAd T~v Kplatv rrOoav 6i&,.)KU' T~ v'14), 'lvo: rrci\YTtc; niJ&I rOv u'u)v Ka9c..)c; TI)Jc:lot T0v rraTipcx (Jn 5.22·23). This theme ofjudgeme-•H J\.'Curs throughout ahe Go:,.pel. It is an eiTect of the ministry of Jesus. which splits ahe world into those \\'ho beliC\'e and do M l come h) judgement.

292

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

aod t hos~ who do not believe a.tld hence ba\'t' already been judged (Jn 3. IS). This transn1uh~d e-schatology follows in~ nl ediately at Jn 5.24, \Vhere t1lC- believer already ha.'> eremal li iC aJld does not come to judgeme-nt. but has passed from death h) life. This is amplified ;,, 1he in-unediately following verses. witll 1he Son having li fe in himself as a resuh M the Father's g ift. It is this \Vhich leads h) the crucial verse, in which the Fmher has given him (sc. the SOl)) po,ver It) exercise judgement, On u'u)c;- O:vOpc.lnou i OTlv. These '''o rds e-xplain why judgement is exercised by the

Son rather than by the Father himself. That is because he is a man. There is a partial parallel at T.Abr. XIII, '''here God, in delegating the function of Judgement to Abe.l, c.onunen L~t : 'I will 001 judge you, but every man shall be judged by a man. • The specificall>' .lohanoine c.onte::L'lmem ·. JBL 52 ( t9Jll. pp. 12-21. dling 1hjs cx.:.mplc Oil p. 14.

293

alw the case with the openiog of the massive picrure of the final j udgement at Mt. 25.3 1. We ha,'e be-en he-re befi)re! We ha,'e seen dl:tt t>.·h. 16.27-28 was central to thecomplex of passages which \\'ere rewriucn to f(mn .In 1.51, and that it belongs to the

same context as the passion prediction whkh was rewritten to form Jn 3. 14 .~1 Mt. 25.3 1 is aoobviously related paliSage. We must infer that these passages \Vere also

fom1ative iJl the origin of Jn 5.27. Both these passages and f\'(k 8.38, the souroe ofM t. 16.27, have 1he collocation of 'Son or rnao' and ·comill£.' which reveals midra..,hic. use of Dan. 7 .13. l11e Johanuine c-onununity's knowledge of the scriptures, as revealed in 1he-ir Gospel,

was so extensiw and profound that they must have been aware of this use. of Dan. 7.13. Mon.""'ver, onc.c \\'e koow that the authors had in mind the renn 0 u'1 6t; TOU a vepc.lnou. whic.h they themse1ves used in no less than twelve Son of man sayings, we need a particular reason for them not to have used the articles in this saying. It is om sullicient that the result 111akes e-xc.ellent sense. both linguistically and theologic.aJiy. We. must accordingly infer that the absence. of the a11ides in this passage is due-to their aware.nes.s of Dan. 7 .1 3. Equally, howe\·er, the atithors have not dnhl!n auentiott to Dan. 7.13 when they C.l)uld easily have d011e so, much as 1hey did draw the aue.ntion of those learned in l11e-scriptures to Gen. 28.12 (Jn I.51) and Num. 2 1.8-9 (Jn 3.14). \Ve should inter that, like Mauhew and Matk. they held the westem Christian iute.rpre-tation of DM. 7. 13 as a prediction of the sec.ood coming of Jesus on the clouds of heaven. They did not howeve.r wish to draw attemion to this, because of the trouble caw~ed by predictions which had nOL been fulfilled. We must also infer that 1his saying. ' "as wriuen in Greek. It is part of a Greek document whic.h shows no signs of having bee-n written in Aramaic., and has some. clear indications thal it was originally writte-n in Greek.ro In itself, it has parlly resuhed from c-areful study of synoptic sayings in lheir Greek form, and of the foundatiou.al te.:<( Dao. 7.13. probably in Greek form too. It is accordingly ir01tical that. as far as it goes. it makes perfec.dy good sense in Aramaic. The following rec.onstn lc.tion may be suggested:

In it~ present conte-xt in this discourse-, this saying rnakes sound sense, not seriously diffe.retH from the Greek or Jn 5.27. Moreover. it does require this C-01\texl to rna.ke good sense. Since thediscourse itselfdoes not lend itself to an Aramaic reconstruction as a whole. and makes perfect sense.in Greek, we.should infer lhat this Aramaic does not repres:ent an original source-. It is not however an ama-zing coincidence-. There were bilingual people in the c.ommunity. and people who read the. scriptures in the original languages. 'The te-Xt goes back ultimately to an Aramaic scripture whic-.h uses IYJK 1~, and the-re will have been poople in the C.01n1nunity who knew that this was an ordinary tenn fOr ' 1Han'. Some such pOOjJie '"'·ere involved in the writing of this discourse. and the.y will have suffered fro m interference.both from Aramaic. and 29. 30.

Se-e t>t). 217- 81. 282- 3 aboV<:. Ca~y. /r )t}hJt 'r GnsJWI Tmt?. pp. 87-9?.

294

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

fro m biblical lext.s. These facwrs have all combined to enable them to write vi~ O:vepc..lrrou without anicles as n deliber.~te refe-renc.e to the hum:.mity of Jesus. The following conclusions should therefore be dmwn. The e-xpression v'u)c; O:v6pc:.)rrou at Jn 5.27 refers particularly to the lrurt\anity or the incarnate.Jes-us, as 0 u'•tX: roG avepc.lnou dl)CS elsewhere. In the context. we ha ve already betll told that the Father has given all judgeme nt to the Soo. Jn 5.2 7 explair1s that this is bec.ause

he is a human being as well as God. whose eanhly ministry was dec.isive in bringing salvation andj udgeme1n. The abs.e-occ l)fthe articles makes no sigoilkant diiTerenc.e to the interpremtion M this verse-. It \\'as due ultimately to rec.ognizing the inl1uenc.e o f Dan. 7 .13 at M L 16.27 and elsewhere, but the ;ruthors were not delibe1c:ttely using

this text in order to make a point

.S. Jahn6. 27..S3.62

The next three Son of man sayings aU belong to the. same disoours:e. This takes off fro m rewriucn "ersions or the synoptic stori~ o f the feeding or the 5,000 and M Jesus walkiog on the se-a (ML 14. I 3-33//Mk 6.32-52. cf. Lk. 9. 1Ob-17, Mk 8. 1-21 ). Aus ha;; shown that Ihe walkiog on the sea is a tnidrash, inspired by Exod. 14-1 5 and olher biblicaJ texts.J1 The lh."'"diug l)f the 5.000 is a midrash on Exod. 16 and other te.xK T he Johanoine discourse.is aiSl) a m idrash on Exod. 16 a nd other texts:': Pss 778 are among other texts which ha ve been used in the creatjon M both 1he tvlar<."afl stories aod the Johamline discourse. It foll ows that the JohMnioe conlll'lwlity knew not only M L 14. 13-33//r-.·tk 6.32-52, they also kne\lt the Old Te-s.tameru texts which had been used in writing them. They have expanded the story with funher texts. For example. at the end of the feeding story. people say o\ir 6c; ionv ci~110~ 0 rrpo4lr}TI)C; 0 i pxOJ.tE\10.'; Eic; T0v K00)Jov (Jn 6. 14). refe-rring to the. prophe t like Moses promised by God at Deut. 18 .15-19. The discoorse contains a SCI'ip(unll q uotation prilllilrily fi'Oill lsa. 54.13: Kal EoovTa l neivn<; ¢ •¢aKTOl esoU (Jn 6. 45 ).'~ Tile ope.oing of I sa. 55 has the kind of metaphorical re fere.nces to eating.

thirst. bread and wine whic.h seem to have helped to inspire the opening of Lhis Johannine discourse. Simif;)f metaphorical expressions are found with reference. to Wisdom, an impotlant being influential in tl1e creation of Johamline Christology in genetal. Fol' example,
drink of the wine which she has mixed. R. D. Aus. 'Caug/11 in tilt' Acl', U~lking on thr Se. 67- 77. J I.

(AIIt~nt:l !

295

l11e discOtlrse reaches it$ climax \Vilh the inle-rpretation and si_g.nilkance of the Johannine Eucharist. Unfortunately. even reference to lhe Eucharist hns been denied in a tradition M Protestant scholarship imbued with Prote-stant rejectil)n or the Catholic Eucharist. h is the.refore necessary to c.onsider the reasons why a Eucharistic interpretation of this chapter should be followed. At the Last Supper. Jesus of Nazareth interpreted bread and wine as his body and blood. thereby looking forward to his atoning death. His disciples mok part in this meal. eating the bread and drinking the wine which Jesus interpreted. An accoum of this meal is presef\'ed from an eyewitne-ss account in the Gospel or f>.·la1'k. h is incomplete. but perfectly accumte a~ far as it goes ..-.. lt include-s Jc-~~us' use Mthe tenn 6 uicX ToU O:v6pc:.)rrou, at rvtk 14.2 1. TI1is is used tw'ic-e with refere11C·Cto Jes-us' forth-corning bNrayal. which is also predicted a1 Jn 6.64,71. using the-sarne verb. rrapatii&..;)IJL The genuine. prediction of his betrnyal at Mk 14.21 also refers to sc-ripture. The-equally genuine predictio11 Mk 14.18 also uses rropatii&.)IJI, and shows 1ha1 Ps. 41 .10 was a.noog the scriptures which Jesus h.ad in mind.H Jesus quotes this verse and predicts its fonhc.oming fultihnent at Jn 13. I8. adding a prediction \Vith the vel'b rrapo:tii6w1.u at Jn 13.2 1. The Marean account was somewhat rewritten by Matthew. He retained the inteqwetatil)O of the bread and wine a.:o Jesus' body and blood, 1he-e.ating and drinking of lhe bread and wine. the predictions \Vhich use rrapatiiliWIJI. and the. double use of the expression 6 uiOc; ToU O:vepc:.)rrou. Neither Mark nor Matthew rec.ords that Jesus instituted the. Eucharist. He does not do so in John either. A very strong connection bet\\'een the-last Supper and the ' Lord•s Supper' was made by St Paul. He was trying to control riotous Corinthian meals.. from which we must infer that the Corinthian Christians were meeting for common meals already. and that Paul expected them to do this. Luke records common meals among Jewish Christianl! in the \'e-ry earlie-st period (Act':> 2.42,46). making no connection with tllCLast Supper or l he. Eucharist. We should therefore infer that the.connection between the Lt::ot Supper and the 'lord's Supper' was the wotk or St Paul. In rewriting relevant aspe.cis of the story al I Cor. 11.23-25, he omits re ference to the Passover, so that there is no need to imagine. the event as an annual one, or the bread be.ing unleavened. lie retains one central point, the interpremtion of the bread as Jesus· body. Paul also adds 1he first rubric., niiTo rro1Eln Elr; n)v E~-t-.lv civciJJvnotv. The. refC:rence 10 Jes-us• blood is still IOuod in the interprelatioo of the cup. but altered somewhat to make it more. fruitful to the. new sin1ation: ToUTo T<) noT~~H0\1 ~ KO:tv~ ti•a9r)Kfl ioTlv iv Ti;l EJJ~ cx'IJJO:TI . The command to repe.at the rite is even more. carefully focused than before. since it has 6oci11ac; idv rriVT}n. pushing all fellowship n1eals into the. Pauline frame of reference. We are not told how often these meals we.re to take place, but they were d early meant to be part of the normal framework of the Christian 1ife. Some further informatio n is available from I Cor. 10.16- 17: TO rronlp•ov T~c; tUAoyio~ 0 EVJ,.oyoUp[V, oVxl Ko1vwvio: EoTiv ToU o'ipaToc; ToU 34. 35.

Clsc:y. ..\mmaic Souft't'.r ofMarkSGo.rpt.o/, Ch. 6. S~ 1,1,· IJ.I--6above.

296

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

XplotoU; tOv
i:onv; Ot•

l'tlakes it dear thai the Eucharist was an establishe-d conununity eveot. It stresses

very sHongly the sign ifieat~ce of the Eucharist as a co.-rununity fellowship event, and it does not make sense unless this event was reasonably frequent in the comltlunity's life. This epistle- was written by Paul and Sosthenes c.54 CE. This is the latest possible dat~- ll)r the Pauli1le eucharist beiog. an established co,nmuni[y event h included interpretation of the bre.ad and wine with reference to the body and blood of the l ord Jesus, and a rubric. for it h) be a repeated eve-1lt. 1l was wriuen from Ephesus ( I Cor. 16.8), during Paul's lengthy l'uiniStl)' there. Luke has this ministry last more than two years. and to be lhe centre of a generally successful ministry in Asia (Act;; 19.8, 10). This is natural in view of the position of Ephe.~us as the out.:;tauding metropolis in ll1e Rl)man provinc.e of Asia. h follows that. by c.SS CE at the latest, Eucharistic worship was a nonnal part of Ephesian Christianily. It must have included interpretation of the bread and wine with referenc.e to the body and blood of the lord Jesus. This was a whole generntion before the composition of the Gospel attributed to John. During this period. the Christian community h.ad every reason to continue with its Eucharistic cele.bmtions, because they were important community events which ~ i nfi>rc.ed the cornll'lmlity's identi(y. The uamre of this document a~ a whole, however, suggests that they might well rewrite their thought.; about it creatively. Accordingly, the historical situation behind this document is one in which the Eu<:-harist had been c.ele-brated c-Ontinuously fl)r more titan a ge-ne-ration. It is in this light that the language of Jn 6 must be interpreted. For lhis reason. some people are. bound to have begun to think of the. Eucharist fairly early on in the.discourse. perhaps even as early as the feeding narrative. Jesus describes himself as the bread of God already at v. 33. and as the bread of life at v. 35. Sinc-e the Eucharistic bread w·as regularly interpre-ted ar; his body at a rnajor community event. some people will have thought of the Eucharist :.dre.ady even the (irstlime they heard the discourse. r-.•tore will have dl)ne so whe-n the)' had become thrtliliar with the cruc.ial vetses later in the discourse. At v. 5 I, the bread which Jesus gives, whic-h he has already de-fined as himself. and which one ean ea1. is further de$Cribed as ·my Uesh•. By this stage, evetyooe \\tho attended the EuC-harist at all fi"equemly w·a s bound to think oflhe Euc-haristic bread, alwa)'S imerpreted as Jesus' body. At v. 52. ' the Je\\1S' ask ht)\V he can give them his llesh h) e.at. The que-stion does not receive a literal answer. which c.orreclly rellec1s the l~lCI Ihat eve.ryone in the Johannine-c.onununity will by this stage have koow·n tlle anS\1/er: in the Eucharist. It also ~lleCL.:;, the perfeclly COI'TOCt delineation of ' the Jews' as the poo1>le \\'ho did nt)t know this: the Je.wish community did not accept the Johannine Eucharist.

297

Accordingly. the anS\\ter ac-tually £iven to this question includes very S-trong intensificat ion of the Eucharistic imagery. At ''· 53, anyooe wlh) does no t eat tllt~­ Sou of rnan 's fl esh and drink his blood, has no li Je in them: correspondingly at v. 54. he who e.ats Jesus· Uesh and drinks his bh)t)(Jbas e.temal li fe. and Jesus ,~,~j JI raise.

him up at the last day. This very strong imagery, especially that of drinking blood, reflects the con,ll'llulity's C.01Hplete security with its own Eucharistic imagery. This

in rum reJlccg the Jeogthy period during which the Eucharist had beeo an impormnt and fneitful repeated C\'CIU in the Johanoine C.OI't un uuity's life. Moroover. the whole

idea of drinking blood is in general so revolting to aJI decent people. that it has no other Sit~ im Lebtm. 11 is only because the Eucharist is in mind that such a strong expression could be used. It is also a boundary market lWtt against the Jewish community. Je,,~sb people drain blood from meat in obedience to the biblical injunctions not to eat blood. TI1e requirement that they should driok blood, eve.n syrnbolicall>·· shows that the Eucharist has been re\\'riuen 10 be om~tlSi \'e to 'the Jews•, as well as fruitiUI for the. Johannine community. II is therefore .appropriate that alier furtllcr discussiof), iududing fUrther references to the great signiricance of eatjng Jesus' 1lesh and dtinking his blood, maoy or his dis<:iples iu •he capemaum synagogue ded are this unacceptable. and after some funher discussion. they leave (Jn 6.59-M).

These argumeots should be re-gatded as decisive. The \\thole of John 6 is directed at the imagery of the Johannine Eucharist Many Protestant scholars have. argued o•herwi.se. I ha, e refuted the main argunll!"tHS of the nlOSt itllportant secondM)' literature elsewhere}r. and I do not repeat them here. With the background of 1he .fl)hannine Euch ari~t in mind, I tum to the three Son or 111an sayings, beginniog with 1

Jn 6.27:

ipyci~toEif ~ -r!lv j)pilotv -r!lv Ono>.Xv]JiU't}v ci:)..XO: Tl)v ~pWoiV 11\v ~{vouoov t:it; ~w!lv oi(.)vtov, ~v 0 u!Oc; ToU Ov6pWnou \.t;.tiv &lou· ToiiTov ycXp 0 ncnrip iGtpciytOJ:v.

The saying begins with n)v ~pc:lotv T~V cirroAAv!JiVrjV, which people are. not to Wt)l'k for. In its context, this refers to any nonnal food, includirtg the loaves and fishe-~o; iJl the feeding of t1te 5,000, referred 10 in the pre\•iow; verse. Tite. mentil)ll of food which perishes also prepares the way for disc.ussion of the manna in the. wilderness. It is cootrnsted with the lllain the.ll\e of the discourse, n1v ~pi:.ou.1 T~V pivouoav ei<; ~(.;)l)v aic..)v•ov, ilv 0 uiOc; ToU Ovepc..)rrou U~iv OWo~• . lt is narural that, in the namuive context. the audienc.e do not undersmnd what Jesus means. For those who do. it begins an e:\:posilion which reaches its climax in the Eucharist This is n1v ~pi)olv nlv ~Evouocw eic; ~w~v aic.lvtov. This food remains (n)v pivouoav) rathe-r than perishes~ the permane.nt Johannine Eucltarist providing a contrast with perishable. food. This food also leads to eternal life, for Johannine. Christians who pe-rceived the nature of the Eucharist had already passed from deatJ1 It) life. and Je.su;. would raise the-ll'l up at the-laS'L day (cf. e-.g. .lo 5.24: 6.40). This

36.

Ca~y.

/r )t}hJt S GnsJWI Tnlt?. pp. 46- 5 I.

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

298

food also remajn.s until e.temaJ li fe because. it is Jesus himself. as explicitly stated already at 6.35, aod the Sor1 is a being o f the etemal Godhead. We are next told that the Son ofrnao will give this frn)d. Onc.e again. the ul>e of

0 v·u:.; ToU O.vOpc.lnov is espee.ially appropriate. because it refers to the humanity of the incamate Jesus. J esu:.~;• death was essential to the Las! Supper and the lord's Supper alike. and death is char.~cteristic of human beings as opposed to deities. The Greek term 0 uiO:;- ToU OvOpc..)rrou had abo been associated with Jesus' death fi·o m the titne of the tl'anslation o f Gospel ttaditions into Greek. I have noted it io

pre
At the same tjrne. in this document Jesmo' de.onh is significant because-it is the demh of the pre-existent Son. There are. se\•eral retereoces to Jesus' heavenly origin in the disc.ourse. and they make an excellent rontrasl to the heavenly origin of the perishable manna in the wilderness. For example-=the true bread fro m hea\'en is mentioned already at v. 32, and Jesus says iJl the first person KOTa~if3fiKO: d rrO ToU oUpavoUat v. 38. The c.rowd rum iruo grumbling Jews at v. 41, which prec-isely isolate-S the oft"ence to them as Je.sus saying iyc.l €(1Jt 0 O:pTOI; 0 KO:To:~O:c; EK ToU oVpavoU. Til is has his pre-existence. whic-h in this doc.un1ent entails lliSdeily, just what the Je\\ ish c-.on\tnuoity rejec-ted. It is a consequence of this. rathe-r than a pec-uliarity, that what is said here of 0 ulO:; ToU O:v9pc.lnou is also s.aid without the use of this term. As the discourse builds It) its clirna:<. Jesus says in the first person, 0 OpToc; 66 Ov iy~ &.loc.l 1) acip~ pou iatov urrtp Tfi~ ToU KOOPOU ~"'i)~ (Jn 6.5 1). AI v. 55, i( yap aci~ pou d:A11er}c; Eonv ~pi.lou;. h is precise-ly bec-~'!ult-e Jesus is God incamate that Johannine terminology is fl'uitful at its l'lu)St flexible-. Je.sus' deity needs 10 be made-phlin, and Jesus mma talk and act like a human being. The term 0 ui&; ToU O:v9pc.lnou refers to this basic aspect of the humanity of the incarnate Jesus. but everything else is needed for a complete exposition. Jn 6.27 c-oncludes: ToUTov yelp 0 rrati)p io¢.pdy1otv 6 ln&;. The. aorist is timeless. and the statement me.ans that God guarantees the validity and authenticity of Jesus' earthly l'tlinistty. lllus it beloo_g:; with the S'UbordiJlationisl element which is integral h) Johannine.Christology and attributes the whole of Jesus•rninistry to God ltirnself. This was espeeially important in conllic.t with ' the Jews', who should have accepted Je-sus beca·use he was sent by God. Analogl)US comments include S.37a: KO:.I 0 rri~.ti.J.'ac; IJE rran1p i KEI vet; IJE!Jo:pnJpfliaV mp1 i~-toU. This also declares the Fathe-r •s C01t1ple1e support of the validity t) f Jesus' earthly mission. In the- following verse-$, Je$uS is repeatedly ide-otified as (he bread of life. As early a.~ v. 33, the bn•ad of Gt)d gives life, and at vv. 40 and 47 lhe believer has eternal life. There-are repeated references to descent fro m heaven, as of the bread of God already at v. 33, ~Ul d of Jesus himsel f at v. 38. I have noted the particular importance of \'. 41 . \\'here 'the .le\VS' object to Jesus• identifying hint..::e.tr as the bread which c.ame down from heaven. This is because descen1 fro m he.aven implies his pre-existe.nc.e and hence-his dei(y, as does the-deseription of him as the S01l in the immediately preceding verse. This prepares for the use of 6 ui6t; ToU O:v9pc.lnou at v. 53. bec:tu$C-this tenn always has refere-nce to the-incanlalion. h also prepares 1

299 for lhe divisive em:ct of whether t) Oe t'
the fact that son-•e of Jesus' audience do not believe-. These pave the '''ay both for thepossible perception of the Eucharist at vv. SJ-54. aod for the reje<:tion and departure o f those who d o not believe at,..... 60-66. As the.disoourse builds towards its climax. refere-nc.es to e.ating the bread which desce-nded frorn heave-It, already idc:-ntified as Je~.:;us, begin at v. 50. At v. 5 1, Jesus

alw ideotifies this bre.ad as his ocip~. and declares that it is for the-life of the world. T he final lead-in to tllt~- discussion is a quand among ol 'lou6alot, who do not unde-rstand how Jesus can g.l \'e hls Ocsh to cat (v. 52). TI1is is vety appropriate. because the Jewis.h c.ommunity did not accept the. Eucharist, and c.onsequently the.y did not believe that Je~~us could give his llcsh to cat. This is fOIIO\Ved at once by the climactic Son of mM ~ying at .In 6.53, \!Jhich must be taken together -with the immediately following verse: ti rnv oOv cuhoi<; 0 'lr;ooVc. 'A~ulv O:urw My(!) Vuiv. iciv!Jl) ¢&y11n niv o&pto:o: ToU vieN ToU Ovept.lnou .:ai nirrn: ooiToU TO o:t!Jo, cMc ixnt ~~v £v Eo:uroit:-. .woTpc.)y(I)V ~oo Tliv o.XpKo: .:o:'t nlvLo:~v IJOU TO o:ltJo: i;(lt ~liv o:it.lvow. KciyQ &voo;r}ot:o:~ ooiTOv Tfj ioxci-r-o ~IJiPQ:.

This begins with the solemn introduction ·A~.nlv ci:IJ~V Aiyc.l Uplv. the Johannine \'CI'Sionofa pcculial'ity of Jesus• own speech. used to underline the in1portartce-of the saying_. The imagery of these. two verses. is extremely strong. with blum references to eating the-flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man. Frol'n the point of view of the internal needs of the-Johannine community, this is to be explained with rdC.reuce to the Eucharist. It is only because this important, traditiooal and frequent occ.asion is referred to that such strong tenninology was safe. Equally. as the whole context shows, this was a boundary marker which distinguished the c.ommunity from 'the Jews·. The use of oci~ in place. of the original and trnditionaJ O~IJO: wi11 have been partly suggested by the-traditionalllebre.w JJhrasc 011 1W~. This is frequently used in rnbbinicaJ literature to de.note hum:.mkind. especially humankind as different fro m Gl)d. That it is nruc.h older is showo by the t\1/0 earliest t)CCurrenccs at Sir. 14.18 and 17.31. Tile-LXX. which was dt.)ne in the secood ceorury BCE by the autho!''s grandson. has oapK(>; Kai cii~OTO<; ( 14.18). and oap~ Ka\ a·i~a (17.31 ). for oap~ is the obvious re-ndering of ,iL'J.. and consequently common in the LXX, and the-

same applies to the rendering ofn1 with a'IJ,Ja. We must infer that the combination ocXp~ Ka'• a'iiJa was available to the Johannine community to represent humankind. From their point of view. it helped to tie the Eucharist closely to the incarnation. This is also presented by means of the use of the term 0 u10c;- Toil avepc.lrrou. This again evokes the humanity of Jesus as found in the incarnation. Jesus bec.ame ocip~ at the incaro.ation (.In 1. 14), and a'l~o: points partic.ularly to his death. as it did in the La.~t Suppel' aod in the Pauline Lord's Supper. As before, 0 uiOc; ToU Crvept.lrrou refers especially to Jesus as a human being who dies. as human beings

300

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

mlL~t and

God the Father does not. At the same-time, Lhe Eucharist which brings eternal life c-an do so only because this pan icular human being is the inc-arnate Son. Hence the. use of 0 u!O;- ToG O:vOp<.'mou is not the only way of putting the matter. and it is replaced wit1l the

l'ir~t

person in v. 54. It is precisely bec.ause he is inc.amate

as a human being that the pre-existeot and etemal Son can speak about

' •t~y'

llesh

and blood. We can now see how these verses really function. First. •unless you em the llesh of llle Son or man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves'. The1-e

were two ways of not doing what this verse requires. First. one mighr nor auend the Euc.harist at all. This is very simple. and excludes everyone who does not belong to the Johannine community. or to a similar Christian community elsewhere. The primary reference is however to the more complex situation of people who did attend Eu·c.haristic: wors.hip, but who d id nm believe that they were. eating the n esh of the

Son of man or drinking hjs blood, however symbolically. These are a later and more c.onlplex version of those who.n Paul ac-eused o r 'not disceming 1he body· ( I Cor. 11.29). Tiley rnay not have got drunk before mhers arrived, but frt)U'I a Johannine

perspective they failed to realize what they should believe they were doing on these O<X'.asions. Exac.tly what they did believe. we. are nm told. but we can infer the. kind of beliefs which they must haw held from the background culture. They will have attended a community fellowship meal. at which they ate. bread and dr.mk wine as a memorial to Jesus of Nazareth. They will have commemorated his death. and recalled his final Pas.o~O\·e r \IJith his disciples \\'hen he interpre1e.d the bread and wine as symbols of his body and blood, thus looking forward 10 his forthcoming de.ath. Suc.h an apprl)ach fils perfectly well into the cuJrure l)f thl)SC-o f 'the Jews' (6.52) who were also 'his disciples ' (6.60). T his e-x plains their response aKAnpOr; i:OTtV 0 A6yoc; oih01; (6.60). From their point orvie\11 it was j ust that, a p iece l)f

gross overimerpreration whic.h was associated with lhedeityof Jesus and which \Vas expre-S$ed in image•y quite alien to their view o f God's C-Oiluuandrne-nts. Such people are excluded by v. 53. The posirive gr oup are described iu v. 54,

only one group but they have to do two things. All good Johannine Christians not only we,nt to the Eucharist. they also believed Joh.annine theology about what they were doing when they were there. 0 T,x.)y(o)V pou TT)v ocipKa Kat rriV(.)V pou TO cx"iiJCX is not just sorneone who atte-nds Eucharistic worship: it is someone who has a c.omplec~e Johannine- faith,
ha\'ing erernallife. so that Jesus will raise them up at the last day. IL should therefore be cle.ar thai there is no question of the Eucharist having: ar. automatic d lC.ct. as if panicipation in it g:raoted e.temal li fe reg_ard les..~; o f a person's thith . fye.n Ignatius sho uld not be bmught i1llO this disc.ussion, let alone the later

Catholic. Eucharist. These two verses are mOI\.~ver in dialectical relationship with Jn 6.60-66, whidl d iscuss further 1he fate l)f Jewish Christiaos who lefl the JohaJlnil)e

community. Leading up to this is some funher exposition of the Eucharist in \"\'. 55-58. This grant-s the believing panicipant irl the Eucharist mutu al indwelling: with Jesus (v. 56). and has fu11her reference~~; to life. T he discourse e1ld s by contrastiog

301 the bread which came down from he-aven with the. manna eate-n by the wilderness

generation. thus recalling the early part of the discourse. Whereas the fathers ate a nd died. the person wlu) e.ats lhe bread which carne. dl)Wn frt)IH he-aven 'will live

for e.ver' (6.58). TI1is funher reinforce$ !he rne$sage that Johannine-Christians who

believe in their fully developed Eucharistic theology already posses....; eternal life. At the end of the. discourse. we rue infonned that it took place in a synagogue in Capemaum. 11 fo llows that as the description of JeS-tls' irHCI'1ocutors: changes from 'the Jews' (6.4 1,52) to 'his disciples' (6.60, likewise 6 .6 1,66). we should infer that

the authors mean Jewish disciples. The rationale for this is th~ we are to be presented next with some M Je="us• Jewish disciples lea\•ing the Johanninc-cornnrunity (6.6 1· 66). We should oot confuse this group \Vith hostile ou t~ iders, ofte.n described i11 this docurnc-nt a.:; 'the Je\\1S'. We-have seen that their reaction to the djscourse-is a natural Jewish reac.tion to the very high Eucharistic theology in tJ1e discourse. including the. implication of Je5Us' deity: oKM)pO:;- i:OTtv 0 Aciy01; o6t or;· T'it; &iva tat aUToU
scandslizcs you. If lhcreforc YOt• sec lhl.' Son o f man going up where he \\'35 befOre. i1 is lhc Spil'il which is giving life. The tlesh is no help !ll 31l. TI\c WOhi S which I hti\"i.' spoken to you are spiril and lilt.

Thjs makes excellent Johannine sense. Jesus begins with a blunt reaction to his disciples· rejection of his leaching: 'Tili.s scaodalius )'Ott.' So it l)bviously does. and it will shortly lead to ' 1nany' of them leaving. TI1e- 'ir clause folh)\\1S on logically. The. many who leave have. no hope of seeing the Son of man going up where he was before-, i1l their c.uJTellt unregeoerate state. In tl1e-complex dispute with the Je\llish community. however. it was important in practical terms to leave the door open for

37.

M oloo~y. Jolramritre Sm1 ofMa11, p.

t20.

302

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

them h) c.onvert inh) a full Johannine l~li lh and rejoin lhc Johannine c.om.l'tluoit)•. This ve.rse oO'tl'" a thoologica.l understanding M such an e,•eot tr some l)f them do come

believe that Jesus was the pre-existent AOyet;. and see him ascending to be with the Father where.he.was before. that can only be because the Holy Spirit gi\'es them tire. r..,toreove.r, if'l'nany' leave-, l\ome, shortly symbolized by the faithful ele,ren M the Twelve. do not leave. They should e.ventually reach a full Johannine faith. i f they have not yet done so. When this happens, the Spirit gives them Jife. and when the Spirit gives them Life. they too can perce-ive the Son of man going up where he was before. This is therefore a genuine conditional sentence. in which the protac;is and apodosis are. properly related to each other. It al.::o contains :>tandatd Johao11ine theology about the Son of 1han. This term reth:> 10 Je:>us' humanity as God ii'IC'eral passages: which are concerned with Jesus' pre-e.xistt llC.e or his rerurn to the Fother. \\'hich is enectively his asce n t.J~ Once again, thereiOre, \\'hat is said with the tenh 'Son or man' is said without it. This is because-of the great mystery of the incarnation. which needs to be presented in differem ways. This brings us to another comment whic.h has c.aused endless trouble to exegetes. ~ o-elp~ oUK ~4>~~ii' oUO&v. This statement about the ocip~ has more than one possible meaning. 11'1 general, ocip~ without trvEU~-tci represents ordinary hum;.mlife without lhe inlluence of God, so in a get~eral sense odp~ is of no help to anyone who doe..s not have.the Spirit. At the-incarnation, however, the 'A6y01; became ocip~. and we beheld his OO~a. Only ifl the ocip~ c.an we see his &~a, for no one has ever seen God. To see the ocip; of the incarnation. howe.ver. we need a full Johannine faith. inspired by the Spitit. Otherwise eve.Jl the ocip~ of the incarnation is of no help. for without the Spirit we cannot see that it is the ocip~ of the incarnate 'A6yl)unded. What the Johannine community regards as the ocip~ of the Eucharist is acc:ordin~ly of no help to them. It is thereli.)re appropriate that Je..;u.-. should continue: TO: Prl!JO:TO: Gyc.l .MAci'AllkCX UIJIVTTVtiJJ,Jci ionv KO:.I ~w~ i:onv (6.63). From a Johao.nine perspective. this is jus! what was needed by the Jewish Cluistians who were about to lea\'e. They should believe the. Euchruistic t11eology which Je'$US has jusa expounded. Ilis words are spirit Alld b1ing lite. If they be-lieve what Jesus ha~ said,. the)' \!fill eat his flesh aod drink hjs blood in Lhe Eucharist, and they too will have eternal life. They will also see the Son of man goiog up where he was beiOre. But some do not believe,_ and many leove (6.64-66). The C011tluding 11atrative includes Peter's cordes.~ioo., r)r)Jo:Tcx ~(.)fie; o:iQviou ExE ·~ (6.68). 10

a

38..

Sec pf). 282- 91 3bovt.

303

TI1is: again ernphasizes the importance of the Euc.harisaic lheology orthis c.hapter: It is a boundary marker over against the Je.\1.:ish community. and it is essential for eternal life.

All three Son of man sayings in this chapter use the tenn 0 uiO; ToG O.v6pc..)rrou with the sa•ne re.ferenc.e. It refers to Je~us ' humanity as God ine.a mate. Only as a human be.ing could he die. and his death is central to the symbolism of the Eucharist (6.53). Only in th is way c.ould he- provide- food ''' hich remaiJlS UIHO ete-rnal life (6.27). Equally. his death could only be significant and lead 10 the provision of 1he Eucharist because he was pre-existt-nl \Vith the Father, and subsequently ascended to hil'u (6.62-63). Tile use or 0 uiOt;- ToU O:vOp<.lnou i n lhis chapter acc.t)rdir\gly !its

perfectly with the way in which it is used in the Son of man sayings e.ar1ier in the Gospel.

6. John 8.?8

The next Son of mansaying is an integral part of the second disc.ourseatTabemacles, which begins with Je,;u.:;' declarmioo ' I am •he light of the world' (Jn 8. 12). Light was one of the great symbolic features of Tabernacles. and Je.sus in effect replaces Tabernacles and achieves more than it ever could by bringing life to the whole world rathe.r than merely I t) 'the Jews·. ' Tile Pharisees• are brought forward to offe.r a detailed legal t)bjection lO the validity of his witness. In additjon 10 his w·itness to himself. Jesus asse.11s ~aptupt't mp'• EIJoii 0 rriiJ~a~ IJE rrcrn)p (8. 18). This attributes the whole-responsibility fOr Jesus'mi11istry to 1he Father, wlil)S-e purpose and \Vitness the Pharisees should have acc.epted. In •he concluding ah~rc.at i on, the Pharisees do uot know who Jesus' f.'tthet is, as he affinn.:;, thereby accusing them of not knowing their own God. This sets up the ferocious polemic which characterizes the rest of the chapter. Jesus sets off the second part or the-discourse-by telling 'them' that they will die in their sins. Orrou (y~ Unciy(o) VJ.Jtlc; oU 5UvaoS~ EAO{lv (Jn 8.21). 'Tile Jews• have-just one tiJlY glitnnler or \\'hat he might meatl by supposing thm he might kill himself. The dispute moves towards the Son of man saying wilh another significant declaration: EO:v yO:p IJ~ rr•anVaqn OTI (yc.) ri~t , drro9av~ta9£ (.v Tat~ 0:1Jap r iau; UIJWV(8.24). This uses the divine revelatory fOnnula ' I am• from Deutero-Isaiah.1" Tilese.three aspects of the first part of the disc.ourse, the-attributil)ll of complete re-Sponsibility for the. ministry to the Father himself, the reference to Jesu.:;• de.ath. and the divine revelatory fonn ula. ser up the Son of man saying. The immediate reac.tion to the Son of man saying is equally imponant. While he was still speaking. rroAAol Errlanuaav t.k a\m:Sv (8.30). This means that a response of faith must be raken seriously in the interpretation of the Son of man saying at 8.28. 1l is continued by the des-cription ofthe people h) whom Jesus speaks 39. For detailed di!OC'u~~ioo, sc~ C . Willisms. flllll fie. The lmtrpNtalion wi.,·h and Early Chd.\·tian Uteratltrt (WUNT 2. 113. Tiibingc-n: Mohr Skbo.'Ck. 2000). csp. pp.

Wi- 15.

304

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

as r oUe; TTE rr•onvKOrat;: aUT~ ' Jou&aiouc; (8.31 ). This is further confinned by Jesus' dedaratiOil 10 tlleJU: 'EO:v u~~i.:; ~Etvnn r 4) A6y~ T~ i)J~. O:J..nSc:.)c; ~-taOnro:i IJoU Eon ... {8.31 ). This rakes fOr granted the real it)• of their e-xisting fa ith.

ev

This position is not maintained in the subsequem namtive-. in which they become the chi ldren of the devil who seek to kill Jesus. At the end of the chapter, their reaction to another use of the.divine revelatory fomltlla Eyt.l ~i i.Jt. in circumstances which imply his pre-existeoee-, leads them It) see-k h ) stone him (8.58-59), the Standard Je\\•ish peually ror blaspherny. ACC-Ordingly, a.! 8.48 tl1ey becorne oi 'lov&ilot without qualitkatiOl't, and so tl1ey remain (8.52,57). T his must nm lead

us to underestimate-the narratol's• intention to present a faith response at 8.30-3 I. essential as this is to understanding 1he Soo of man sayiog at 8.28. Rather it reOe<:ts the gravity of the situation in late tirst--<-.enmry Ephesus. \Yh-ere some Jt.\\"S who did share the Johannine c.ommunity's faith Jell the Johannine conununity because of their unshakable alle-g iance 10 the Jewish community. The same. siiUation is presented at the end of th-e narrative of the public ministr)', at 12.42-43. It is mot-e serious than the situation ou the end or Ch. 6, \Yheo rnany disciples \Yho oever had shared a f-ull Johannine faith leflthe community. I now tum ro the Son of man saying at Jn 8.28, utlders.tood in its literary context: 0Tov ~(.)oqn T0vlJi0v ToU Ov&pt.lnou, TOn yvc.So. oUSiv, ct>J.Q "a< i616o~iv .,£0 na-n)p ToVTo: AakW.

This is a further development M the- material at 3. 14. Itt that passage, 0 v'u)l'; roU Ctv9p
Hansoo., Pmphnic Gospt'l. pp. 119- 22.

305

l11e group ir\ mind here are Jewish c.on vert.~ h) Christianity. TilatthC)' cr·uc::ified 1he Soo M man should not be taken literally. They are-held responsible fOr the cruc-ifix ion a..:; members of the Jewish people, just as other poople have been held respo.u;ible as

membersofthesinful human race. The use of (ho:v with the subjunctive is espec.iall>' appropriate fOr the perception of Je~:;us· exahation, a perce-ption re-peated many times

ove-r a long period of time. We might translate ove.rliterally. to bring out one aspect of the meaniog: 'Whenever you exalt the Son of man, then you \Viii kn0\1/ that I AM (he) ... ' From a Johannine perspective, this is obviolLo;ly 11\IC-. II is only when

people perceive the c.xaltation or the &)n of man in his crucifixion that they can go fllrther and apprecia1e the divine. revelatory formula, and the. C-lassic Johannine. parndox that God incarnate WM entirely dependent on the Father throughout his ea rthly ministry. The Johannine. community will howe. been acutely aware that many c.onverts to Christiaoity had been Jewish. Tiley included all the llrst Christians, and maoy of the nlOSt important known evangelists: Paul. Andronicus, Apollos. Aquila. Joseph Bamabas. Junia. perhaps PriliC-i lla, Silvanus and Timothy. Or these, Apolh)S, Aquila, Priscilla and Timothy all worked in Ephesus. and Paul was the outstanding known evangelist in the history of the Ephesian church. After persecuting the-church, he saw the exalted Christ on 1he Damascus road. and the crucified Christ was c.eutral to the message which he preached with extraordinary success. From a Johannine. perspec-tive-, Paul w·as the fnost wondedUI example of Jn 8.28 that anyotle could ask for. The most woeful examples are portrayed late.r in this chapter, where those Jews who believed in him at 8.31 turn so rapidly back io1o the hos.tile outside...s ol 'tou6alot, as ifl this dl)CUJtl<.'·••t a.~ a whole-. II is this wonderful and the.n disastrous situation which has Jed to the descriplion, unique io this document, 'the Jews who bclieYed io him•. Accordingly. the term 0 viOc; ToU O:vOp<.lrrou has the sarue meaning at Jn 8.28 as in the other Son of man sayings which 1 have discus.~ed It reter~ fi r~tly to thehumanity of Jesus. which was essential for him to be able to dje. At the s.ame time, it refers to his humanity M God incarnate who can appropriately use the divine ~velattll)' fonnula ' I am•. As long as we recog1lize this fonnula and give it its full weight. it does not m:uter whether we take Son of man a second time as the. complement of ~iiJL If we choose h) do so. it i~ obvit)'usly true that if you exalt the Soo of man by reot)guizing 1he-real importance of his c.rucifh:ion, and accept his useof the di\'ine revelatory fonnula Eyc.l th.u. you will know th.at Jesus is that person. The. rest of the verse. whic.h ded ares his c.omplete dependence. on God the Father during his earthly ministry. again underlines his humanity.

7. John 9.35

The. ne.xt Son of man saying is also embedded in a narrative and discourse setting. It is still set at Tabe-rnacles. aod dt)l\linated by the lighr iruagc-ry which was ~uc h a conspic·uous tearure or that festival. 11 begins with the he.aling of a 1han born

306

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

blind. This is a deliberate. writing up of synoptic events. for healing blind people lies within the paramete-rs of what a traditional he-aler can do and the historic-al Jesus d id, \llherea.~ healing a rnarl bom blind is a m)nha lly impossible event It is there lOre suitable 10 be a OT)IJE'iov (9. 16) w hich sh
paol or Siloarn, the. source of the \\1:tter-dra\ving cercnlOil)', the mher central piece of symbolism characteristic of Tabernacles. The Jight/datkness image•">' begins atread)• at vv. 4-5. where Jesus re-pe-ats •hat he is the light of the world (9. 5 ~ d . 8. 12). When the mao goes and washes in the

pool of Sih)am, at once he came 'seeing· (9.7). The subsequent narrative has seve-ral references to the man ha\ting his eyes ope-ned and seeing. Whe.n he is taken to the Phatisee~~J (9. 13). there is a division of opinion about the supposed e.\'ent, and people ask the man what he thinks of the man who 'opened' his ·eyes•. l ie responds ' he is a prophe-t' (9. I 7). This is the fil$t ste-p towards a fuller faith, a step prompted by the miracle. Oo 1he other hand, •the Jews' 'did nm be-lieve> 1hat he had been blind and gained his sight (9. 18). and they c-Onclude dte.ir interrogation by throwing hint out (9.34). During the proceedings, they contrast r-.•toses h) whom God sp<>ke with ' this man'. saying dtey do not know nO&tv Eonv (9.29}. Fr0111 the re.ader•s point or view, this recalls Jesus'he.avenly origin. The man finds it remarkable that they do not know rrc5ew Eonv. ·and he ope-1.ed IYI)1 eyes· (9.30}. This ass(>eiates Jc\vish ignorance or Jesus with the dominant imagery of the c-hapter. The man himself then goes funher than before and announces that the person who healed him is rrapd &tOO (9.33). a genuinely Johannine answer to the.question implied by rr09£v iotl \1. After Jesus· meeting with the man. he announce-s that he came into the-world 1\)r judgement, 'Iva oi J.nl ~hi TTOVTEt; ~A£ fT(o)OtV KO:l o·t ~hi TTO\ITEt; ru<J>Aol y(\1(.)\ITO:' (Jn 9.39). This prese-nts the in.agery or this chapte-r a..:o a whole-. It leads Sl)nte of the Pharisees to ask \Vhether they are blind. Jesus• St)IUewhat ironical reply finds l~lu lt with thent for saying that they see. and infonns thenl that their sin remains. In enec.t, therefore.. they are symbolically blind while the formerty blind man can now see. Jesus' meeting \Vith 1he n1an (9.35-38) c:hans his further coming to laith, lWer and above his initial belief that the 1nan wlh) healed hin-t was a prophet (9. 17}. and going further than the declaration thaLhe was rrapd: 0EoU (9.32}. Jesus found hin•. and began with the Son of man saying:

This use of the expression 0 u'u)c; t OO avep~TTOV in what i.s effectively a request for a confession has caused more trouble tlun it should, and has led to some .str.mge .suggestions. For example, Higgins suggested thm it was based on a confession from a baptismal ceremony in the Johannine community:d Titis is just what should not be inferred from a text of this kind. The term 0 uiOt;- ToU O:v9p~nou is notoriously absent fromallconfessions in the New Testament period. We should notoon.structone fro m a na.rrntive. Nor is the later eccle.siastical association of this story with baptism 41.

Higgin!:. Jt.ms amllhtt Son of Mun, pp. 155, 175.

307

any excuse for uncontrolled imagination. We must keep closer to the text which we. have got Problems are. already e\'ident in the ancient period. where some scribes altered Cxv6pc.lnou to 9EoU. This reading cannot possibly be. right because '''eight of attestation d early fa\'ours O:vOp<.lrrou. and so does transcriptional probability. Scribes have ahered O:v6pc..)rrou to &o\i 10 produce the more. exalted title: the possibility of the opposite alter:uion being made is simply incomprehensible. The association between rnanU'*l and 0 u'10c; ToU O:vSpc.lnou is close already .n Jr\3. 14-15: 11Kai KO:~ MwUoft; \i4t(.)OeY T0v O$tv ~" ~ ipriu~. oiJT~ ~(o.)f)~vcu Sri T(w viOv T<>V O:~pc.)Jrou. "'ivo ncit; 0 nton-Vwvh' o.Vn;:a fxn~wi!v ai~vtov.

Here.it is precisely everyone.who has faith in the Son of man who is to have eternal li fe:"~ This makes faith in the Son of man one way of putting what is centmlto the. process of salvation. As we have seen~ it is especially c.losely assoc.imed with his death and exaltation. This feature in ntrn nssociates it with the Son of man saying at Jo 8.28, where the believer n::quires the kind of knowledge 1hat is depe11den1 on faith. h fOllows that 6 u'u)c; ToU O.v8pc.lnov is a petfectly natural phrase for the. Johannine Jesus co use in asking whether the healed man has faith in him. h refers especially to his humanit)• as God incarnate. so it implies a full Johannine faith. This is at first too 1nuch for the man, who asks who this is (9.36). The Revealer then reveals himself. and that is enough. despite the fact that the man cannot be expected to know whm 6 uiOc;: toG CtvOp<.)rrou ac.tuaJiy means. The way it is expre.ssed is interesting: Kal ic.lpaKa;: aUtOv Kal 6 Aahc:lv ~nd ooU iK~Iv61; i onv (9.37). The first point. 'you have seen him' uses the imagery central to the c.hapter. and lets us know that the man has sight. both literal and metaphoric.aJ. The. second is a more straightfi.)rward ide.ntilication. TI1e mafl at once 1-eact~ by declariog his faith: monVQ, xUptG (9.38). Futthennore, rrpoo~KUVTJOSV aVn;.. This verb does not necessarily denote. worship of a deity. but it is e.nough to indicate that the man has taken another step in the right direc.tion. Jesus next declares th.at he. has c.ome into the world for judgement, and the divisive ct-rect of his ministry is indicated by his criticism of the effecti\'ely blind Pharisees following his acceptance of the rnan. We have seen that judgement was given to the Sou on the ground that he is Son of man (Jn 5.27). This gave the evangelist aoother rea..~>on to use 6 u'16t; ToU OvOpc.lrrou here. I therefOre conclude d1at thi~ Son of man sayir'g lits perfectly into Johannine u~age . h relfrs to the humanity of God incamate who reveals himself through his ocip~. Faith in hi111 is required, as at 3.14- 15 (ef. 8.28), and his ministry brings judgement a.; at 5.27.

42.

SC'e fmtho:-r pp. 287-S t~bo.wc.

308

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem 8 . .Jolm 12.13. 34

The next three Soo M man say ings belong h) the final dis.c.ourse of the public

minis[ry. Six days befOre Pass.ove.r (.In 12. 1), Jesus isaooimed at Bethan>'• and looks fOrward to his burial ( 12.7). The oex• day he e1Hers Je-nt.salem, and is hailed by the c.rowd as kill f', or Israel. " 'ith scriptural refereoees which at lea.~t inc-.lude Ps.ll8. 25-

26. one of the llallel psahns set for singiog at Passover. and Zech. 9.9."'' We are told that the disciples 'remembered' that this \Vas writtell of hirn On iti~OoOTJ 'lrwo\it; (Jn I2. I6). I Jere iti~cio011 c.tearly h)oks forwa.rd to .leSlL
Some. Greeks, the group of Gentiles among whom the Gospel spread with extraordinary enCctiveness. come to see Jesus. Tile)' do uot see him. Instead. Jesus looks l()rWatd to his death, the major event whic.h must happen to enable the c.otwersion of Oe.ntiles to take.place-. As Jesus puts it in the firSt person at Jn 12.32, Kciyc.l iciv ~(..)Oil i.: nl'; ~t;, rrcivt a r; iAKUow rrp&; i~aut6v. His exposition of his forthcoming death begins with the Son of man saying at 12.23:

I have already noted the derivation of the term 0 uiO:;- t oG O:vOp<.lnou from the synoptic tradition. and the derivation of U~&..l at Jn 3.14 aod 8.28 from lsa. 52.13, U~wer)onat Ka'• 6~aa9~ono:c o$00pa.-"~ As well as the use of ~(.,)Oil :u 12.32, the Son of man saying at 12.34 has 0{1 ~eiivat T(w uiOv Toli O:v6pc.lrrou, almost a quotatiOtl froft'l 3. 14. l\•loreover, Isa. 53. I is quoted at Jn 1238. Onc.e again ,~,~e have an overwhelming argulllent of' cumulative ' "eight: midrashie use of' I sa. 52.13 is the major soun::e-of' the use of ~a:oOfi in the Son of man saying at Jn I 2.23.

Furlhennore. several Son of man sayings in the synoptic Gospels use the-term oo~a. They include Mt. 16.27-28//Mk 8.38- 9 .1 , and Mt. 24.30//Mk 13.26. both

among the passages which the Johannine community needed to replace. because of the problems which they posed by way of their unf'ulfilled predictions. Both passages are already based on midrashic use of scripture> and the Johannine community replace.d them with Son of man sayings which make. midrashic. use of different passages. of scripture.•.! The c.ommunit)1 cannot have been much happier with rvtt. 24.44//Lk 12.40: kO:I U~tic; yivtoOt ~TOI POI! Ott ti oV 6oKEin Wp~ 0 uiOt; TOU avepc.lTTO\I tpxnal. Here lOO the use of 0 ulOt; t oU O:vepc.lrrou is. inspired by Dan. 7.13. aod an unfulfilled prediction of the second comiog may reasonably be perceived: the use of Wpa is central to it.~" We have also seen that some. of the. passion predictions in John originated as replacements of synoptic passion predictions. including Jn 3. 14 with i(s use of 43. cr. E. D. Frocd. Old Tcstame111 Qlwtatimu itl tfte GQsptl of J1Jim (No,•TSup I I. Ldckn: Brill. t%5), t)t). Mt-St: B. G. Schuch3rd. Scriplun• willti11 Scripfw·e'. Tht- lnttn'Ciafi(}ll.fllip of Fonn (ttld FullrtitHI in tile £tplistamtrtt Quotations. t)t). 19-97. 44. 45. 46.

Sec Pt). 27S-80. 282- 3, 3-0.1 abcwc. Sec l)t). 277- 80. 282- 3 above. On the inh.'tj)rCialioo of 1his vcrllc, ~c pp. 219- 20 above.

309 lsa. 52.13.-17 TI1ere is an inlpl)l'tant comrnt-IH on the morne.nt of Jesl•.S' betrayal

in the ~·latthean and rvtark.an passion narratives. The ?vlatthean version is lucid: lcSoU ~YYIKEV ~ c.lpa Kal 6 uiOc; ToU Ov€1p<.l rrou rrapa6l00Tco t ic; XEipa t;

or

d~-tapT<.lAilv. This is f>.•lt. 26.45, rewriting Mk 14.4 1, part which has not beer• correctly preserved. Most MSS of Mk 14.41 read i\AOn-1him at Mk 14.35, a prayer which the Johannine community found problematic e.nough ro rewrite at Jn 12.27, again using c.lpa. h may be-this which

ensured that they used the ~·Iarcom version of the story. While some of the.details of this process must remain uncertain. the main points are not. The Son o f l'uan sayiog at Jn 12.23 has resulted fro m the community's: rewriting synoptic- Son of man sayings. by means of the midr.~shic. use of scripture. and the use of Oo~ci~<:.l is: due to the influence of Isa. 52.13. The resulting saying is perfcetly Johannine. Jesus announces. that his death is about to take place., and does so in a way which implies that he. is really in charge of it. While his ~~o was revealed at othc.r points in his minis:tty (e.g. 2 .11). and the faithful could seeit all the time (1.14), his death was a moment central to his glorification, as to his exaltation. As elsewhere. the use of 0 u"16t; roU O:vE!p(.)rrou is especially appropriate because it is c::haracteristic ofhumao beiog.~ that they die-. At the same time. Jesus' glorificarion in de.ath is only pos.~ i bl e ))e(-.ause he is Gl)d incarnate-. This is also thereason why his de-ath was fundamentaJ to the mission to [he. Gentiles, the essemial point of this Johannine c.ontext. For the same reasons. the narrator may refer to Jesus. being glorified, using his proper name rather thao 1he-tenn 0 uiOt;- Toli OvGp(.)rrou (Jn 7.39; 12.16).

Burney suggested that 'Iva \lias a mistrunslatiOil of the Aramaic ;i'J1, ' in which', a susgestion which would suppon the view that the Son of man sayings in this. Gospel go back to an Aramaic tradition. and might seem to open up the possibility that the-historical Jes:u.~ said them. As we have seen, btYwever, John's Greek nlakes excellent seose as it :Hands: ' The hour has c.ome for the Son of man to be glorified'. Bumey ttn.nd John's use or"ivo: to be unsatisfactory bec.ause it is in accordance. with ordinary Hellenistic Greek. not with classical excelle.nce.~ Moreover. it is not possible to rec.onstruct a convinc.iog Aramaic original. One might suggest the foiJowing: 3

IIere we must suppose that the Aramaic

'glorify', unden~Jent a change- of sema1Hic field identical to that of the Gree-k 6o~ci~<:.l, ·glorify', so that it could refer to Jesus' death. Tilat is not impos.~ib l e, but we slh)uld be aware that posmlating 100 ll'W.O)' developme-nts in Aramaic to account for John's Greek would be.c.ome more ""11;-t,

47. See tl(l. 182- J above. 4S. Burney. Aramaic Origin, p. 18. Cf. E. C. Colwell, The- G~e-k of the- Fmm/r Gmpel. A Slud.r of it:r Aramai.w11s in lht' Lig/u (( Hdltnislic Grt't'k (Chicago: Univcrsiw
310

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

aod rnore dicey if we had 10 increase the number of examples. l11e major problern with this ver~. however. is the tenn x:WJ~ ,J iL:;eH. It does not have enough referring

power to mean Jesus himself with ;.my clarity. Nor is it an example.of the traditional idiom whic.h the historical Jesus in ract used It) rere.r to him.sel f. It would acco rdingly have been a very mtsatisfactory choice as a me-ans of predicting Jesus' death.

We must therefore conclude that the whole idea of an Aramaic origin for this saying is unsatisfa(.'IOJ)'. This is entirely coherent with its ha\~ll£ a perfect Sil~ im Leben in Johannine theology. and in the process of rewriting synoptic Son of man sayings which the.community found in Greek. The narrative Ct)tlliJnte-s to develop i 1~ Greek. I have noted C$pccially 12.32-33,

where. Jesus refers to his forthcoming exaltation. using ~eil. and Lhe narrator interprets this as a reference to the kind of death he would die. so a reference 10 his fOrthcoming crucifixion. n~e crowd produce the next two examples or 6 v'u)c; Toli O:v6pc..)rrou: 'HJJtir; QKoUooJ,tEV it:: ToV v01.1ou OT1 0 Xpto-r~ !Ji-vu t\r. TOv o:iWvo:. Ko:i tr~ !.iyw; oV On 6Ei V~t;va a T0v uiOv TOO Ov&pt.lrrou; Tl~ i:OTtV o\rtor; 0 u'10o; TOO Ov6pt.lnou:

This is a remarkable brcakdO\Vn of one of the major panc.ms M the usage of 6 v'u)t; Toli clv9pc.lrrou in the Gospels. It is the only occasion when the tenn is nm used

by Jesus himself. We have seen that the model for Johannine Son of man sayings was the synoptic tradition of Son of man sayin£,5. This explains why they have mo..o;lly be.en LL~ed in 1he rewriting of the teaching of Jes.us. Once they were divorced fro m their origins. however, the Johannine community had no reason to maintain this pattern. They chose to write much of their theology in the. form of discourses attributed to Jesus. These discourses are. often carried forward by questions from other people, and some.of the questions are not very bright by our standards. These are two suc.h questions. The crowd lirst express partl)ftheir messianic be-lie-fS, which they clai1t1 h) know fro m scripture:

We should follow those scholars '"'ho see a reference 10 Ps. 88.37 LXX:

TOo rri p)Jo:

o:UToli El.; t Ov aiilva J.t~v{i. The. seed referred to here is that of David. and later Jewish sources interprel this text with reference to the Messiah.-'., We must infer that this is the sc.riptuml exe.gesis which the crowd are supposed to have in mind. The term vc)po:; is used in its broadest sense to include any passage of scripture. The crowd then refer to Johannine theology which has bee.n attributed to Jesus and which dOC!$ not fit with their v iew of the c-Oming of the tv1cssiah:

-19. W. C. V1Ul lJnnik. ·n~ Quot:.tion fronllh~ OM T
3 11

Thjs has caused great trouble-to literally minded scholars because it is not what Jesus has ju.f l said. For example., l lare-declares that this 'M course, is inacc::urate(assuming thar thecrowd has not learned frorn Nicode-mus what 'vas said at 3: 14!)' ..so

But the authors could nm use Jesus• c-omment at Jo 12.23. bec.ause 1he glorilic.ation or the Son o f mafl could be ide-ntified with the permanence or the M es.o;iah. Nor coold they use Jn 12.32. which is conditional and clearly refers to Jesus. They h;.n·e therefore lL<;ed the formulation of Jn 3.14. for this enables them to present with clarity the tlteological point, the cro\vd•s lack l)f·understanding. They believe in the pennanence of t:he. Messiah~ and they know that JestiS has said .S{t u~eRvat T0v v'1 0v ToU O:vOpi:llTou. They do not understand how both c-.an be true. They choose the stupidest option:

This is the cnwtd's de1t1ise ill darklless. If they do not even kn0\1/ that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of rna.n \!Jho must be crueilied and the-reby exalted, they truly haveo 't the foggiest notion. Jesus gi,•es up on the-ir kllO\\'Iedge of the Christ and the Son of man. and responds with the simplest and most appropriate imas_e ry possible. He invites them to believe in the. light. having already presented himself as the light of the world. ·Then he hid himself from them, for they did not believe. The-.Johanoine theologiaos reflect on the prophecies of Isaiah. which p1-edicted theJewish erowd•s inc.o.-nprehension and Jack of belie-f. The use of 0 u\0:;- toU O:vSp~nou in these sayings presupposes that we as readers or audience.share the conventional Johannine understanding of this expre-ssion.

9. Jalm 13.1 1·32

The final Son of man saying_ in this docmhent begins JeS'lL~· discourse after the La.:;t Supper. As we must infer from the synoptic- accounts. Jesus expec-ts to be betrnyed by J udas lscariot, and knows that this is predicted itl Ps. 4 L Out the Johannine account goes funhe.r. Jesus actually tdli. Judas to go and dl) his deed (Jn I3.27). When he h.as s one Olll. Jesus begins his discourse:

We have aJready seen that the use of Oo~ci~(.) originated in midrashic use of Jsa. 52. 13, and that 6o~c(~(.) rnay refer especially ro Jesus' glorification in his death. Some of the commentators have been very puzzled by the aorist tenses here, and eve.n by the opening vUv. We should take the aorists in a standard way as references to a single past e.w m, and the vUv qualitie.~ this as a reference to the inunediatdy past event or the Last Supper. Je$US h a.~ just been glorified by effectively bringing about his own death. In this document, Jes-l)S is fully in charge of 1hc eve n t~ of his 50.

H:ttc, Son of Mall. p. LOS.

312

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

own passioo. lie hasju~t shown that he was fully oh\fare thou he was 10 be be1myed by Judas ISC
in him. I have pri nted the lor,ger reading, which must be re.ad, d espite iLl) omission by some. good and enrly to.·JSS, notably PM x.• B. Tl1e omission should be a;;ctibed to

homoioteleuton. perbaps assisted by scribes who found the longe-r reading redundant or difficult. The longer re.ading also makes excellent sense. •rr God was glorified io him' reters again to the ifnmedionely preceding evenl. in \Vhich Jesus ordered Judas

to go ar1d cany out his deed quickly ( I3.27). h IOIJows from 1his 1hat God will ah-.l) glorify him in himself. since the Father is in overall control of the whole ministry, and there lOre glorifies Jesus in the pas.s ion, as Jes;us asks him 10 in the prayer ofCh. 17. As Jesu.;;; has ordered Judas to ac.l quickly, so God will glorifY him al once-, and does so after lhe fin al discourses and that prayer.

The use of 0 u'u)t; ToU Ctv9pc.)rrov in this saying is accordingly panicularly closely related m the saying at 12.23=and is thus in complete accordance wilh Johannine-usage. h reters especially 10 lhe hmr1anity of Jesus as God inc.amale. Since lhis is a pervasive feature of lhe documenl, 1he g.lorilicalion or JeSlL" cao
/0. Couclu.rians

In the Gospel anribuled (0 John, lhe term 0 uiO;- TOU avep<.)rrov is a tide of Jesus. Its origin is h) be IOuod in dte syMpliC-Gospels. n'IOSl probably lhose. or Mauhew and tvlatk. In particular, Jn 1.5 I originated as a delibe-rate replacement off>.·lt. 26.64, bec.ause of the serious problerns calL;;;ed by the unfulfilled ptedictions in this and

similar passages orMauhe.w and Mark. The Johannine community c-ontinued with

lhe midrashic use of sc-ripture !Ound in tvh. 26.64 aod othel' Son of man sayiogs in lhe synoplic tradition. TI1ey cre-.ared a ne\1/ S-()n of man saying by replacing Ps. I I 0. 1 and Dan. 7. 13 \Vith creative use or Ge.n. 28.12. They inte-grate-d il into ils present c.on1ex1 by c.areful and erealive use of these and other passages of1he Old Testament and l)f 1he syoopljc. Gospels. Jn 5.27 resuhed likewise from the replacernent of MI. 16.27-28 and similar sayings. Both tvlt 16.27-28 an-d Mk 8.38. lhe. souf'C.e of Mt. 16.27. sl1ow c.tear signs M the delibera.1e use-of Dan. 7. 13. Jo 5.27 wa.~ \\'riuen by someone-who was aware oflhis. This is the lirnil of the inJluence ofDan. 7. 13 in the Son of rhan sayirl£-S of lhis Gospel. Even Jn 5.27 was not a deliberate-relhe-nc.e h) this text and otherwise it has been removed rather than used. bec.ause its deliberate use in the syrlOplic rra.dilion was in prediclions whic.h had tu)l be~n fu lfilled. Jn 3.1 4 resulted similarly from rewriting synoptic passion predictions, especially Mk 8.3 1 (cf. Mt. 16. I3.2 1). l lere 1nt111dane- details were replaced \Vilh more

theologic-al comments also based on the midr.lShic use of scripture. in Lhis c-ase Num. 2 1.9 and lsa. 52.13. Some other .Toharmine Son of man s."l.yiugs have also

3 I3 resulted from rewriting synoptic material with rnidrashic use of scripture. Synoptic. sayings which seem to have been in mind include the genuine. Mk 14.21. whic.h seem.,.; 10 be io the background of Jn 6 and 13, and saying." such as f>.H: 8.31 which

are panly genuine and have to some extent aJready been rewriuen in the. synoptic tradition. This is as near as Johannine Son of man sayings ever get to the Aramaic. level of the tradition. Not one. of them is a Lransfalion of an Arama.ic saying. Some of them have been formed from rewriting synoptic Son of man sayings which are. ultimately derived from genuine Aramaic sayings of JeslLo;. The term 0 u'1~ ToU Cn.~Op(.)nou in this documem is accordin~ly a Greek title of Jesus. It refers pa11icularly h) his humanity as God incaroatt -. The inc.amatil)ll

is a c.entral feawre of this Gospel as a whole. Consequently. Son of man sayings a.re also w;ed in pa..~~ages such as Jn 6. ' "here there is ru) direct s ign of then-• being.

rewritten versions of sy noptic Son of man sayings (though synoptic materiaJ has been rewritte-n in this chapter. and midrashic use. of scripture was importam in its compOsition). The three Son l)f 1nan say ings in this chapter (6.27,53,62) are lt.;;ed to clarify the Johannine-con·unwlity's view of the Euch ari~t. to which the incamation was essential. A seoond consequence of the use of 0 ui&; roU O:vep(.)rrov as a

deliberme referenc.e to the humanity of God incarnate is that almos1 everything written about 0 ulOc; ToG CxvOp<.lrrou is also written of Je-sus withoUl the use of this tem1. This indicates how completely the authors have integrated their use of 0 v'u).;: ToU <XvOpWrrov into their theology as a whole. This explains why there is no apparent pmtem to the distribution of this term in this d-ocumen1 as a whole. The authors used it when they wished to refer to the humanity of God incarnate in this panicular way. They could however write. about this in different terms, and they had no reason to impose a particular pattern of distribution on t:he. tenn 0 u'u)t; ToU O:vOpWrrou.

Chapter Thineen Co:
The purpose of this c-hapter is to summarize the proposed solution to the Son of l'tlan problem whic.h has been the subject of this book. Previous $ChOiai'S have

been handicapped by lack of the knowledge necessary for solving this problem, a massive degree of ignorance compounded by ideological bias. This regrettable combination manifested itself in frequently re..ading primary sources in transfarion. rather than in the languages in wh ich they ha ...e sur\•ived. It also led to 1he almost

complete domination of the study of this problem by Christian scholars committed to the study of the Gospels in Greek. withOU[ any proper appreciation of the stud}' Aramai~ .

the Jang·uage which Jesus SpOke. I isolated the this situation inCh. I.

of

SUIT)'

consequence-$ of

Given thm Jesus spoke Aramaic, the next task was to discuss the use of the Aramaic term which Jesu.s used when the Gospels auribute to him Lhe Greek term 0 u'IO<; Toll avepc.lrrou. There has not been much doubt that this was the Aramaic tem) (~)WJ(~) "lJ. A<:cordingi>'• Ch. 2 investigated the ways in which this 1erm was

used. bringing to bear much more primary evidence than had pre,riously been used. To do this cflhtivcly, I fi rst had to disc.wts the basic development of theAraJnaic lan~uage.

since this has not ~enerally been J.:.n0\\>'11 to New Testament scholars. The central point is that it was an exceptionally srable.language. Consequently. it is perfectly legitimate to use both early and late sources to illuminate the Aramaic background of sayings of the historical Jesus. The development of generic expressions is especially important In general, generic oouns l'nay be- used ifl either the definite or indelinite s tate, because the use of one state or the other c-annot make any difference to their rneaniog. Now (~)JOIJ( ~) 1.J is ~uch a tenu,

e-specially in a paniculru- idiomatic usage. which is central to appreciating the use of this term by the historical Jesus. In this idiom, a speaker may use the tenn (~)l.?J(~) 1~ in a senK~Il Ce which has both a gene-ral and a specific. level of meani1lg_. l11e general level of lliCaJiing varies greatly in both ex(CIH aod significance. Sayingl> using this idiom may be intended to be true of all human beings. At the other end of the spec.trum. a person may generalize from their own experience. and the-generalization may be false. Equally, the general level of meaning 10ay be ve1y impo11aru. or it 10ay have no significance

beyond its application to the speaker. The intended reference may be to the speaker. or to the speaker and a group of a~sociates. or to another person made obvious by

Couc/usitms

315

the context This massive degree of variation is important in assessing sayings of the historicaJ Jesus. not least because contrary asstunptions have been widespread in scholarship. I have fOund over 30 examples of genc1-al state-n1ents using (~)t:i;{~) 1~ with reference to the speaker. or a group of poople including the spe.aker. or someone else. made obvious by the c.ontext. The majority of examples are in Jewish Aramaic fi'om Israel, and most of these concern rabbis who have some C.OI'Ulectioo with Galilee. There is aJso one very e.arly example. which is imponant because it establishes the use of this idiom long before the rime of Jesus. There is also one Babylonian example, and a handful of examples have bee-n n01ed in Syl'iac. It folh)ws that when examples of chis idiomatic usage emerge from the reconstmction of Ar.unak sources from our Gospel sayings, they should be accepted as genuine examples of this idiom. The third chapter was devoted to a modern construct, the Son of Man Concept I sho,,•ed that this was a 1t1ajol' scholarly mistake. In the foundatiooal soun::e lOr this Ct)OCept. Oao. 7.13, t:i»< 1~J. ·one like a son of man', is a pute symbol of the Saint:; of lhe Most lligh. a desc::riptil)ll or the people of lstael. l ie is not a separate figure, and he i:-> merely likened (0 a 1nan. Tile-study of the Similitudes of Emx:h has been made very dillicult by the fact that it has survived only irl Ge'ez. and in a ver)' (.'()Ol)pt lextuaJ tradition at that. Careful study of Aramaic source material which can be 1\X'·lWered fi\)tn the oldest fnanuseripts has sho\"'1 tha1 (x)Wl(~) ,J was used in the original text of this work in the. same way as it is used in extant Aramaic texts, a..:; a normal tenn fOr •man ' . Other sources ~tudied either do not use the term •son or man'. or use it norn1ally. Accordingly, this sc.holarfy constl'uct is ignored in the remaining c-hapte-rs of this book. The ne:nou on the grounds that Jesus was more central. l11e-resuh has been very dilllcult for scholars to unde.l'stand, and it h
316

Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

the pre-eminent position of Jesus himsell: who was in fact the only one to die ao atoning death on the way to his pre.eminem pt)~it i on in glor>'· At Mk 14.21 there is a general meaning referring to the fate M hmhanity as subject to death. and

a second general level of meaning of a much more restricted kind. referring to people \\'ho are bettayed. In both sayings, the majt)r reference is h) Jesus himself. AI t>.•h. 11.19//lk. 7.34 there is a general level or me-aning ref"e!Ting to people who .are fAlsely ac.cused of being rehellil)US sons. and a pre-erninem reference. to Je.sus hifnself, who is compared and contrasted with John the Baptist. At r-.~tt. 12.32//lk. 12.10, the-re is an undetlying reference to hurnanil)' in general, and a pre~erninc-nt reference to Jesus him.selt: In each or the last fh'e sayings, the use-or this indirect

idiom is due to the humil iating circumstances surrounding the experiences of Jesus and the other people particularly referred to. In Ch. 5, I offe-red an Arnmaic reconstruction or the story or the healing or a

paralytic. omitting a few pieces as glosses. Here. too the. Son of man saying (Mk 2.10) tits pe-r fectly i1HO the context of an incident which really took plac-e. The

he-aling used the biblical model of sin as the cause of illness. and in this context Jesus twice dec.la~d that the man's sins were forgiven beli.)re he used a third

St iCh

doX-Iaration as pan of the healing proce-~o;s. The Son of man saying has a generalleYel of meaning. but it is one which is very much at the-limit of usage in this idiom. Most people carH\Ot heal, and do not declare God's fOrgivenes.-. of the-Si(\S of othe-rs. The

saying is basically about Jesus. who did. He generalized from his own experience. it"l dedario_g that i n uodoing this man's sins by healing him from his paralysis, he

was using a power which God had made available to people. He will also have been aware th.at there were other healers who could do so too. whether or not the-re we-re any ir\ Galilee at the tjme. The use or this ittdirect idiom was due to Jesus'

dec-laration of his very high posilion in declarin£ the. forgivene-~o;s of sins and healing the man. ht other \IJOrds, thil< idiom is used here beca·use the saying is nof remotely

true of everyone. not boc.ause it somehow migtu be. In Chs 6- 8. I d i scus..~e.d more isolated sayings. c-aiT)'it"lg furthe-r discussions which I had previously published. AI l\•l t. 8. 19-20, a saying ·with a very short

c-ontextual introduction. the Son of man saying has a general level of meaning which inc.ludes the disciple who asked 1he question and any other disciples who migh1 go on a migratory ministry and have nowhere lO stay. At the same time, it refe-rs especially to Jesus. who was in charge of the ministry.The indirect idiom was used bec.ause he was in the humiliating posi1ion of pointing ou1 that anyone who went on this ministry was liable to have to sleep rough. InCh. 7. I discussed (\\10 or thre-e complex sayings which com.n1e-nt on the siruati011 at the final judgement All of them make clear that people's attilude to Jesus during the-historic l'l linistry will delerrnine their fate at the-j udgement befl>1'e the heavenly c.ourt. The sayings

have a general level of meaning. in thm tllere will be witnesses other than Jesus. as in an earthly court. At the-same ti me, Jesus will be the most imponant wimess, and his e-xtraordinari ly high position is uodedi r\e.d b)' the way in which people-'s eternal fate is sealed by their altitude to him during l he historic rninis(ry. It is this

extrnordinarily high position which c.aused him to use this indirec1 idiomatic way

Couc/usitms

3 17

of expressing him.;;elf. InCh. 8 I discussed the only genuine Soo of man saying not to be fou nd in Mark or Q. h comes from 1he historically certain incident of Jesus' betrayal by Judah or Kerioth. luke picked up the sentence in \lll1ich he-expressed his horror o f Judah ·s identification of him with a kiss. so that hecould be arrested. The s.aying does have a general level of meaning. in that such be-haviour does happen elsewhere. At Lhe same time. it refers very panicularly to Jesus himself. to the point where. it is almost another generalization fro m his own experience. He was in an exuemely humiliating situation, which accounts for his use of this indirect idiom. In Ch. 9, I oiTered a fresh discussion of the central gro·up of predictions of Jesus' death aod resurrection (Mk 8.31; 9.31 : 10.33-34). I lbund il relatively e.a:.y to remove some secondary glossing and reconstruct one genuine prediction fro m Mk 8.31. IIere •here was again some gene-ral level of meaning, in lhat all pe-~.)ple die. and the saying presupposes belief in the general resurrec.tion. Moreove-r, there is evidence. that disc.iples, including the inner circle. of three. expected to die wid1 Jesus. At the same time. the prediction is prim:uily about Jesus himself. His de.ath and re.surrec.tion were already of central importance during the historic ministry, and became e.ven more central in early Christianity. Hence the need of all three evangelists to gloss the original prediction, and to create further one$ on the same lines. Mk 9 .31 and 10.33-34 are not separate- original predictions. Both were created by the evangelist on the basis of Mk 8.3 I. the genuine prediction al Mk 14.21, and the actual events of the passion. He may well have r~e i ved a tradition that Jesus predicted his death and resurrection re.pemedly. In Cit. 10, 1 discus.r.;ed all the other S-t.)l\ of man sayings i1\ the synoptic Gospels. aod argued t.hal none or them were authen•ic. In these secondary sayings, 0 u'1 6c; ToU O:vOp~nou is uniformly used by all three evangelists as an imponant title of Jesus alone i11 Greek. Accordingly, Ch. II is devoted to the. transition process fro m (K)~l(~) 1J •o 0 v'u)t; ToU O:vep~rrou. and the use of the Iauer term in seoondal)' sayings. There. are throe main points. The fitst is the-entirely oatural oamre of the translation process. which was an excellent creative. outburst. not some kind of miS-take. Tile. authentic sayings of Jesus, using the term (~)Vl(~) 1~. cannot be translated into Gree-k in such a way as to re-tain the original idiom, because there is no such idiom in Greek. The translmors accordingly adopted a strategy. They used 0 u'u)t; ToU O:vOpi:ITTou in the singular when they thought that the. primary reference was to Jesus. Whenever they encomHered (K)tdl(~) 1~ referring •o anyone else, 1hey used a different term such as v
318

The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

The imponance of this third factor is especially well shown by the next point> finding this title in scripture. The two earlie-st e-sample:o are i tll)Ut oldest gospel. lkuh Mk 13.26 aJ'd 14.62 have d early made l'nidrashic u.:;e l)f Oao. 7. 13 in Cl)mbinatiou with othi!r scriptural re.xts. To addition w carryiog ft111he.r the creatioo of a new C1lristological title. both passa~.es also predict the Second Coming. which we. know ffom the epistles w have bee-n a majorcot~cem of1he-early c.hurc-h. Moreover, I have now accounted for all the Son of man sayings in ~·lark. This means that our oldest

Gospel was complete.ly involved in the proces..o;es of the. original production of 0 u'•~ Toti Cn.10p~n0\l as a major Christological title. All its sayings are accounted for as translations of genuine sayings. secondary deYelopment of the translations of two genuine sayiogs., and midrashic use of Dao. 7.13. This process was carried fun her by Matthew. His fun.her midrashic developments or,..•tk 13.26 and 14.62 show thal he was fully aware of the use or Dan. 7.13. with its eschatological context. He also inherited some Q sayings, some of which are genuine sayings of Jesus. and some of which c--arry funJ1er the use of 0 ulO; roU O:vepc..lrrou in e.$chatological contexts. Matthew carried this use further in creating new Son of man sayings. Luke was also very happy with 6 uiOc; r oUO:vOp<.luou as. a major Christological tide. l ie C\·en continued h) 11sc it in eschatl)logical context~ . In so doing. he made quite clear that the End should not have. been expected as soon as it had been. and would not come until after the. fall of Jerusalem. and perhaps not for some time after that This makes it the more remarkable that he continued to use 0 ui6c; roU O:vOpc..lrrou in eschatological contexts. He must have. felt that it was exceptionaJiy well established in Gospel trnditions for him lo do this. Like Matthew. he also inherited Son of man sayings fro m Qmaterial. Like.some Marean sayings. some of these are. not set in an eschatological conte.'\:t. Luke accordingly proceeded to create some-new sayings which we.re not eschatologically orientated. InCh. 12.1 examined the 13 .h)hanninc Son of man sayings. Not one of these is a genuine saying of Jesus, so there is. no sign of the idiomatic usc of(x)'jl(l'\) 1~. At the same time. 0 u·,~ r oG Ctv9pc;l rrou as a rnajor Christological title-,~,~as derived directly from the synop ia was a very serious problem for the Johannine communit)'. locked as il was in seve.re Cll)llBict with 'the-Jews'. Tile tirst saying in John (1.51) continued l11e midra.'> hic tradition of Mark and Matthew, but rewrote it comple.tely to re.place. the Second Coming of the Son of man with the. prese-nce of God with him during his eanhly fl'linistty. The second saying (Jn 3.13-14) c.ontinued..nidra...'hic de.\'elopmcnt, using new texts and at the same time re"•ritjng Jesus' predictions or his death. Some M the other sayings. are-within a loose midra.:;hic c-Ontext, others are not AIIM them fit perfectly into the cultural context of Johanninc theology. One example (Jn 12.34) is auributed to 'the. crowd' rather tl1a.n to Jesus hirnselr. This fUJ1.her measures the n1as.:;ive distance between the historical Jesus and the Ft)UI'lh Golipel. Otherwise. all examples of 6 u'•Oc; r oU O:vOpc.)rrou in this Gospe.l refer to the humanity of

Couc/usitms

3 19

the incarnate Son. This further indicates the success of the production of the Christological title. 0 u'u)t; ToUO:vOpi:ITTou. whic.h was hencef011h for cenmries to be a l'uajor title which indica1ed the hmhanity of the incarnate Lord. I have ac.cordingly propo.::;OO a complete-solutioo to the Son of man problem. I hope. that it recommends itself to the judgeme.m Moth-ers.

This page inrenrioi!GI(¥ left blank

BtllLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary Sources

The Hebrt•w Bible and \~NiOitf c; ·~Jrv;a•;.•~m~<7 BiMa Hel>rolca Sllltrf:arlt'JI.(ia (od.

K. Elliger und W. Rudolph. Slunsart: lkutschc BibcJstilhtn.s,. 1967- n). H nAAAIA IJIA0HKH KATA TOYI Cf Septuagima: td est \tms Testumt:mum Grota iu.tla LXX imerpn!ltts (cd. A. Rahlfs: Stuugart: Deutsche Bibe lgcsd l ~ch:.ft. 1935). Sepuragitlla: \~tcts Tes.trs.im• (<'d. P. A. H. de BO« et of.: mwy

vo111: Lddcn: B••ill. 1966-)..

1hm.slario Syra Pescitlo \'t-reris 1t>stamenti ex Codirt- Ambm.siaM Sec fi:n! vi pfK,tolilhogrophi« edittJ (cutamc c1 :.dnolantc A. M. Ccri:lili. 2 vols;: Milan: Croce. 1876-83).

Rihlia sacra iarta Vulgot~rem (cd. R. Wckr et ul.: 2 vols.: Stung.srt: W\lnt<."m~rgisch.: BibeJans(alt, 1969}. UU!;:tcn. 0. (cd. & tl".tllj;.). Die iilhiopi.\·erb::r. A. (cd.). The Bible in Aramaic (5 \'Ois: t<."i ~n: a,;u, 1959--73). Clarke. E. G. e1 ul.. Turstrm Pseudo--Jmwtllw• of the Pentatelfc-11: Tex1 and ConcfJrdmru (Hobol:en: Ktav. 1984). Dfez Mucho. A. I'/ ul. (cdsand UllM .),NtqJII.vti !. Targllm Palostimmst' Msde /(I Bibliotet'a \ilticana (6 \'o.'lls: M:tdfid: C~jo SuJ>eri\'lt de ln vcM ig;.cion~ Cio."mificas.. 19(.8-79). Lag:.rdc. P. d,-, (cd.), Hagiogmpha Chuldoiu (Upsi:ic: TC'Ubnc••, 1873). l.C' txaut. R.. and Raben. R.• Targum des Chroniques (AnBib 51, 2 vol11: Rome: Bibli£31 Institute, 1911). Stec. D. M.• T1re Te..rt oftile Thrgum ofJub: an lntmducli(m and Critical Edilion (AGJU 20. l.eidc•l: Brill. 1994). S1cnning, J. F. (eeL), 71rt> Turgllm of Isaiah (Ox:ford: Clarendon. 1949). Tsl. A. (cd.}. .+1l'17 '111<.11~ DU1.""' Tile Samurir.m Turr.:mn r>frM Pemureudr (3 \'ols: Tel· Aviv: Td · Aviv lJoh•ctsi1y, 1980--l).

Joseph Albo. Scpher llu·'lkkorim. Book of PrinnjJII"s. Critically edited . .. with a 11unslution and n,1(CS by L Husik (5 ''OI~~ Phil:tdcfphia: Jewish Public111ion Sodc1y of Americ:~. 1929- 30). Baillct. M.• et al. (cds}. U!s ' Pl!tiles Gmttt'.S' de Qumr<m (DJO IlL Ox:ford: CI:Hcndon, 1962). lknsly. R. L . wilh M. R. James. T11e Fow'/11Book ofE~m (Cambridge: CUP. 1892). lkyer. K.. Die m·amiii.u'lrcn Tt.tte 1-'IH/1 Tolen Mf!tJ' (G&tingcn: Vol•)dcnhocck & Rupr~'t'ht. 19&4). --Die aramiiiJcflen Texll" rom TOim Mt'l"l: £ rgiin;1mgsbond (Gtiuingc.l: Va1)dcnhocck &

322

Bibliography

Ru~du. 1994). Btuckm.an. P.. Mishanyoth {7 vols; Londoo.: Mishna, 1951-6). Bogaert. P.. Apo
1996).

Broshi. M.. (f/ al. (C'ds), QwruYm Om· 4. Cla.rcnd(ltl, 1995).

;m:

Porubiblitt~l Te.rb'.

Pw·t 1 (DJD XIX. OxiOn:l:

Charles. R. H.. 71u• Book of Enoch Tmmlated/IYJm Pmfeswr DillmamrS Elleit1pic Te-.lt, emrnded and "''ised ... (Oxf\wd: Clare.ndoo.. 1&93: 2nd ~n.• 1912). - -The- I:Jhiopic 11-rsi(m of thr Hook of £mx:h Edited from ]i,·en(Nim·e ms.s.. :qgefher with the fmsml'ntary Grc't'k and Latin \·t
Ch:ulcswonh. J . H.. er ul. (eds), Miscellmrt(JUS Texts from 1/ee J1uktnm Dtsert (DJD XXXVIII. Ox:fo:trd: Clatendon. 2000). Chyutin. M .. The New Jrmsulrm Scroll from Qwnrcm. A Compn:lumsi\'t' Recmtrlmc/i(m ftrJJtS. R. Fiantz: JSPSup 25. Sheffield: Shcll'idd Acad-.:-mic, 1997). Co:then. A. (00. and trsns.). Ht•brew·Brglisll £Jiti011 cf the Hobylmrian Tolm1ul MiJwr Tr«<'tatrs (Lo:tndon: Sc>lleino, 1984}. Cohn. 1- . t l ul. (cd~), Pllilom'.r Alexomfri11is operu q11<1t S.llptmmt (6 vol ~ + index: Bcl'li•l: Rcimet (index de Cii"UYict) I &9ch uelhiO(Ji,·c? ad quJnq11e n:xlmtm jiJttm edlt~t!•' (Leipzig: \•Ogcl. 1851). --Das B11d1 Hmocleiibtrwl;t tmd e1*liin (leipzig : \bgcL I &53). Epsed n., 1.. (cd.), '7~ w~•., Hebret~ •·En:o:TM, &IiiitH• of ll!e HtJ,ylt>~ritJt• TtJim11d (32 volll: london: So:tnt'ino. 1952- 90). Evnns. C. A . Jr.s11s a11d His Ctmltmporaries. Comparaliw SwJies (ldden; Brill, 1995). pp. 217&0 ( I&JkncdkliOOll). Filzmycr. J. A.. The- Gt11~·sis Aporryphon of Qumran Care 1: A Cwumt'llfary (BibOt 18. R<)!lle. Pomilk:tl Biblical hlSiin.nc. 1966: BibOr ISA. 2nd cdn: 1971). Gztrdn r...lunfne-t. F.. E. J. C. Tigchdnar. and A. S. \'lin de.- Woudc:.• Qumran Ccn't- II. II. 1/Ql-18. IJQ20-31 (OJD XXIII. Ox lOrd: Cbt{:ndon, 1998). \131'<'13 r>.'lsnin•-z, F.. and E. J. C. Tigd•ds:tr (cd ~). 1'hl' Deatl Sect SmHI.s Sllld)' EJilion (2 vol~~ Lcidcn: Brill, 1997-8). ('~ OCken. J. (cd.). Dil' Orarula Syhilli11a (GCS VIII. Leipzig: Hinrichs.. 1902). Gropl)· D. M. (cd.), \\ttdi /Jaliye/1II. Tht Samaria Papyrifrom Ui:.!Ji Dale)·th (DJO XXVIII. Ox lOrd: Clatcndon. 2001). Gry. L. U.s Jin:.s pmphttiquts d'£sdra.s (2 \'Ol~ . P3ris: Gculhnc•·, 1938}. HoO'munn. A. G.. Ow HtKh He11ocll i11 ,·oilsliimliger Ubt•r.sel:.ung mil jMiaufmden Kommelltcrr ... (2 vol ~: J..-na: Crocker. 1833-8). Jacobson, H. (cd.), T1re E.ta,g(Jgt-(ifE~ekiel (Cambridge: CUP, 1983}. Klci.n M. L. (cd. and trsn~.). Gmi~al1 Mamunipt.t of1/ee Palestiuiun Targum to 1hr Petrtutetldl (2 vo k Cincin:mj ~ lkbrcw Union Coll..-gc, 1986}. K.nibb, ).f . (cd. and ua.ns..), Thr Efllit~pk Book of £11orh. i\ Nr:w Edition in lhl' Lislll of tier Arumaic Detrd Sea Frogme-11/.s (2 v,11s~ Ox lOrd; Cl:ttcndon, 1978). Laurence. R.. Th~ Book ofEm~<.'h thtt Prti(JMI ... umvfir.~l rrwr.\·lul~ttl from t.m £1hlc1pk: mutJuk,rJpl

Bibliogmphy

323

in tire Bod/dan Library (Oxf\lrd! P:u kcr. 1821). --Libri Enucle~·erJin dleiupka (Oxford: Ptut..-.~ I IU&). LaulerbJCh.J. Z. (~>d. :uld ua.ns..).,t.lrl:illade· Rabbi Ishmael (3 vol ~; Phit:.ddphia: JC'\vish PubliC'Stioo Society ofAmerica. 1933- 5). ~f:ugulies. M.•Midra.\·le n~.\·yikm Rabbalt· A Critical EtliJi(m 8USI'd on Mamucripts anJ Grni:.ah Fragmrnts wil/1 WJriallls onJ Notes(5 v<~ls ; ktusalcm: El)i'lo.'i.n.. 1953-60). .t.!idru.'>h Robboh. wi1h fi1Ucommem.sries (2 '>'ols: \'itna: Rom. 1878-87). ~fili k. J. T .. The BOiJb' t>J £nodr. ArMuiiC Frugrmmrs ()/ Qm~rriin Gt\'f' 4 (O:
N1·w 1tstamt'lll N(Mttll Testanwntetm Graeu (cd. B. Aland et al. Stuugan: 0..-.utsC"hc Bibclgcsellschsft, 27Llt cdn, 1993). 1i1t New Ti!stamtlll ill Syriac (l oodoo: British s1ld Fordg.n Bible Society. 1955). Aland. K. (cd.}. Synopsis Qrtattuor Ewmseliormn (Stuugan: Wilrncmlx:rgischc Bibcbnstalt. 5Lh ..-dn, 1968). Kirsz.. G. A. {ed.). Compormiw EdiJim1 ofthf' Syn'a< Go.sptls.Afigni11s tht Sirwirints. Cumm1iamu. P~:shftld a11J f!arkltan lf'rsiOIIS (4 vols.; NITS XXI. leido.'n: Brill. 1996). Lewis, A S. s nd Oib!lOO. M. 0 . (Cdll}. Tile Pafenini(IJ1 S.\·rioc U•ctiml00' oftile GO.\'(Jt'ls, ff'·tdittd from t11·o Si11ai MSS. a11J fnmr P. dr Wgordt~· ~diti<»l oftilt' •E•·angtliarillm Hitmsolymitanum ' (l.ondon: K..-gan Paul, 1899). Zuurmond. R., (ed.), Novum Testommtwn Ai!llliopiu: Tiel! Sy110pJic G11sptls. Vol. I. Gtneral lnlmdru·tion, Editi<»l ofthe G(upt/of Marl: (Acthiopi s(~che Fotsthungc-n 2?: Sumg;ut: Stdncr, 1989). Pt 3. Tlee Gruptl ofMaJtllt'h' (Ac-Lhiopistiche Forschungi.'fl 55: WicsbOOcn: l·lsmssowitz. 2001}.

0 1hcr Chrisriall S<mrc:{'s

Hcnnc:ckc. E.. New Ttstamml Apoayplw (cd. 111ld ltanll. R. Mc.L \\'ii!OOn: 2 vol$: Lo1)don: Lunctwonh, 1963-5). Uglnfoot. J. B.. 11rr ApostiJiic Farhus. Pi I vol. II (london: Macmillan. 1890). Robi.IISOil. J. M. (cd .)~ 71rr Nu._~ Hommadi Libmry ill En..~li.\·11 (4th cdn. leidc-n: Brill. 1996). l.a)'IOn. B. eta/. (cds). Nag Hommadi Ctxlt.t 11.2- 7... \'OI. I: Grupe! accordi1rg to 1t1omos ... (NHS 20. Lcidcn: B••ill. 1989).

324

Bibliography

Ap!ualutL DtmmJstmfiotiS. ~Land u:.nll. I. PsdsoL, in It Graffi.n (-.'d.),

Patrologia Syritlm \'OI. I Sodi. 1894). Ps·Athan.:asiu..«:, On the lnamuttitHl of Octr Lord Jr.sw Cllri.st, AguiJw Apolfi~~t'lri.s. PG XXVI. cots 1094- 1166. B:udesanes. Liba Legum Rcyiunmt. cuius lc:.xtum syrincum \'Ol'alium signis insi!Uxil. kltinc n•nil F.Nau.. ::~nnot:. tioni bus locup!C1avil Tb.No!tldo.':l:c, in F. Gt:.tlin {ed.). Patmlogia Srriucu \'OI. 2 (Paris: Finni n~Dido1 ct Socii. 1907). pp. 490-.(>57. Epluuem: A!>SC'munus J. S.. J>. Bened.ktus and S. E. As..;cmnnus. Suncti F.phraem Optra Omni:.ri ~ : Peelers. 1990). Grt;goirt de Nu:..i(m~. Di.fcmtrs 27- Jf fDiscours 111iologiqutsJ (cd. nnd U:tnS. P. Gallay. SC 250. Paris: Cc•·C 1918). Gregor)· of Ny'Ssa. Cmwu E1mw11i11Jrt Libd, ed. W. Jaeger. in W. Jacgc•· (00.). Gregorii lYysstni Opem. \'OI. II (Lcidcn: Brilt. 1960). Hippolytus. Commenlairt Slit Durtitl. lmrodw.'lion de G. Oardy. Tcx1c Ctsbli C( u~oil par ~1 . LcfC\•1\' (SC 14. Park Cctf, 1947). - -Rtfiltati(J Omni11m Han'eSilllrt (cd. M. Matcovic-h. PTS 25: B.-tfin: de Gruytc-r. 1986). l!>ho'dad. Tlte Cmnmrnlarie.~ (Jf lslto"dad tJj Merv. BiJhop of lfadalha (c. 850 A.D.) i11 Syn·ac OJld Englislt (00. and !tans. M. 0 . Gib!001\). Vol. II. Mattlrtw OJld .4tar/.: in SJriac (Horae. Scmilicae VI. Cambridge: CUP. 1911 ). lltsl irli Mar(vds Dialtlglls wm 1i)ph<»rt' (c-d. M. ~tatrovic-ll. PTS 47. Be1lin: 'Ois; Oxl\'ltd: Clarendon.. 1972). Q. S. 1-: Tmullia11i Optra (2 vols CChr, Sl I- lL Tumi)()OI: Brcpols, l 954). Tmullimr:r1i'ealist againsl Pnuea.f. od. and trans. E. E\·ans. with Comme-ntary (London: SPCK. (P:~ris ~ Finni n~Oidm e1

I'N&).

TOY MAKAPI OYGE0~!1PH TOY ... YnOMNHMA Eli TA! OPA!EI! TOY nPOHTOY 8.AN1HA PO LXXXI. cots 1255- 1546. Tltwdom.f bur K~li - Lillf'r Sdwlium (cd. A. Seber. 2 vok CSCO 55 and 69: SS 19 and 26. Louvain~

P-c.:te1·s. 1910-12}.

Olhtr Primarr !W1trc:rs Balmc, 0. M. (cd. and trans.). AriJtt1rle. Hi.stm-y of Allimttls, Hooks VII-X (Cambridge. Msssachus.-us: Harvsrd Univc•-sily. 1991). Baumeister, A. ( cd.,_ H.m111i 1/omerici. ucccdcntibus Epi.s;rammatis ct Batradwmyamacltio. Homc.ro vulgo :~nribu1is. (Lipsiac: Te-ubner, )838}.

Bibliogmphy

325

Cuwky. A.. Aromuic Papyri of tlrt Fifth Cmtm)' B.C. (Oxford: Clan.•ndoo.. 192.3). Donner, H. :tnd W. R.:illig. (cds :.nd tt:!lns). KaJtOrc: 1-lol,ki.ns., 1945). Engl:l.Od. E. B•. (~>d.). Tltf' La•~·H>/ Plato (2 vols.: Mttndteslcr: M a1lChcst~r Univ., 1921 ). Fitzmycr, J. A.• 'The Anunaic Lener of King Adon 10 the Egyptian Pb:u:.oh', Bib 46 (t965). PJ). 4 1-55. 1-iall. E. (cd. and tmns.). Ae.sdey{ll.f: Persia11s (W:.mlinstcr: A ris & Phillips. 1996). Hudc. C. (cd.), Herodn-ti Histmiat (OCT. 2 \·ols.: 3h1 cdn; O:xford: Cbtcndon. 1927). lacOOita.. C.. Lllrimti saltwsattJuis rJpl'ra (3 \'OI ~: Lips.iac: Teubner. 1853-6?). Jones, S. 1·1.. and Powdl, J. E. (cds). Tlmqdidi.s Hist(Jriae (OCT, 2 vols; Oxrord: Citu\"ndon. 1900J: cmcnd\"drcrwimsto 1963). UDonnki. L. R.. 71te< Epidaw·ia11 Mimclf' fltsaiptirms. Text. Trallslati<>ll and CommtiiiUI)' (Schol:tl'll: Ad:tm:.. 1995). Lindenberger. J. ~i .. nu• AIYlmaic Prr!l'trbs ofAltiqar (Bahimorc: Johns Hopkin~ Univ.• 1983). P:.d:. R. A. (cd.). Artemidori Daldi(mi OlliltXdlicOit Libri l'(Li ~a"'; Teubne-r. 1963). Peel:. A. L. (00. Md t.rnns.). Ad.\'Wift. Hist(m·a Animuliwn (LCL 3 vok lA1\do1\ICambfi dg.::, ).fassadluscns: l·lcincma..n.n/Hal'\•ard Univ<:l'llit)'. 1965). Pertin, B., (cd. and lr:.ns.). Plutart:hS u~-es (LCL I I vols; Loodoo/Ca.mbtidge, M:.s11achu ~u!': 1-lcincma.nn:l-lsl'\'a rd Unh·cl'llit)'. 1914-26). Purtcn. B.. and A. Yardeni. Tt·xtbook (Jf Aramaic DrJctrments from Ancit'IIJ Egypt. Newly Copied, Edilf'd and 1irmslated into Hthn•w and Eng!iJI: (4 vols: krusslcm: H ~bi\"W Unh·crs.it)'. 198(,... 99).

Rnckhnm. H.. eta/. (cds and trans). Plinius SeawJM, Caius, Nuturolis Hismria (lCL 10 vols: Loodon.ICumb••idgc. Mttss:.chu~tt.s: Hci ncnl ~Uln/H an-ard Univcr:;ily. 19.3&-62).

2. S«ondnry LUerafure: Tb(' Son of Man Problem

Abbon. E. A.. Notes Olt.'•tt'w Testam~tll Criticism (Oiale~rict~ VII. london: A & C Ul.ac-1:., 1907), pp. 140-52. ' The Soo ofMa11'. --The MtsJase t>ftile Stm ofMan (L\'md\'Hl: Black. 1909). - -The 'S(Jn of Man' or Confl'ilmtions to lht Sfii(~V of iht Th(Jflght of l t.\'ll.f (Cnmbridgc: CUP. 19 10). Angel. A. CltatJ.s (lltd thf' Sm1 rifMan: T11e Hthrew Clttw.d:ampfTradilion ill the Pl'riod 515 BCE t(J 100 CE (l01\don: T&i Clark, 2005). AMUS.. :\., 'Ninu11.a and Ute Son or Man•. in R. r..t Whiting (c-d.). Mytlenlr'b>' and Mythologies (He-lsinki: Noo-Assyria.n T~xl CO(()US Project. 2001). JlJ). 7-17. Appel. H.. Die St'fbslbt':.A'iclemuts ll's/1: JNr Solen des ltf(!lt.w·htm (Sta\'Cnhagcn: Bcholtz, I&%). Ashby. E.. 'The Coming of the Soo. oft>.·lan', £tpT72, 1960-1, pp. 360-3. Ashton. L Umlcrsumdi11g tf:t Fo1trlh Gmpel (Ox lOrd: Cbrcndon, 199 1). Ch. 9. Auf••<:c-hl, \V. E., 'The Soo of Man Pmblcm as an lllusLmtion of the te<·hne of NT Studi ~s · , in B. 1-1. M.:lc:tn (cd.), Origi11s and Mt!!lemJ. To11·ards a New Understw1ding (if Judaism and Christitmit)~ Essays in l·lonour of John C. Hurd (JSNTSup 86. Shcffi~ M : JSOT. 1993). pp. 2&2-1)..1. B:.con, B. W.. 'The "'Soo ofM:.n"' in the UsaJ.>e ofJ c~us',JBL 4 1 ( 1922). I)J). 143-82. B:.dham. F. P. ' The Tide "Son of ~tan.. '. 1T 45 (191 1). I)J). 395-448. Bnb~ R. H.•Mttlerxli.sd!t' Pmhlnlft' dt'r Jltllttstanrentfidlen C!tristu/ogie (W).IA NT 25. Ncul:il\'hcnVIuyn: Ncukirchcner, 1967). B:.rreu, C. K•. 'Thc Buckgl\'ltmd of M:.tl: 10:45', in A. J. B. Higgins (C'd.). Nell' Ttstamf'lll £sKr,rs: StuditJ in Memm)'o/Thomas \lt(rfltJ' Mmuon 1159.1-1958 ( ).f:l.l\Chl.':ilct: Mttneohcstc••lJ.P.• 1959), pp. 1- 18.

Bibliography

326

- -'Stephen :tnd lhc son of 100n '. in W. Ehcsu~r and F. li. Kc1dc-r (cds.), .-\pophoma. FcstsC'tuH\ E. Hacnchcn (BZ:~W 30. Bl.'flin: T6pclmsnn, 1964). pp. 32-S. - -'Msrk 10.45::. Ran!IOm for Many'. Nell' Trst(mumt E.rsa.u (lo•ldon: SPCK, 1972}. pp.. 20-6. Bauckh:lm. R. J., 'Th.c Son o f ~ian: " A Man in my Posi1ion" ot "'Sooloo~"?\JSNT23 (1985).. pp. 23-33.

BayC'r. H. F.. l tst1s' Pn·Jidiom of l'irnlkution and Rt.mrrrctirm (WlJNT 2.20. TGbin~n : r..·lohr t'Sicbcc-k), 19!i6). Bc--t!,>cr. K.. Dit· Aujersttlllmg dts Pmpltet€n und tlir Erltolwng de.s Mtt~.u.,renstJhJltJ (SUNT 13. ('J3ningc-n: Vnndcnhocck &

Rup1\.~h1,

19 76).

Be12. 0 .. JtsJtS und Jru Dunielhuch. 'ml 2. Die Me1m:henwhmw:m e Je.fll rmddie Zulamftstnnutwlg de.t Ptmlu.t (DnllitJ/ 7,1J -14) (frnnkfutl a.m M.sin: tang. 1985). Bcyschlng. W.. Dil' Cllri.stologie dts Netlt'lt Testameuu.. Eil1 bihlisch·lllt'O!osiJcher Vtr.mch (lkrlin: Rauh. 1866), ~lp. 9-3.&, • oi~ Idee des Mcnschcnsohns'. Bktctl.h3J'l:l. H.. "'O~r Mcnschensohn" - 0 viC., ToO Ov&pt.lrrou. Sprachlkhe und rel igH>nsg~schichtl icf'le lJmer!>Uehungcn ?.u d.ncm Bcgrilr dcr S)'llOI)ti ~chcn Eva,lgelicn. I. SJ)tadll ich~r und rdigioosgcschiclulichet Tdl', ANRlV 11.25. 1 ( 1982), p~l. 265--350. Billc1bo."Ck, P., ...1:11 · 1- 8. - -'The Throoc-ThoopMny Prophetic Commission :.nd 1he "Son o f Man·~ A S1udy in Tr:.d i1 ioo~ liistoey'. in R. Hsmcnoo-Kclty :md It Scroggs (cds.). }l!h'S, Grttks ami Christictll.f: Essa)'1 ilt Hwwr t.if\\~ D. Dol'ies (leiden: ()till, 19 76), pp. 51- 13. - -'The " P:.rabks" of Enoc-h (I En 37·71) and the "'Soo of Msn"'. E.rpJ'SS (19 76- 7}. pp. 5-S. - -'Jesus and th~ Soo ofM:.n'. JSNT I ( 197&). l>p. 4-18. - -· Al".ml.tlic Bam;i:s..M anchhe "Son o f.\fan'", £rpT95 (198J.-t). pp. 2~6. - -'The Aramaic Oimen11ion i.o Q with No l.:s oo Luke 17.22 and Mauhew 24.26 (luke 17.23)'. JSNT40 ( 1990),pp. 33--4 1. - -'The Me11si:.nism of d)C Pamblcs o f Enoc-h: Their Date and Comribu1ioos 10 Ch•i~lll and CbriJtiallity (~tinncat)f)li ~ : Fortress, 1992), pp. 145- 68. Bkibueu, W.. 'Jcsu Sclbstbcnennung al ~ der ~tensci)Cnlll'lhn', Tl:eo/(Jgischt Stu(lien wul Kritikm 99 ( 1926). ,,,,, 164-211. Boc-k. 0 . L., ' TI)C Soo o f Msn Seated al God's Righi Handsnd 1.1~ 01.'bslc O\'ct J esus' " Bia."phcmy'", in J. 8. Gm:on and M. Turner. Jescts of Na:.urtth: Umf u11d Chri.ft. E.uuy.f on1l1e Histurical J tstJJ and Nt'w TutuiiU'III ChrisroltJS)' (Eerdm:.nns/Pa•~m\))llct: Gmnd Ra1>ids/Catl i ~le. t 994}. pp. 18 1-9 1. Bol.'rs, H .. 'When.> Chmlology is Reai.ASul'\•eyofReccnl Research on New Tcst:.mcnl O.rish)logy'. JnterprttutiOII 26 (1912), pp. J00-27 (302- 15). Bohen. J. A . Der Bericht dts Mutthiilts wm Jes11 (li'Jll Mtuiu (Ahon3: SI.Sbl.'n. 1792). Boobyet. G. fL ' Mk II. I 0:. :.nd lhc lmcrprec:uion of the ..lealing of m.: Paraly1ic'. Hrn 4 7 (1954}. pp. 115-20. Borgen. P.• 'Soolc Jcwi~h EKeg.:t ict~l Trad i1ions as Background for Soo \'If Man Sayings in Joh1l 's \rOSJ>el (Jn 3. 13-14 and comex1}'. in M. de Jonge (cd.}. L 'Ewmsile dt Jean: St11trus. ridut'tiOil. J!Jtologie (BETL 4-1. Gl.'mblouxtlcuwn: Ouculotil.c-uwn U.P.. 197?). pp. 243- 58. Boi'So.'h. F. ..1.. 'The Son of Man'. :\TR 45 (1963). pp. 174-90. - -Tilt' Son of Mun in Myth tmd History (Loodoo: SCM. 1967). - -'Mark Xl\~62 and I Enocf'llXII.S', NTS 14 (1968). pp. 565- 7 . - -Tht' Christi(m and Gnostic S011 tifMall (SBT :14. London ~ SCM. 1970).

Bibliogmphy

327

- -' Funhcr Rdlcction~ on "The S11n of M.nn": The Origin~ snd DcvdopnlCill of the 1'itk', in J. H . CMrlellworLh (ed.}. THE MESSIA H. Drwlopmenr.-; ill Ear/its/ Judaism a11d ChJ·i.sriallily (M i nneapt'lli~: Fonrcs.o;, 1992), pp. 130-44. Bo"''ker. J.. 'The So11of Man•. JTS NS28 (1977). pp. 19-4&. --11:~ R~ligious lma,')illtJiion and Ill~ Semt (ifGod (Oxford: Clarendon. 1978). Ch. 11.2. Bowman. J. W.. ·r~ Backgmund of the Tcm1"Soo. of Man..>, £ttJT 59 ( 1947- &). 1)1). 283-8. - -' David, k11u11 Son of D:wid a1ld So11of ~f:t.n', Abr-Nahrai11 27 ( 1989), pp. 1-22. Broadhead. E. K.. l•iami11g Jesus: Nanulirt Cllri.stolos.v in lhtGospel ofMark (Shcllk ld: Sheffield Academic. 1999), Ch. 13. 131\'lWO.. J. P.. 'The Son ofMtul: ''This Fellow'", Bib 58 ( 1977), pp. .361- 87. B"1.x:, F. F.. ·~ Background 10 the Soo of Man Saying..;', in H. H.Rowdoo (cd.). Clu'i.sl the- Lon!. Stlldits ill ChrirUJiog)' presenl~d ro Donald Gutlrrie (Ldcestcr. IVP. 1982), 1>1). 50- 70. B1.1lcock. t-1., 'Wss the Double Usc of "Siln of Man" a Fae1or in lhe Ocil'tcstiou of Jcsull'?', Con..~n:gutitmal Quurt~d.'' 17 ( 1939), 1)p. 44- 55. Burl:cu. 0., 11re Sm1 of Mall ill the Go:Spel tJj Jo/111 (JSNTSup 56. Shcff.cld: Sheffield Academic, 199 1).

- -'The Nomirulat Son of Man: A lii ~to1y :md Ctiljquc-•. NTS o!O ( 1994). 1>1). 50+-21. --Ti:t! Son ofM(IJt JNbatt. A Hislory und Eru/J((Ifiml (SNTSMS 107. Cambridge: CUP, 1999). Burkill. 1'. :\., 'The Hidden Son of Man in S1. M:wk'll 0Mpcl' . ZNW 52 {1961). pp. 189- 213, reprinted in T. A. Burtill. New Liglll oJrlhe- Euditst GO.\]!el: St>\'e/1 Markan Swdits (lc.h3ca: Comell. 1972). I)J). 1- 38. B1.nh. R.. 'A ~iOfC Complc1c Semitic Bscl:s.t•>UI)d fot ~JI\'U.. ''Son of M:!tn'". in C.:\. Evans and J. A. S:l..Odcr.~ (Ns). The- Funl'lion of Script1117 in Early J~wi.dc mzd Christicm Tradition (JSI\'TSup 154. Sheffield: Shdficld Acsdemic. 1998). 1,1,· 176-89. Cad0t1X. A. T., ' The Soo of M:.n', The- lmerpmer 18 ( 1921-2). pp. 202- 14. Campbell, J. Y., 'The Origi.n and Meani.ng oflhc Tetm Son ofr\,l.sn'. iTS 48 ( 1947), pp. 145- 55. Caqu\"N. A .. 'Rcmarqucs su.t lcs chapilres: '70 "" 71 du livre CLhiopi~:n d' I-ICn(l('l\', in :\pocal,rpses et Thtologie- dr I'Espe'mncf'. Congris d~ Tmtlous~ ( /975) (LO 95. Park Cc-rf. 1977). pp. 11122. Cut<1gounis. C. C.. The- Sm1 of Mun. Visio11 and ltlttqJn:tatitm (\VUNT 38~ TUbingen: ~tohr (Siebcck). 1986). - -' Kingdom of \..00, Son of Man a1ld Jesus' Sclf·UndefSl.sllding\ Tyn811l 40 (I 989), pp. 3- 23, 223-38. Calley', P.M .. ' The Son of Man Problem·. ZN\V 6? (1976}. pp. 147- 54. - - 'The Usc of the Tem1"son \'If man'" in 1hc Similil'!Kk:s of Enoch·, JsJ ? ( 1976), pp. 1J- 29. - - 'The Corporsrc lmcrprcta!ion of"o•lClike a son of man" a1 the 1imc ofJesus'. Nm·T IS (1976). pp. 161- 80. - -S()n ~?J'MtM. The lmeqwwtil>ll and llif/11ence vfDunlei 7 (London: SPCK, 19$0). - -'Anunaic ldionl and Son ofMsn Sayiog,i', £rpT96 (1984-5). pp. 2.33- 6. - -'The Jackals and the Soo of Man (Man. &.20!/ Lukc 9.58)' . 15."-r'/'23 (1985), pp. 3- 22. - - '\'scncmJ. Generic snd Indefinite: The Usc of the T~~tm ..Son of M.an" in Ar.smsic Souree1: and in the Tca<:hing of Jellull·. JSNT29 ( 1987). 1,1,· 21- 56. - -Fmm kwi.fh Propher 10 Gemile- God. Tl•~ Origins (Jlld Dcrclopment tJ/ Ne11· Ttstwnent Chriswlos_l' (The Csdbury LeC'Iutell a1 11tc Univcrsi1y of Bim1i.nght\m. 19&5-6. Cambtidgc/ Loui ~\ the S\'ltl of ~tan Pl\'lblem in Reccm Scholatship' . JSNT 42 (1991 ). Pf'l. 17-43. - - 'lk Usc of the Tenn (K)th(~) -o i.n 1he Aramaic 1'ransla~ions of the 1-leb«:w Bible\ JSNT 54 (199-I),J~p. fl?- 118. - - 'Idiom and Tr.tnslntioo. Some ASI>CCIS of the Son of Msn Problem', Am' 4 1 (1995). P~'· 16482. --Aramaic So!ltr.'f'S of Mm·kS Gospel (SNTSMS 102. Cambl'idge: CUP. 1998). pp. 111-121, 13~2. 1(•3-6. 21 t-18, 233.

328

Bibliography

Aramaic Appmarh to Q: Smm:cs fm· lhe Gostwfs of Malthrw a11d Ll•kt (SNTSMS 122. Cambridge: CUP, 2002), pp. 133-42, 177- S2. - -'Ar"J1naic Jdjom and th~ Son of Man Pmblcm: a Rcsp\"ltlll~ To Owen :llld Shephe-rd'. JSNT 15 (2002}.. pp. 3- 32. - - ' The Aumaic Background ofM:uk 9: 11: A Re'S(l\msc to J. K. Aitken, ITS NS 55 (2004), pp. - - : \It

92- 102.

CatdlJ>Oic, D. R., 'The Son of ,\tan's Scsrch f.:~r Fai!h (l uke xviii Sb)', N011T 19 t1977). pp. 81104. - -'The Poor on Eanh :md the- Son of ~ian in Hct~wn. A Rc·:\ppt:.isa.J of M:mhcw :t:tv.J 1 46'. BJRLM 6 1 ( 1979). J)J). JS.S-97. - -"The Angdic Son o f Man in U: 12.&'. MwT24 ( 1982), W · 255- 65. C.:-rokc. C. P., ' Is Mk 2.10 a S:.ying of Jcsus-1'. CBQ 22 ( 19<,0), PJ). 369- 90. Chilton., B. D.• ' The Son of Msn: Human and I·Jcavc,lly\ in 71te Fotw GoJ,:1ds /992. FC$1schtit\ Frans Neirync:k. c:d. F. vnn Sc.gbrocd: et al. (.l volll~ l.cuvc,l: leuvcn U.PJPec1crll, 1992), vol. I, pp. 203- lS. - -''The Soo of Man - Who Wa~ He?', Biblt' Re•'itw 12 (1996). pp. 34-4&. - -'(The) Soo of (Lite} Man. and Je:ius'. in B. Chi11on :Uld C. A. Evan~ (cds}. Authenticating tilt' ntmls (}fit'JilS (lcidrn: Brill, 1999), pp. 259-&1. Chri ~tcnsc.tl, J., ' Lc Ill~ de l'hommc s'cn v:.. ai.ns.i qu'il csa Cc-ri1de lui>. ST 10 ( 1957), PJ). 28- 39. ChJ'o nill. H. L , 'To Rcvc:l.l :.nd 10 C.oncc:.l: A l.itcrnry-Critical Pci'S{Io."'elivc on " lhc Soo of Man" in Malt', NTS 51 (2005). pp. I 59-&1. Ciholas. P.. "'Son of Man" and Hei!C'tli ~tic Chris!Ofogy'. Rt'o.:£ rp 19 (1982). pp. 487-501. Coke. P. T., 'The Angel~ or1hc Soo of Man\ in A. fuchs (ed.), Problmlt' di!r Forsdmn,.s: (SUfln' 3. Vic11Jl31'Munich: Hemld. 1978), pp. 91- S. CollifiS. A. Y., ' The Origin or llle Designation of Jcsu~ a~ ..Soo of Mtul"•, lffR SO ( 1987). PI,· 391407. - -'Dankl 7 S1ld k"US' , loumal of71tt'ology 93 ( 1989). pp. 5- 19. - -'The S01l of Man S:.yings in the S:l.yi ng.~ Source'. in M . P. Horgan :.nd 1>. J. Kobdsti (cds). To Tous a11d Scmlb: Swdit s onlhe Hebn:w Biblt', lnfel1tJ1omt'mal 11tdoi.w11 (IJU{ Chrisli<m Origins prt'sented w Joh11 Siragnt'ff (lat\Mm!Ncw Yo1t ll..ondon: \Jniw rsi1y PrCS..'i ofAmctica. 1990) pp. 18 1- 93. - -"Tile Apoc:.lyp1ic Son or ~i3n S:.yings'. in B. P~:1tsc>n tl 8.. Collins. J. J., ' The 1-IC'a\'C'nly R\'l>rcscm:ui\•c: The "Son of Man" in the Similitud\S of Enoch'. in J. J. Collin!~ and G. \V. £. Nicl:cl!;burg (cds), Jtleul Flgutti l11 Anele,llmlul.wn: Prr>files cmtl P<mrdigms (Chico: Sc-holars. 19$0}. pp. 11 1- 3.l. - -'Tile Son of M:lf\ in Firsl Cc.uury Jucbism' ,NTS 38{ 1992). pp. 448-<>6. Rcrw. J. J. Collinll. T1tt' Saptn and I Itt' Star: Tht' Mt'ssialls of tht' Dt•ud St>c. C.. ' Ocr Bcgriff "'Mcnscl'l\'ltSOhn" und die ~klhodc s.rim:i.wnt• myal: vol. Ill. Lt' Fils tit> l'hmnmt' 11iote.dame-11tain' (BETl >S. leuvcn: leuvcn UPJPcetets. 19&1): \'OI. II. Lt Fils d'h(JJIIfllt' l'ilhtJ<- f'l imnusramenlaire (BETL 6 1. Lcuvc.n: J.e-uvcn lJ.PJPcc1e-rs. 1983). 4

Bibliogmphy

329

C~nes.. J. B.• alld Ciani. F. M., 'The Son of Man ot the Son of Adtlm'. Hib 1>. 457- S02. Cr~.~d, J. M .• 'Tbe Hl."avcnly Man'. JTS 26 ( 1925), 1>1>. 113- 36.

Cullnl:tn.tl, 0 •. Die Cllrisrologic des Neuen Testame-nts (Ttlhinge,l: Mohr (Siebeck), 1957): Tht' Cluisu>logy tiflhe Nt•w Teslamt'nl (Hans. S. C. Guthrie and C. A. ~f. f-lail; london: SCM, 1959), Ch. 6, ' k!a!$ the Soo ofMa.~ ·. Dalmon. G. H.• Die mute Jesl.: mil Beriicksiduigung dt>s nacbkammische11 jiidischr.11 Sd1rijirums m1d der aramiiischm Stmtcht'. Bd I. Ei11leitmJJ; 1111d ~idrtigl" Begn1fe (1.cip2ig., 1898. There was no 11t001\d vohun~·. 2nd edn, 1930): nre ll'<mh iJjJeslJS Crmsidewd i111lre Light of Post·Biblicol Jewish mitinss and tht Ammaic Languugt'. I. /JIIroduclion urn! Fundamental Ideas (trn.ns. D. ~i . Ksy; Edinburgh: T&TC!ark. 1902). Davies, M., RI'U'.1otic and Referen~ in the Fourth GMpel (JSNTSup ~i9. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), Ch. S. ' Jesus, tltc Son of Man' . DMnis. ' De- fi iH> hominis i.n \ •Cte-re Tcstam~~nw ct in J ud3is mo'. GN'gon·ammr 015 ( 1964). pp. 559.

Dlcz Macho, A., 'l'us:e\ge- de la troi~i Cme p..'fJ>onne- au lieu ck Ia premiCre dans le Ta.rgwn' . in P. Cas..,.eti. 0 . Keel and S. Schenkc:r (ed~), MilangeJ Domi11ique BartM/emy {F•i bou•g!QI'iuingen: Uni \'ersitttsl\~ndcni)C)Cck & Rupro."Cht. 1981 }. pp. 6 J- 90. - -'Ls ClwiJ>tologia dd Hijo del Hombre y cl uso M la tel\."n'S fJCNOn:l. en vcz deb ptinl!C'I'.l', Scripta nteologica 14 (1982). pp. 1&9-201. Doble. P.. ' The Son ofM::~n Sa)•ing in Stephen's \Vi!ncssing: Al.'ts 6.8-S.r, NTS 31 (1985). p~~. 6S-U l')ooalluc. J. R.. ' Recent Studie~ on ttl!C' Origin of "Son of Man" in Lite Gosp..'ls'. CBQ 48 ( 1986). pp. 484- 98. Doran. R., 'The- Divinjs111ion of Disotdcr: Thl' TrttjcC1o.'lf'Y of ~1311. &:201/l uke 9:58//Gos. '0\omas 86'. in B. Pearson d ul. (cds}, Tire Flllllll' of Early Chri.fli(mil)': EssayJ in H011or (}f Helm•tt Kotslt r (~finnC'e\I>Oiis: For1ress. 1991 ). p~l. 210- 19. Draper. J. A .. 'The Dcvd opmem of"the Sign of the Son of r.-·131\" in the ksus Tradition', /vTS 39 (199)), f)~'· 1- 21. Drcycr, Y.. 'TI\IC i.IIS(illuiollalization of Jesus' dlarismslic authority': ''S.)n of Man" as C'e\SC study'. Hen'Omrdt> Tt'ologitse S11Wies 56 (2000), I)J). I 057- 78. Driver. S. R.. 'Son of to.'lsn •• in J. Hastings (cd.), .-\ DicliUIIOt)'Of1lte Bible. vol. i\' (Edinbur~h: T&l' Cl:ttl:. 1902), PJ). 579- 89. Drununond. J., 'The Use- 3nd Mc:lf'ljng of tiK' Phras..' "The Son of Man" in the Syno1>1ic (",ospcl$'. JTS 2 (1901 ), pp. JS0- 8, 539- 71. Duncan. G. S.. Jtsus. Smt of Man. Studits Comributt1ry UJ a Modem Ponrait (London: Nisbet 1947), ehs xi·>: iii. Dunn. J. )). G .. Chd.\'lology in lht' Maki11,1; (London: SCM, 19S0). Ch. IlL 'Th~· So1l of M:tn'. - -"'Son of God" :lS ''So1l of Man" in tltc 01."M! S~-s Scrolls? A Rc-,.ponsc to John Collins oo 4Q246'• in S. E. Potter and C. A. Evans (cd ~). 111e Scmlls 1>. 198-210. - -'The Oanictic Son of Man in the Nev.• Tc:r>tarnem', in J. J. Collins alld P. W. Flim (cds), Tht' Hook of IJuniel. CC»npoJilion a11d Rt'ctpJion (VTSUI) 83. 200 1). vol. 2: pp. 52&-49. Dupont. G .. U Fils dt> /' Humme: E.Hai Hislnriqllt' rl Critique (Paris: Fi!!ehbaebcr, 1924}. Dupom. J., "'Vous n'am\'7. pal> ach.:vt ks ''illcs d ' l sr~t a\•anl que le Fill> de l'homnK" ne- vkn1K'" (r...h 10.23)'. NoVT'2 (1958). pp. 228-44. Edw-srds. R. A.• ' The Escbtltological Cotrcl3tive as a GatlllllS in tfle New TC":S.I311lCnt'. ZN1l' (,0 (1969), ~'P· 9- 20. Ecrdmans. ll D.. ' 0.:: OOtsl>fOil£ wm de uitdrukking "Z001l des Mcnsche-n" als Evangdi!1oehc ~tcssia!'.tite-1'. IT28 (1894). pp. 153- 76. - -' De uitdrukking "loon des mcnschen" in het bock "Hcnoch"', IT29 (1895), I)J>. 48- 71. ~~lcr. L 11!/Tifelli.'C'S uml Trt~dirlcm.t Umh•rlyllli!, rlt~ J.h(()lf (!{Dut~Jel 7:1-/.1 (ORO 177. Fdboutg/ G~ttinsoo: Univcl':i.idtS\•edag Frdbourg/. V~ulcknhocd: & Ruprttht. 2000). F.Jiiou. J. H.. · ~tan and the Soo of Msn in the ('.o,<;;pcl According to Mark' , in T. Rc-ndtotff :l.lld A.

330

Bibliography

Rich (o."d~:), Hummw GeJCIIscl!aft: Bt>itr1l i I'Ctudc du pmb!C.mo." cscf'l:uologiquc•, CBQ 23 (1961). pp. 182- 9&. - -'Lt Triomphc du Fils ~aux (cd.J. La ~'<-'lllte d11 Mcssit (Brugcs: Oe:~clk de Brouw-er. 1962). pp. 149-71. Fiebig. P.. Ot'J' Mens1-93. - -'The Revebtiol) of the Sacral Son of Man. The Gent<:. HiS'IOI)' of Religi o1l~ Context and the Meaning of the Transfiguration'. in P. Avem:.ric and H. liducnbci'£-Cf (cds), Aujemeh•tt1$ - RtJW'tw·rioll: lht Fmmh Dw'ham·Tiibingt11 Rtstun:h Sympositrm: Resw·t'Ct'liOtl, Trtllt.~/if.:llrtllir'm uml E:rulrmilm in Old H:.~ramenr. :tlld¢111 .l11ilt1i.~m und E'urly Cltl'lJrttmiiy (i t'lbingcn: Mohr-Sicbcck, 2001), pp. 247- 98. Ford. J. M.. "'The Son of ~tan" - A Euphcmi~m"?'. JBL 81 ( 1968), ~lp. 257- 66. Fomlcsyn.. R. E. C .. 'W:.ll Tltcre a Prooomin:.J Cooncctilm fo1' lhc "&r NasM" Sclf·dc~i g.fl3tioo"?'. /v'm•T8(19:r, R., ·n.~ Son ofMt~n : A Rcconsidertuion'. i:o D. E. Groll :.nd R. Jc\\'\:11 (eds), 71re Lj,:irlg Te.tt: Essays in Honor •1/ Emf!:lt VI. S(mJidus (U.nham: Unive~i ly Press of AmcriC'tl, 1985). pp. 20'1-1'7 . Gaillardus. L Spt·cimen Quaesrimuwr i11 .'lfwum lnrlmmtmum dt' Filio Hominis (Lugduni ~ B:U.S\'01\lm: Lopez.. 1684). Gsthercok. S., 'The J uscific:.rion of Wisdom (Matt 1 1 . 1 9b.IJ..uk~ 7.35)•. NTS 49 (2003). pp. 476l!S. - -'The Soo ofto.'lsn in M:.rl:'s {'w~I>C1', ErpT 115,2003-4, pp. 3M>-72. -Geist H.. Menschttl.fo/m wul Gemtinde. Eirre n·daktlmukrilischt Unltmu:lrurtg :;lfr MntfC'hf'nsohnspriklikalioll im Multlrc'iii.\'I!~YJilgelitwr (Fill 57. Wiln;burg: Echt~r. 19lU>). C..chnon, :\., ' A Sidelight 01) th~ "SOil of ~fan"' . SJT 22 ( 1969). PI)· 189-96. Gerleman. G.. Dtr M~tm·hnuohn (lcidc.n: Brill. 1983). ('..esc. 1-L 'Oic Wdshcit. dct ~-kl\So.'hcnsohn und die Ur!~i:pn1ns~· dcr Ctlristotog~ als konscqu~·nt~ Emfaltung (kr biblisch~n Thoologic' . SE:l 44 (1979}, pp. 17- 114. Gl s~oon., T. F.. ' The Ensig1l oftllC Son of Man (M:.tt. x.xiv.30)'. i TS NS 15 ( 19(l<4). 1,1,· 299- 300. CH>I)IlC!t. L. ' Zum Pmblem de~ Me-fiS('I)CilSohnll. O.a~ Vcth:\lmi~ \'On Lcidcns u1ld ParusicanJ:dndigWig\ in li. Si~rig (cd.). Metuch tmd MeiiS('hl'llsolm. Fesudu·ift fiir BiJchrif Pwftssor D. Karl llt'ille (1-lamburg,: \Viuig, 1963), pp. 20--32. !'.ould-::r, M.. ' Psalm & and the Soo of Man'. NTS 48 (2002), pp. 18-29. Grclm, P., •Jesus. Fils de l' hommc •• Re•"Tlwm 105 (2005), pp. &9---1 03. Gtotius. H.. Anno/(lfiones in qucttunr EwJIIsdia & Aclu :\postolonrm in H. Grolii Opera Omrti((

Bibliogmphy

331

Thrologica (AnlSICfdtun: Bl.scv. 1679), Tom n VOL I. Guillet, J.• ' U: Fils de l'hommc. Tiue esd~!ologiq ue ou mission pl\'lflhbique?', RSR 88 (2000), pp. 615- .3$. Hnhn. F.. Christolqgi.sclte HolreiJstitt!l (FRLAN'T 83. ('.6uingcn: V:mdC'•lhoed & Ruprecht, 1%3): Th~ 71/lrs ufJesus itl Chdsmlugy (tra.ns.. B. Kniglu and G. Ogg; l...oodoo: Luttcrwo•"'f'', 1969), Cb. I. !ism.. C .• ' The Titk ..Son \)f Msn" in the \.os1>cl of John', Stmt~·Campbt'llluumal I ( 1998). PJ). 61- $4. (n.v.) liampcl. V.. MerucheJISOhJt 111ul hismri.scller lesu:>. £in Riit.srlwm1 al.f St'hlii.nel :;mn m~.\'.fianisch~ll Selbsm~Ntiimlllis lesu (Ncukirchen·Vluyn: N..'Uidrehcn\'1'. 1990). Hnre. D. R. A•. n 1e Sm1 ((Mall Tradition (Mi.Mi'a.polis: Fonfcss.. 1990). lhufe, G., ·oas Mense~nsohn ·Pf.:~bl..'fll in de•· gcg.:nwKrtigen wis."c•t.~h;uil k~n Diskussio•l', £1•7'26 (1966), ~lp. 130-41. li supt. P., 'Hidalgo and Filius Uominis'. JBL 40 (192 1). pp. 167- 70. - -'The Son of Ma11= hk homo = ego'. JBL. 40 (1921), p. 183. lisy. L S.• ' The Son ofMsn in Mark 2. 10 an\1 2.28' . JBL89 (1970), pp. 69-75. liay•nsn. A. P.. ' The "Ma11 from the Sea" in 4 E:na. 13 '. JJS 49 ( 1998.). 1>1>. 1- 16. Higgins, A. J. B.. ·soo of Ma.n - Forsclums s.in«· 4 he Teaching of Jesus"', in A. J. B. Higgi.ns (ed.). N~w Testamelll E.u ·ays: St1tdit.f in Memory of Thoma.f \~Iter ManJOII 1893- /958 (M.anchestcr: Manehc.r;tct' U.P.. 1959), pp. 119-35. --Jenu and the S011 i(Mlm (London: l uucrwonh, 1964). - - 'Ls d'l<' Son of Man Problem lnoolubk1'. in E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (cds.). N~utntommtica and ~mitica: Studies ill Hommr of Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1969). 1>1>. 70- 87. - -The S<m q{Mon in tile TroC'hi11g ofkms (SNTS ~tS .39. Cambridge: CUP. 1980). liill, 0., '"Son of Man" in Pllalm 8(h. 17', N011T 15 (1973), pp. 261-9. li odj;.S(lll. P. C.. 'The Son of ~tan :md the Problem of liislorie31 Knowledge'. JR 4 1 (1961). pp. 9 1- IOS. li offmann, P., • ~tk 8,;3 1. Zur Hcrtunft und matkini~dlCn Reu:ptioo d.nct' alte1l Ol>crlk fcrung'. in P. Hoirm:mn (cd.). Orie111ienmg mtlesll.f. Tl!rologie da S)'IIO(Jiikt't: Fiir liJstf Sdunid (F'rciborg/Bascl!Wicn: li cr.:ler. 1973), pp. 170-204. - - 'Det Menschcnsohn in luk:ls 12.8', NTS 44 (1991), pp. 357- 79. --'J c~us versus Mcnscl'lcnsohn. M 1 10.32f und die syl)l)l>•ischc M cn~chcll sohnill>ctlief~.'tung'. in L Oberlinn« and P. Fiedler (cds). Sah der En!~ - Licht da Welt. Exegelisclte Swdim :.1.1111 ,t.tattbiit•s~rungl"lium. Fcstschrin filr Amon V(Sgtk :rum SO. Gcbunstag (Srungan: Katholischcs Bil>clwerk. 1991). pp. 165-202. - - 'QR un\1 dcr Mcnsd wnsohn. Einc vor15ufigc SkiZ%(' •. i" 711~ Fmtr Gospels 1992. ~s1schri0 Frans Neirynd:. cd. F. nm Scgbroc<:k rt a/. (.l vols: I..CU\'cn: lcuwn lJ.PJ Pectcrs:, 1992), ''oi l: pp. 421- 56. liookcr. M. 0 .• Th~ So11 tJjMun ill Murk ( London! SPC K. 1967). - -' l.s the Son of ~fan ptobk m really insoluble?\ in E. Be~• and R. MeL Wilson (cds). Te.\1 a11d ltttnp~talion. St•ulies in the New Tt!:>tamml presentrd 10 Mutthrw Blu& (Cumbridgc: CUP. 1979), 1>1>. 15$-68. - - 'The Son of Msn and the Sy1)1)1>1k Pmbkm'. in n 1e Fmll' Gu1pl"l.s 1991. F~tsduin Frans Ndryne>k, od. Fsun Segbt01:ck t't a/. (3 vols.: U:uwil: Lcuven U.P./PeelcN, 1992). vol. I~ P~'· 189-201. li olbUI)'. W.• 'TI>c r..<Jcs~i.snic AliSOei3tions of "The Son of Man.. \ JTS NS l6 ( 19&5). PI>· 34-55. Howard. J. Keit. Diseas~ a11d HealillS ill tht! New Tt:1tame111: A11 Anuf.rJi1 and ltlll"lprtlatiOJI (lanham: Unh•. Ptcs..'l ofAmerica, 1001). Jacks.>!), 0 . R.• 'The Priority of the Son of Man S3yings•, IVTJ 47 ( 1985), pp. Sl- 96. Jacobson, A 0., ' A1)1)C3Iyp1ie and the SynOf!Cic &lying.~ Source Q', in F. wm Seg,broc~i: el al. (cds}, 1111! FollrGfiSpel.r/992. fes~Sehrifl Frans Ncil)'nck (.3 vols: lcuvcn: Lcuven U.P.IPcC1ers, 1992), \'01.1, 1>1>.403-19. J;\'tvi.nc:•l, A.• 'TI>c Son of M.sn .snd !-lis Followers: A Q Poruait of Jesus'. i.n 0 . Rhoads and K.

z,,

332

Bibliography

Syrccni (cds), Characteri~rlimJ i11 lht Gnsptls. Recona-Mtrg NmnJii~·e Crilicist/1 (JSNTSup 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Ac:Jdl.'mic. 1999). J)J>. I &0- 222. J:un~s. J. C., 'The Son of ~ta.n: Origin and Usc~ of the Titk'. ErpT .36 (1924-5). pp. 309- 14. Jan~n. H. L.. Die Hrrwdrgesta/1. Eint' l't'f'Sitichrodt wlisimugrschir.htfi
O)•bwa.d, 1939). Jay. E. G .. Son ofMani:SoJt of God (Lo•)do,l: SPCK, 1965). Ch. 4. Jennings.. T. \V., 'The M:~nyrdom ohll\: Son of M3n' . in T. W. knninss (cd.), TEXT.-\ND LOGOS. Tht' HtO/t(lllistic lrttelpn•tatirm oftltt' New Testumem (Adama: Schobrs... 1990), J>p. 229--43. Jcn•nlias. J .. 'Die ll u.•sh~ Schich1 ~ f!l tofp•at; als Holrt'iJ.\·titel (Tdbi.ng'"n: Guide· Oiuc-l: Gmbh. 2004): Pan 5. Dt:r Allhrrr u11d Jit Ubrigbltibmdtn (Tilbingc-n: Ouldc-Oruck el/ \Vicn: Hcrllcr. 1973). pp. 2:05--ll. Kim. S .. ·riJt ..Scm (}fMmt'' 'w tlte Son of God (WUf\' T 30. T\lbiogc-n: Mohr Sicbo.--ck, 1983). Kingsbury. J. 0 .. ' The Tide. "So•t of .\ f:tn" in Matlhcw's Gos.p.:~r. CBQ .l1 ( 19'15). J>p. 193-2:02. Kinnihutgtl. E., 'Th~ Joh:inninc " Soo of M-t~n"'. SE 4 ( 1968), pp. (14-71. Kl ~pcr. A .• 'Di.'f Sohn dell Mc-nschcn in den 11ynop«ischc-n E\'an~lic-n' , ZWT 42 (1899). pp. 16186. Kmiocik. U.. Dcr Mnm·htmsohn im MarkliSCWIII,~f!lium (P1.B 81. \VI11'2bcrg: Educt. 1997). Ktacling. C. H.. Anthmpos and &11 of Man: A Sttrd)' itr tfle Religimu S.vnat•ti.sm cf tlrt Audtnt Orient (Columbia Uni••trsi(\' Oriental Stculit•s 25. New York: Columbia U.P... 1927). K!1nund. W. G., •Jcsusforschuns sci1 1965. \~ Ocr l>l.'~nlic-he Ans:pruch Jcsu .. . Die Mcnschcn!>Oh.nft-agc'. TRu45 ( 1980). 1,1,· 40- 84. - -'Jesus dc-r Mc-nschcnsohn'." Sit:;•mgsbtricltl~ der \lt7ssetl.scltaftli<'hr.1l Gest!lsdraft till der Johann \\tl/fgaus G(}f'tftt'·UIIirtNitiil Frmd:fuff u.m Muin XX.3 (Siungan: Stci.ncr. 1984). Kiimi. .\L DaJ Nalruwamms.slogi(m Martlrlius 10,13. Ge.,·chidtlt' Jtiuer AuJftgum; (BGBE 9. Tllbi.ngcn: ~fohr (Sicbl'<'k}, 1970). Kwuwig. H. S.• ' f-lcnoch und dcr ~icn!lChc-llS(lhn. Dss Vclfl§hnis von Hen 14 :ru Dan '1'. ST 38 {1984),pp. 10 1- .33. - -Roots of:\pocalyptic. nee Mtsopotamiun Bucl.:grom•tl of the EntKh Fisurt- and of tht Son of Man (W~fANT 61. Nc-ukirchcn-VIuyn: Ncukiu'.!K'I>I.'f. 1988). Lcgas.o~c, S., 'JC11us hi!1.1otiquc c-1 k Fi t ~ de l' f-lom.mc: Apc-r~• sur lc.~ opinions COOic-illpot:Jincll', in

Bibliogmphy

333

~i. Od cor t1 al.. ApocalJpse:s 1!'1 ThitJiogi~ de f"Espirance. CtHISJis dt Tou/otJ.te (1975}. (LD 95. Paris.: Ce1f, 19'17), PI,· 271- 98. Leh·c~l.:'ld, R., ' Ocr a(IOkal ypti~cl'u.' Mclll!C"hcnsoh•l c-in thrologisch.-~ Pflamom •, ASH 6 ( 1967- 8). w.49- IOS. - - 'Exil Lhc A~lOC'SI)'pliC Son ofMa.n•. NTS I&( 197 1- l). I)J). 243-67. LenlCio, E. E., '"Soo of ~fan''. "Pi1iablc Ma.n''. " Rcjccu~d Man": Equivak m Exprc~~i ons i.n tbe Old Greek oi'Oanicl'. T)•nHu/56 (l OOS), pp. 4.)- 60. litoumc:au. P.. Jbus Fils de I'HtJmm~ et Fils d~ Diet•. il:an 2.23-3,36 et Ia dtmblt> cluistoltJJ;it' johanniqut' \ ~iomfl.-l.tllr'Pari~: lkllamlin/C(Irf. 1993). Levy, B. B.. ' Why Bar-twsll Doc~ No! Mean " 1"'. i.n 8.\\\!illhh (ed.), '111e Fronk Talmase Memorial \V/ume/ (l·laifa: Haifa Univ.. 1993). 85-101. Liet1.m.1nn. H.. Dt•· Mnurllen.whJt. Ei11 Htilras ;,ur flectJesJamcnllichl"ll 'Titi"<>I11'Sit' (Frciburg i.BJ Leipzig: ~fohr (Sicbcck). 1896). Undm . B., ''The Son of Man i11 the Johtlnnioc Christology'. in B. Li1)dars and S. S. Smalley (ed~), Chrisl multhe Spiril in th~ Nt!"" TtslameJtt. St•tdics ilt hommr of C. F. 0. Mtmle (Cambridge: CUP, 1973). pp. 4.\ - 60. - -'The Af'l\1CalyJltic Myth t~nd the ~a th ~ha•, JSNT 23 ( 1985). ~lp . 35-4 1. Lindcsl:og. G .. ' Da~ Ri!lld des t>.·lcnlldtcnsohnes'. ST 22 (1968). 1,1,· 149-75. Loba·Mkok. J. C.. ·unc symhkc d'o1>i.nioo11 Jlhilolog)qul:ll sur le Fil~ de l'homme', Joumal of North·ll~.u Stmitic liriiStutges 22 ( 1996). pp. 107-23. - - '"Son of Man.. and cxcgctiC'JI myth~·. Htrromult' 1eolt1gitw Sludier 59 (200.)). pp. 837-SS. Luz, l!.. 'The Son of Man i11 Mauhew: Hca\•enly Judge or Boman Chri ~t •• JS/YT 4!\ ( 1992). pp. 3-21. ~tcAnhur, H. K., ' Mark XIV.62', /YTS 4 (1957- 8}. pp. 156- lt - - ·o ,u hc'Thihi Day' .1\>TI IS (1971- 2). pp. 8 1-6. ~tcDcnnou. J.. ' Lilke, XII, 8-9: Stone ofScttndal' . RB 84 (1977). pp. 523- 37. - - 'L11c. XII. 8-9: Pk rre angulairc>. RB 85 ( 1978). Ill). 381-101 . - - 'ML 10:23 in Comcxt', BZ 28 {1984), 1'~~. 230-40. ~tcNcil. B., 'The Son of ~farl a.nd the M cs~iah: A Poom\1(1.'•. NTS26 ( 1979-80}. J)l)· 419-21 . Maddox, R., ' Tho.' Func1ion ofthC" Sou of M:lll aceotding to th~ Synol)lic (i~ls•. NTS 15 ( 196&9). 1)1). 45-74. - -'lk Quc~t for Vtttid Me1hod~ in "Son \)t'M:lll" Research', AtrJHR 19 {1971 ). pp. 36-S I. - - 'The Fun~tion of the Soo of Man in 1bc ('m.o;J)d of John·. in R. Banb (cd.) Rtamcilialion a11d

Hope. New 1'ts/W11t'Jtt £\·says on .-\/OIItm~lll a11d £sd7<1tolttgy presented /o L L Morris OJt his 60th birlllday, (Exeter: PalcfllOSicr. 1974), pp. 186-204 . ~1alho.m, E. S., ' Narmtive Christology and th<' Son of Ma.n: What the Matk:m Jesus Says Instead', Hihllrt I I (2003). pp. 313-&5. ~t:l.JlSOO., T. W., ·The Son of Man i11 0:\nkf. Enoch :tl)d tfl<' Gos.~J s•, BJRL 32, 1949-50. pp. 17193. RCJ'Ifi.nt..-d in T. W. Man..-.o'' (cd. M.BI.sc-k). Studin in tht' Gospels and Epi.\·tlts !Manchester: ,\tanchcs.tcr U.P.• 1962). pp. 123-45 . .\fatcul!. J•. ·soo of Man as soo ofAdam•. RB 110 (2003}. pp. 38- 61. 3?0-S6. ~tat$hall. I. li .. ''The Synoptic Scm of Man Saying~ in Rcccm Oi!lCu~~i oo\ /vT.S 12 \ 1965-6), pp. 327- 51. - - 'The Son of Man in Comempoouy Dcbstc'. ErQ42 ( 1970). PI)· 67-87. --11:t Origill.( ofNew Ttslament Chrislolog)' (l.d ccs!o.'f': IVP, 1976J. pp. 63-82.

334

Bibliography

- -'The Son o f ~1a.n a.nd:Tilc lncam:uioo'. £1: All1,· 29-41. - -"The "'Son of ~fan" S3yings in lhc lig}'l1 of lingui~tic S100y'. in T. E. Schmidt t~nd M. Silva (cds). To 'Tell the M)'sttJ)'. £ssu.rs QJ1 New Tt s/WIIt'Jit £ scllat(J/ogy in Hmwr of R. H. Gundry

(JSNTSup. 100 Sheffield: JSOT J>rcss.., 1994}. 1>p. 72- 94.

Manin de Vivi&s. P. &:.Jh w er lc> Fils de I 'Ht>mme. £mp/()li e1 91/(ni}icuti<>ll.\' de l 'e.~liJ'I!.Uit>n 'Fils dt> t Homml!' &ms les il'fmgile.s (l~ooll: Pmf:.t:-. 1995). Meadors. E. P.. JeJus the Mt.Hiunk Htrald ofSulwltiol1 (WUNT 2.12. TUbingcn: Mohr (SicbcckJ. 1995), pp. 9 7- 145. Mt":.rns, C.. 'The Soo of Mnn Trsjcct\'l tYand Esi.'Mtologk:.IIX\·clopml.'tn', E.tpT9'1 ( 1985- 6}. pp. 8--12. Mcd:s, W. A.• ' The M::m from ~k.tvcn in Joha.nninc ScC1arianjsm•• JBL 91 ( 1972). I>J). 44-72. ~'les:sd. N .. Dtr Mensdtt JISollll in dtJI Bilden'tden
du Reden J~sa und du Ewmgelim iiberlraupJ (Frdburg LB JL~ipzig: Mohr (Sicbcck), ISW•). Mic-haelis. w.• ' Job.. 1.51. Gen. 28. 12 und dall MenJ~chc-nsohn ·Problem'. TLZ 85 (19(,0). pp. 561- 78. Mic-hel. 0 .. ·oer .\ tcn!iehenso."'lhn. Die e-5~ehawlogischc Bin"''cisung. Die at)C)bJypli!\lChe .r\'ussagc. Bcm~rtcunge" ZUOl M cn~c-he.lsoluwem:iodnis -36.

- -Tht Johmmillt' 5<»1 of Mall (BSRd 14. Rome: lAS. 1976, 2nd cdn 1978). - -'The End of the Soo of Man'!'. Dmmside Rm·e,v 98 (19$0}. 1,1,· 2$0- 90. - -'The- Rc-huc~tation \) f P!>Stm VIII and l~ Son of Man Debate\ ."-'TS 27 ( 1980-81). pp. 65(>-12.

Moull.'. C. F. 0., ' From Ocfc,ldam to Judge - s nd Deliverer'. BSNTS 1( 1952}, pp. •10- 53. Repri.ntcd in C. F. D. Mouk. The Pherwllt'IWJI oflht New Testamtm (SBT II.I. L•>•ldon: SCM, l 967.t. pp. 82- 99. - -'Ncglce1ed Fc:atun'S i.n 1he Problem o f '"The Soo o f Man."'. in .1. Gnilka (ed.), Ne11t s 1t'stament w1d Kirc·he. FUr Rudolf Sclwlc-kcnburg, (Frciburg: li erli1logy (C:un'rwidgc: CUP, 1977). pp. 11-22. - -"'The Son of Man"': Some of the Facts\ /'vTS 4 1 ( 1995), pp. 271- 9. Mowinckd . S.• f/(JJI som kommer (C~nhagcn: GOO. 1951}: He That Cm11e1h (lnms. G. W. Alllkrs.on: OxiOtd: Bbck'-l.'eU. 1956). Muikntk'rg. J.. 'The Son of M:1n in Daniel and the Ethiopic- AI)C)C:l.lypsc of Enoch'. JBL 19 (t960}. pp. 197- 2:09. MUller. K•. 'Bcobachtutlgcn zur Entwicklung det Menschcnl\OhiWOflltellung in den Bildeu-c-dcn des 1-lenoch und im Buche Oitnicl'. Ostlirlegungcn zom Mcnschcn!IOhnptobtcm in den synO(!Ci!lehe:n E'·:w.gdict)\ BZ 16 (1972}, pp. 1 6 1 -87~ 11 (197J), pp. 52:-66. MUll«, M.. ' fiber den Ausdruck " McnllchcnM>Iu'" in
Bibliogmphy

335

Lt!bt>JISII'irklichkrit. Ft'st.schrifi fiir ThendtJr Jorgensr11 :,1mt60 Gtbunsta..~ (Frankfurt am Moin: Lang}. pp. 69-80. ~1iilkr. U. 8 ..

Messias twd Mensdeensolm i11 jiidi.schm ApoJ:.ohpsm •md ill dtr Offenbanmg des

JuhanJte.{ (Gtlt..-rsloh: ~fohn, 1972}.

und Mensch..-tiSOiln'. ZN\V92 (2001), pp. 1- 19. Mu s~ncr. F., ' Die Skwsis d..-s Menschensohncs. Z~t lk 18.8b\ in C. N i~"•oond (cd.). --' Paru~i c

Forschungm ;om Neum1i!stumml tmd seintr Umwe/1. Fest.fchrifl fiir Albert Fltcll!i (Fra.nHurtiM.: Lsng, 2002). pp. 271- 5. Nnlup.:11'3)'il. J. C.. Tlee Identity of l t.ms ill Mtu-k. A11 £f.fa}' 011 Norratiw CluistoltJSJ' <_SBF 49. JcrusaJcm: Fr:md sc:m. 2000). Nebe. G... 'The Son of M:m :.nd the Angels: R..-11..-eiions oo the Fomlatjoo of Chrilltology in th..Comext of Eschatology'. in 1-1. G. Revendow (ed.}. E.~drotolos.l' in 1he Biblt- and ill )eh·i.sll and Christiall Trodition (JSOTSup 243. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 1997}. pp. 111- 31 . .Neugebauer. F.. Jesus dtr Merucllensohn: ri11 Hl!itras ;.ur Kliirulls dt>r \l~se hiswrisc-ht>r U'ohrheir.~findung im Beft'idl der Ewmgelien (Siungatt: Calwcr. 1972). - -' Die: D:widssohnfrJg-c (~btk 12.35·7 J):!rt.) und dct Mcnschcn~'. NTS 21 (1974- 5), j)J). 81- 108. Ol ~on, D. C.. 'Enoch 3J)d the Soo of ~fa.n in the Epilogue of the PM:.blell'. JSP IS. 1998, pp. 27- .38. O'Ne-ill. J. C.• ·soo M ~fan., Stooe of Blood (Johl\ 1:5 1), NovT 45 (2003), pp. 374-8 1. Odando, L. ' II Figlio dclt'Uomo. Pcrcor:iO Toologioo•. Alll011iamu11 SO (2005}. l)p. 207-44. Olto, R.. Reich GotteJ wul M~llst'hrnsollll (Munich: B~.-ek, 1934. 21ld c-dn 1940}: Th~ Ki11sdom of GOO «lid 11le Scm ofM(m (na.ns. F. V. Filsoo 3ild B. l.\Voolf: london: l utiCI'\'lOrl.h.. 193K 2nd cdn 1943). Owen, P. :tnd Shl.i)hcrd. D.• 'Speaking up fM Qunu:.n. D:.lm:.n and the Son of Man: Was Bar Etuul1a :1 Common T<:ml fo•· ..Man'' in Lhc Tin~ of Jesus?', JSNT 8 1 (_1001), pp. 81- 122. P:.imer, J .. ' The £nignlalic Johannin<: Soo ofM:m'. in F. van Scgbroi.'Ck Ill a/. (t'd11). Tht> Fmtr Go.\'pt>ls 1991. Fcs(schrill Frans Ncii)'JM:k (3 YO!s.: lcuvcn: Leuven U.PJPccleJll, 1992). vol Ill, pp. 1869-87. P:.mmem, ~t.. 'The Son oftvh n in the Firs:t Go~l\ NTI 29 ( 19&3). pp. 116- 29. - -'The Soo of ~fan in !he Foorlh GOlqld '. JTS NS .36 ( 1985), pp. 56- 66. P:.rkcr, P.. ' The. Meaning of ..Soo of ~ta.n'", JBL 60 ( 194 1), pp. 151- 1. Pa:t. Sm1 of MaJt. A Mettlphur for l tst1J iJt lh~ Foorlh Guspel (Collef,C\'ille: Liturgieal.l991). Pcal:c, A. S.. 'The .\ fes.o;iah a1ld the Son of M:.n' , BJRL 8 ( 1924), pp. 52- &1. Pertin, N.. 'Mark 14:62: The £nd PJ-.:Idu..-1of a Christis n P..-s.lterimdition?', /YTS 12 (_l%5-6), ~'~~. 15~5.

- -'The Son \')f M:.n in Ancient Judai11m and Ptimitivc Chti ~ti:.nity: r\ SuggcJ~tion', BR II ( 1966), pp. 17-2&. - -'The Crcalivc U~ of1hc Soo of ~ian Traditions by ~fouk'. USQR13 (1967- 8), pp. 231-65. --A Mmlt>m Pilgn'mage in Ne11· Te.ftomrm Chrislolugy (Philsdclphi:.: Foo:ttllll, 1974). Pesch, R.. •Obcr die ..-\ulotit£1ksu. Ei1lC Rilckfi~gc s nh:l.lld des Bckcnner und ctl..-ugnersptuehs U: 12.8f p:lt.' . in R. Schnaekcnburg eta/. (..-d~).. Die Ki«hr (/t.f All/lltrgs. Fiir Hl.'in:. Schiirm«tlll (leipzig: St Renno, 1978). 1,1,· 25- 55. Pesch. R.. :.nd Schnadcnburg. R.. in zusamm~"nt~rbci t mit 0 . Kaiser (c,1s}. Je.ms IIJtd der Me.rudremohn: Fiir :1111011 \t't1stle (Frcibtltg i.B.: licn:kr. 197S). Pn:iss. T.. U Fils dt> /'H(Imme (Mompd licr, 1951). - -' Lc Fils de I'Hommc d:.ns k IV' Ev:.ngik'. ETR 28 ( 1953). pp. 1- 61. Prod:sch. 0 .. •JXr Mensc-hcnsohn als Goul.'llsohn •. Cllri.stt>ntltm IIJtd \llisscnsdrafl J ( 1927), pp. 425-43. 473- &1. Rhea. R.. Tilt' Joha1111itlt' Sotl ofMmr (ATANT 76. ZOrich: Throl\'~)schcr. 1990). Robi.nson.. J. M.. 'The Son of .\ian in !he S:.yings Oosp<:l Q', in C. Els:.s eta/. (cds}. Traditiotr

tmd T((mslatirm: Ziu11 Problm1 der inttrkllltm\'lletl Ubcnf'l:.baJ*I!it n-ligiiist>r Phiinomt>r:e:

336

Bibliography

Festschrift fiir Cantn1 Colpt' :;rm 65 G~·b~trt.rws (Bl'*'lin: 0<' CirU)1Cr 1994}. pp. ll ~35. I' Homme'. in J. L D' ArJgon t'f ul. (~!:), Ji.ms ? IN 1'/riswirf'iJ lo fni (CTHP 9. Momreal: Fides. 1914). pp. 83- 122. Roi:e-, R. P., ' f.tu&:-s EvMg.cliqucs. Il l. Fils ck- l'hommc Cl Fils. de Oku', RB 9 (1900). l"ll· Roc-Mi.~ G.• 'JCl!uscllc Fil s de

169-99. Ross, J. ~L

·n.~ Son ofM:.n' . IBS 13 (1991}. ,,,,, 186-198. Roth, W.• •Jesus ss 1hc Son of M.sn: the Scriptural ldcmity of a Johanninc Image', in 0 . E. Grl\h a1ld R. J ewett (cd!•). The: Liring Tt-.tt: £ua)'S in HoJwr of £ml"Sl IV. SoltJlders (Lanham: University Pt~ss o f AmNica. 19&5), pp. 11- 26. Sa.hlin. H... '\Vic wurdc ursprilnglic-h die Bcncnnung " Ocr McrulehcnsOOn.. \'CtstandcnT . ST 31 (1983), pp. 147- 79. Sa.ndmd, S.. •son ofM!!n'. in D. l. Sil ver (C'd.). 111 the 1imt' f1/ Hum•st: E.tstt)'S i11 Ho11or ofAbba Hi/ltd Sil~'tr (New Yo•t: M:.~m ill:.n. 19·Bi(}gratJ!rim (FRLANT 117. GOn ing~: Va.ndcnho.xk & RuJm.x•lu. 1997). Schippcts. R., ' Th.: Son of Man i.n Man. xiU2 = Lk. xii.IO. ClllllJ,:.red with Mk. iii.28'. SE IV (TU 102. 1968). pp. 231- S. Schmid, H.• ' D:.nkl. dcr Mcnschen~ohn '. Jm/uica 27 (1971). pp. 192- 220. s~·hm idt. N. A. ' W:.s x;.n ,~ 11 Messt:.nk Tide'?'. JBL IS ( 1896). pp. 36-53. - -'The Soo of Man in the Book of D:mie-1' .JBL 19 ( 1900), pp. 22-&. - -'Son of Man\ in T. K. Ch.:ync a.nd J. S. Black (.:ds.). Encyclqxredia BiiJiim \'OI. 4 (london: A & C Black. 1903). ook 4705-40. - -'R.xcm Srudy of the Tcl'm ''Son ofMttn'", JBL 45 (1926}. pp. 326-49. Sch.micdcl, P. W.. •JXr Name "'Menscltcn!OI>hn" und d3s Messi:.sbo.~·u~~lso:-in Jcsu·. PM 2 ()898). pp. 252-61. - -'Bcu-ichnct Jesus den M\'1\S('Ill:n 3ls solchcn durch ··Mc,tsch.:.osohn"'.''. PM 2 ( 1898). pp. 29 1- 300. - -'Die ncu.:stcn Au ft~:.ssungcn des Nsnll:ns ".\tc.nschcnsohn''\ PM 5 ( 1901), J)p. 333-5 1. s~~hmith:.ls. w., . Die WoHe \'OOl leidl.'ndcl\ Mens:Chci\!OOhl). Ejn Schlil~scl ntr Lh.uns de~ Mcnsch.:•t.<;OI\il~Problcm~'. i.n. C. Andrc!OCO 11nd G. Kld.o (cd:i). Tlu:clnsia Cmci:; - Sismrm Cml'i:;. Fcst:schrift filr E. Dinklerzum 70 Gcbun:st:.g (Tilbingcn: Mohr. 1979). PJ). 417-45. Scho...ckcnburg. R.. ·ocr Menschcn!OI>hn im lohll.I\1\C~vangcli wn' . NTS II (1964--5). J){). 123-

37.

Sl' holtc.n. W.. StJetimm ltt l'lll<>fltutico·llreolr,gicum: De aptJellatiOIII'! rOv uiOv r oO 0v8,o<.)Jfov <JUtt Je.uu:;;: Me.H·iam professu:; esl (Paddc1lburg & Schoonhovcn: irJjcc(i 11d R.ltcnum. 1809). Schr•>•cr. J.. 'The Son of Man :tS llle rcprescm;u ivc of God's ki.osdom: On the lmctllf'Ctllliol\ of Jesus in Mart and Q'. in M. labshn and A. Schmidt (cds). Je.ms. Mmt and Q. Thl' Ti'aching of l r.sw ami iu EurlirJI Rawrh (JSt-."TSup 214. Sh.:ffi.:-ld: SltcfftC"Id Academic. 2001). pp. )~.

Scbulz. S.. Uttlt r.mch•mgett ~ur Men:;rh<'n.schJt·Chri.\'lnlogir im l ohalltlt.\'ew.msdium (G&tingcn: V~~ndl.'nhoeck & Ruptechl. 1957). Sc-hulze. l. Th.• 14m Mi'ttJcherrsohll mtd ~w11 Lnsos: Ei11 Btilrog :.rlf bihlischm Chri.st(}/ogie (Gotha: Pcflcs. 1867). Schw.1n:. G.. l e.JilS 'dtJ' Mensclle11solm'. Ammai.stiJ
Bibliogmphy

337

- -'The S\'lc'l of ~f:ln~. JBL 19 (1960). pp. 119-'29. - - 'The Soo oOfa.n Again', NTS 9 ( 1962-l)-{)$l. 25(,....6 1. Scou. R. 8. Y., '"Behold. lk Cometh will1 1hc Cloods'". NTS 5 (1958-9), pp. 127-31. Sci1~ 0. J. F., 'The Fmu~ Comingoflhe Son of Man: Thr..--e Midra~hic FomlUI.:uions inlhc G~l of Mark'. 5£ VI (TIJ 112. 1973}. pp. 478-94. Sharman. H. B.. Son of Mcm and Ki11gdom of God (New Ytnk: 1-l:u·pcr, 19-43). Sidebottom. E. M .• Tire Chris/ tJjlhr Fmtrtll GustNI in the Light ufFirsi·Cmlm)' ·numslll (London: SPCK. 1961). Sj8tx:r.;. E., Dtr Mtttw:hewohn im iitltiopischtll Herwdrbl({'h ( l und: Gl ~l'I'UJ). 1946). - -'an( p und VJK .,~ inl Hebraischcn und A mm~ischen'. Mw mit'nlalia 2 1 (19.Sl). pp. 57-65. 91-10'7. --Dtr l'trhol'g~tle ltltiiJ('hl!ti.S(Jhn itl dm Erc'mgtliell (Lu.nd: Olttrup, 1955). Sls!ec', T. B. ·On~ Likes Soo off\.fa.n in Fir.II·C~nlury CE Judajsm\ ."-'7:5 41 ( 1995). ,,1,. 183-98. - - 'Comp:ltisoos il.t\d thl.' Son of M sn •• Biblebluuhyam 24 (1998J. pp. 67- 78. Smalley. S. S., ' Thl.' Johanni ~ Son ofM:m Ssyings', NTS IS ( 19\'(lf':JUss:.gc•l im M ~utusl.'vsngi.'Jium\ ZTK ()'! (1967),pp. 1()--39. Smrch, R. L., ' The Rcpt:.ccmem of"Son of M:u1" by a Pronoun'. E.rpT 94 ( 1982- 3), p. 333. S\·edlund, G., 'Notl!ll oo bar nwh and the Oclrimental Effcc,ls of its Transfottn:tlion into lh<' Tide "'The Son of Man"'. Orietlla/i(t Sueca11a 33- 5 (1984-6). ,,,,, 401- 13. Taii)Ct'l. C. H., 'The My1h of a fk~~ndi ng·Asc~ndi ng Redeemer in Medircmnesn Antiquity'. NTS 22 ( 1915-6), pp. 4 18-40. T~ylor. V.. "fhc "Son of M:.n" Sayi ng,>~ Rd:.ting 10 the Psrousia'. £~·pT 58 (194(t-7}. pp. 12- 15. --1'ht Names ofJwJs (l ondon: M:.~~mm:.n> 1953). Ch. 7. ' The Son of ~tan•. Tel.'pk , H. M•. 'The Origin ofth~ Son ofM:.n Chrisrology'. JHL 84 ( 1965), pp. 2 13- 50. Thdsohn. J.. Dt r mrsenriihlte Rkhte1: Unltrsut·h•m•.s:m :,rtm lraditionssur:lriJil Sdbstbe:.~tlJ;IIi.J fiiJ' stilll! meuia11isd:t Wfi1rlr (Frdburg

i.B.: Herder, 1907)._ - -' li:JI dil.' Sclb!
( 1907), pp. 35-47. TI'Sdt, 1-1. E•. Dt'r Metudrensohn ill der s:mopti.fchetJ U~Nrliefmmg (C'riltcrsloh: ~iohn. 1959): Tht' Sm1 rifMan in lilt' Synaptic Tradition (t.t:.nll. D. M . B:.1'!0n: london: SCM. 1965). T&h, 1.. 'Ocr "Mensl.'hcn~ohn" und die FolgM', in C. Frey :.nd W. !·Iuber (cds). SchOpftrische' Nadifnlgt: Ftstschriftfiir H. £. 70dt (HI.'iddtk'rg, 1978). Toll. C., 'Zur Bcdcu1uns d~s :.rnm:Hsm~~n Aus:druck~~ b:.r n:B'. Orimwlio Su« ana 33- 5 (1984--6), pp. 42 1- 2&. Tl•~'kl'n. C. r..t, 'The Pre~em Soo of Ma11', JSNT 14 (1982), pp. 58-&1. - - 'The Son ofM:.n in Q'. in M. C. De Boc•· (ed.), From Jescrs tt1 Jolm. £\·says on Jtsus mzd N111f Ttstami!Jit Chrhtulog_\' in Honour ofMurimts dt' Jongt (JSNTSup 84. Shcfftcld. JSOT Prclls. 1993}, pp. 196-2 15. - - 'Q 12.8 One~ Agsil\ - "S.:an of M!tn" or ··r"?', in J. M. :\sgdrssoo.. K. d~ Troyer and M. \V. ~kycr(eds). Fmm Que.st w Q. Fcslsclrrift lmrws M. RobinsoJt. (BETLCXLVI. Lcm·l.'rt: Lem•l.'n & Pcetc-r~. 2000}. pp. 171- 88.

338

Bibliography

- -'The Son of ~tan snd Oanicl 7: Q :md Jesus'. in A. Lindc-ms1U\ {cd.), 711!' Suyi11gs Smua Q a11d th~ HisliJdcul Jtst•s (HETL CtVIII. lcuvcn: Lcuvcn UP/Pccters., 2001), pp. 371-94. \ltagc. L. E... ' The Son of Ms" S3ying~ i.n Q: Stnuiyaphicsl locali(ltl a1\d Significsn~-c'. M'ml'i(l 55 (1992), W · 103- 29. \~ndc-rKam . J. C., 'Rigtuoo\1$ One, Mc-s~iah. Chm:cn One ~.nd Soo of M :m i n I Enoch 37- 71',in J. H. Ch3r1.:swonh (.:-d.), J'H£ MESS/itH. IH••tlopments ill Ectrliel'l i1tdai.\'ltt ami ChrisliOJiit}' (MillJ\C:lj)()liS. F0111'CSS. 1992}. pp. 169- 91. \~mlcs., G .. '11\C lk: o f ·'tJ -afxt;J •~ in Jcl'lish Arnnlo3ic', App.E in M. Black. An .-tramaic Appmach to tire GIJspel.t and Act.f (Oxfrud: OUP. 3rd cdn. 1967). pp. 310- 28: reprin1cd in G.

Vermes. Post· Biblical Jewish S!rulit>s (ldckn: Brill. 197.S). t>l,· 147- 65. --Jesus the le11' (Loodoo: Collin ~, 1973), 1>1>. 160- 6. - -'The Pn.•so.' lll StittCof the "Son of ~·Jan" Ocbittc'. JJS 29 ( 1978). pp. 123-34. RcprimOO in G. \'c'rme$. lt>SliS a11d th~ World ofJJ«Iaism (lo•)do•l: SCM. 198.1). pp. &9-99. - -'The "Son of Man,. IX:b:uc', JSNT I {1978), pp. 19--32. Vtelhauer. P.. 'Ciottcsrcic-h und M cnsche•t.~hn in dcr Vc-rkilndigung Jcsu'. i.n W. Schncc-mddu·r ( cd). Festsclwif t fiir Gil111her !khn :;11J11 75. Gchm1srag. pp. 51- 79. Re~'rimc-d in P. Vidh~u.1cr, :\1t{siil:;e ;:rw• Nttrm Ttslament (1'811 3 1. Munic-h: Kaiser. 1965). - -'Jesus unddet Mcn~hcn~hn: Zut Di~ku!1Sioo mit l-lc-in1. f.dll3rd T&h und Edu:l.td Schwe-izer'. ZfK 60 ( 19(t3). 1>p. 133- 77. lh·pri.nto.' d in Vid h3ucr. :\ufsii/:;1!'. pp. 92- 140. V6gtk, A •• ' BCi'.l.'llgl die togienqud l..- dk 1\Ut hc-mi ~hc- Rcdcwcisc Jcsu ~·om "'MenllchcnJ~ohn'"?'. in J. IX:Iobc-1 (c-Ot.hcsc--'?', in K. Aland und S. Meurer (c-ds}. Wis.ftllsd•aft wrd Kirrhe. Festschrift fiir £dumrl Wlt.ft> (Bidefdd: tuthc-r, 19&9). ~'P· 10-95 . - -Die• 'Gretchmfragt>' des MmJchttJSolmpmblcm.f. Bilm1:; cmd Persw:cti\'e (Quaestiones Dis.put:utlc- 152. F1\'iburg:Uasd /Wicn: 1-k ldC'I, 1994). Valtcr. P., Dit ,l,frnscltt•nsolflt·Frage 11eu 1111/tl'Jllt'hl (Ltiden: Btill. 19 16). \Valke1. W. 0 .• ·T~ Otigin of the- Soo of .\ f:u1 Conc~·pt as 3-ppli~'· 95- 8. 123-30 .

Wifall. W.. 'Son of Msn - A P.-..-.oavidk Social Class?'. CBQ 3? ( 19?5), pp. 33 1-40. Wilson, F. M., '1'be Son of M:1n in Jo.•wish Apocal)'l>tk litcmture'. Stctdia bibliro et iheologim 8 (1978). pp. 28-52. Wink. W.. "11lc Soo of M:tn" i.n lhc- Gospel of John•. in R. T. fonnil :l.nd T. Thittd iCI' (.:ds.). JeJIIS itt Jolta1111ille Tmdilitm (louisville: W..-suninstct John Knox, 200 I), pp. 11 7- 23. - -The Huma11 Bring. Jes11s wtd the Enigma oflilt> So11 ofMan (M innca1>0l i ~: Foorc~s. 2002}. Withe-rington, B. Ill. nee Cluisto/ogy of Jescts (Minncitpolis: Fonrcss. 1990), pp. 233-62. Xcrsvits.. G.. ' DI>cs the- Figun.' of the ..Soo of Mitn.. Have- 11 Pboc in the- Eschit!Ological Thinking Clf the Qunua.n Community'.' '. f..o.lt1'St11d 26 (2001). f)~'· 334-45. 7..chrcr, F.. 'Jesus, dc-r M cn~l'lo.'1t.W\n'. BLil 41 ( 19'74). 1>1>. 165-76. Zorn. R. Q_ 'TI\c Signi fic~tnc-c of k sus• Sdf·O~'Signation, "Ttlc Son of Mitn"'', \0.t n:formata J..l (1 980~ pp. 1- 21.

J. O ther St>Condary Llteratu n> Cited Anckrsoo, H.. Thl!' GO.\]WI of Mark (NCB. London: Olil>hilnts, 197ft). Appc'l R.. and P. Mu)'skrn. Lan.guugt comact and bili11gualiYn (Lood\'ln! Amold, 1987).

Bibliogmphy

339

Aus.. R. D.• 'Catl};ht in tilt' Act', U'alkiJrg on tilt' Sru. und 1/!e Rdeas.. of Bar
B:tlls. C. (ed.), Somati:ptitm: Physical Symptoms and Ps.w·hologiC'al 11/nt.f.t (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990). Ballsncu, S.. 'Tex-t Types snd Powct Rclatjons'. in A. Trosbo.'M'g {cd.). re.~J Ty{'(IIOS.\' and Tramlati01r (BTL 26. Am$1er\lllm. Bcnjami.ns... 1991), pp. &7-9&. Bea~l cy-Mul'f:.y. G. R.. Jt.ms and tht Kingdom of God (GI'tlnd ft3J)ids:: Ect.:lmanns, 1986). lkckwith. R.. 11w Old Tt•stamem Canon ofI Itt' New TeJtaml"lll Church and its Backgrmmd in £m·ly Jstd(tism ([.{)ndon: SPCK, 1985). Berger, P.. ' Zu dc1l sogcnllt\tl.te.n Sltz..::n Hciligcn Rcchtes\ NTS 17 ( 1970-1). J)J). J0-40. - -' Die sog. "SJ!tzc hcitigcn Rcchtes.. im N.T. lhr~ Funkcion und ihr Sitz im Leben' . 7Z 28 <1972), pp. 305- 30.

Black. M.. All Ammaic Approodeto /lee Gospt'ls and Acts (0xforl1: OUP. l rd cdn, 1961). Borgen. P. 0 .. Brtad from Heart>n. All Exegnical sr.tdy oflilt' Conapt of Mamur in the Gospel of John a11d tht U'rititlSJ of Pllilo (NovTSup I 0. l cidcn: Brill, 1965}. Brown. R. E.• Tht- Gospel At'conlins to John (2 ' 'ok AB 29 and 29:\. LmliScm: C:t'ISCIJ, 1966). --The Dt-atll t>f the Mt.Hiuh. A C01m11nllary Oil the Pas.sio11 NarratirtJ in lilt' Ftmr GoJpt'ls (ABRL 2 V(l!~: Londoi\INcw Yoli:: Ch:lpm~uVDoublcda)\ 1994). Buhm3.ll.l\, R.. ' Die Bedeutung der ncucr.~chl~encn •nsnd:ti ~dtcn und manichaischen Que lien fUr das Vcrst:Y.ndnis des lohannc.~\•angcli umll', ZN\V 24 ( 1925). pp. 1()1()...46: rcpr. R. Buhma.n.n (cd . E. Dinkkt), Exest'tim. Aufsiit:# :.zo· Erfimdumg dt's Nt'strn Testumi"IIIJ (Tiibingen: ~iohr (Sichc~ic). 1967j, pp. 55- 11).1. --Die Gescltidrtt' dt'r SJII<>tJJi.w:hrn Tmditio11 (FRLANT 29, N.F. I2. G6uingcn: VandcnhoccJ: & Ruptcchl. 1921 ): 71et' Hi.flory o-f the S.moptic Tradition (trans. J. M:.fiJ!.: Oxfo td: B lackw~ll, 1963).

--ThetHogr of the New Jhtamt'lll (2 vok T1-ans. K. Gtobel; LondM: SCM. 1952). Burney. C. P.. 71ee P«try ofOw· Lord (Oxford: Clal\"ndoo. 1925). Cudbury. H. L Tht- St)11" ami Litem')· Mt'thod of Luke (HTS 6. Cambridge. MA: Hal'\'ar.:l U.P" 1920). Cunsdalc. f. S.• Animals of Bible' Ltmds (Exctet: Pat~most~·t+, 19?0). Caqu(l(, A.• ' I.:\ Double l nv~stitu.tc de 1.6vi ( BrC\·~-s 1\'ll\31\lUe!l ilur Ttst£11/lt'llt de U ri, VIII}', i.n C. J. Blec-ker er al. (cds). £1: orbe ri"Ugiomtm. Studia Gro m·dt'ngrm (2 vols: NumcnSup 21-2. l ddco: Brill. 1972). \'OL I. pp. 156-61. C:.rmign3C, J.. ' Smdics in the licbrew Bsckgrou•ld o f the Syno1)1k Gospels', ASrt 7 ( 1968- 9), pp. (14-93 . C:.rtoll. J. T.. • Luke's Ponmy:!ll o f the Pl'latisc~-s· . CBQ SO ( 1988), pp. ()(}.4- 2 1. Curson. D. A.. Tlw GoJpt'l Aa-mrli11g to ltHm ( L.ck.:st~r. IVP. 1991 ). C:.scy, P. M.• 'PotJ)h)'f)' and the Orig.in of the Book o f O:.nkr. fl'S NS 21 (1976). pp. 15- 33. - - 'The f'outth Kingdom in Costn:lS lndicopleu~tcll ~nd the Syrian ir:tdi!'iml\ Ri\-iJtu di Storia t' L~tlttraturo Rrligio.wr 25 ( 1989). J)l). 385-103. - -' Porphyry and Syrian Exegesis ofthc Bool: o f Dank I'. z.t.,rw8 1 (1990}. pp. 139-42. - - 'lltc Otigioal Aramaic F(l(nl of Jesus' lmcrprcration of tltc Cu1,·, JTS NS -II (1990), PJ). J- 12. --From Jt•wish ProtJhet UJ Centilt- God. Tlrt' Origi11s (IJI(/ Dt'wlopntt'llt of Neu· Tts/Un!t'llt ChrisUJIIIS,l' (The Csdbury LCC'IUICS at 1bc Univcrllity of Bim1i.nght\m. 19&5-6. Cambridge/ Louillvillc: JanlC~ Clatkcl\\'csuninlltCr/Johil Knox. 1991 ). --Is Jolml· Gospel Jhw? (london: Routledge. 1996).

340

Bibliography

- -'Culture ttnd Hi,.loticity: the Cle:mlling oflhc Tc-n1pk.' CBQ 59 (1997}. J>p. 306-32. - -'Mooothcis.nl. Wot!lhtism. Papers from 1M St AndJ~W!I C.ol\fc-rcnce (10 thi.' ..l ist\ltica1 Otigin~ of the \VOf"S.hip of Jc~u!< (lcidl.'n: Brill. 1999j. pp. 214-33. Chi."St..-.rman,A., •from " ls" to ''Oogh1" : laws:. Norms ::~nd Suategics: i1\ Trnnsbtis>n Studies'. Turgt't 5 (199l),pp. 1- 20. --Memes of Trans/(IJitHJ. T11e SprMd Qf ld~as i11 TraJlslalion TheOJ)' (BlL 22. Amstc:.rdam: Bcnjamins. 1997).

Colwdl. E. C .. Th~ Gn't'k ofthe Founll Oospr:l. A Suuiy ofit.f :\mmaisms ilr1he Lig/11 of Htllenistic Gret'k (Chicago: Uni.,rcNil)' of Chii.'$S-ll, 1931). - -'A !)::finite Rule for the lJJ~c of lhc Attic!~ in the Grcd New k~LSmem '. JBL 52 ( 1933), pp. 12- 2 1. Cros.:;ley. J. G.. Tilt Dati' ofMark:{ Go.\'ptl. Insight fivm !Itt Law ;n Earliest Chn·.\·Jitmil~\' (JSNTS'up 2(!6. london: T&T Clark lmcm:11ional, 2004). D.w ks. W. 0 .. und Dale Allison. C.. nre GoJI'It'l Accmrli11,~ to Saim Malthew (ICC. 3 vols: Edi1tbutg.b.. T&T Cbrk. 1988-97). Davil::., J. R., 'The JXad Sea Sctolls and Mcrta\·:th Mysticism', in T. li. Lim t'l ul. (cds). nte Dead Seu Sc-mlls in Tlttir Histon·cal OmteJ.'I (Edinburgh: T&T Cbrl:, 2000), pp. 249-<,.ol. D:: Jong<:. M .. •Jesus' d~-ath lbr Olh~rs and lh~ Math of the ~taccal>eal\ m;tnyrs'. in T. Baard:. rl a/. (eds). Te:rt a11d 7btilll011.\', EuuyJ Oil Neu1 Ttslammt tmd Apocqplutl Uteru111re ill Hmwur of . -t f: J. Klij11 (Kam,~n: KoJ.:. 1988), pp. 142- 51. Downi.og, F. G.. "The R.:SIHr.Xtioo of the D.::ad: Jcsu:~ :tnd Philo', JS.\IT 15 (1982). 1>1>. 42- :SO. Downi.o:g. J.• •Jc:~us and Matlyrdom•. JTS NS 14 ( 1963). pp. 279- 93. Dupom~Sommcr. A .. ' ExOfcismcl! ct guC.risons dans lcs r~cits de Qoomr:in'. in G. \V. Andcrso1t e/ al. (cd:~). C01rgrtJJ Volttmt' O.rford 1959 (VTSu1> 7. lciden: Brill. 1960), pp. 246-61. Duval, R.• 'Lc Tcstsmcm de S::.im Ept.r.::m'. }(Jftrnal Ariatique scr 9, IS ( 190 1), pp. 234- 319. Edwards.. R. A.. 'The Esch:ttologi<:al Corrdati ~-c as a Gulttmg in Lhc New T~sltuncm'. ZNW (,0 (1969) pp. 9- 20. Fi1zmy~'f, J. A .. ' The l:.nguagcs of Psklltinc in the FirS'! Ccmury A.D.'. CBQ 32 (1970). pp. 501- 31, r~v. \f4mdaiJig Arameun, pp. 29-56. - -Tht G<JSf'i'lAc<·onlins m Luh!. A New Trtmslalitm with lnlrndtKiiotJ cmd C01mnnttwy (2 vols: AB 28 and 2SA. N"cw Yorl:: 0\'lublcd3y. 19&1- 5). Fkddcrmunn. H. T.. M(Itk and Q. A Suuly of the O••tJ·!ap Tt.rts (BElL 122. lcuven: U uven lJ1liWI'llity Pre;;;;, 1995}. Frccd. E. 0 .. Old Tt.\'tament Qtwrations i11 lht' Gospel t.~f Jt.~ltll (NoVJ'Sup I I. tciden: Brill. 1965). G.:1ston. L. No JUHit' Otl QJWther. Sttulies in the s~~nifkanu oftile fall ofl tm.mltm in lite Sy1wptic Gospds (No\•TSUJ> 23. lciden: 8 1;11. 1970). J. Gnilku. Das E••ungtlium nach .Wotklls (EKKNT. 2 vols. OUs..;cldorf!Ncu.J.:irchcn·VIuyn: B~nzigcr/Ncukirehcner, 4 th C'dn. 1994). Goutb'<S. ~·1 .. ,\ La Dmile de Ditu. Rbun'l'<'litm de Jbtu· et A
Grotius. H .. Amlo/aliottt.f itl lihros ewmsdionmt (Amsu:r&uniP:ltis.. 1641). in AmwluliOitt's bt quaumr Ewmsdia & Acta :\poslolomm in H. GroLii Optra Omnia Thtof,,sica (Amstc:.rdum: Blacv. 1679). Tom II V\11. I. Gundry. R. H.. Murk. A Comtlll!llfar_Y on !lis AJHHogy for th~ Cmu (Gmnd Rapids: & n:lmans. 1993). Haenchcn. E.. !Nr \\~g Jestt. Eint Erkliinms d~s Mm*us-Enmsditwr.f und der lwnonlscltm Porcrlltlm (Berlin: d~ GIUytcr. 211d cdn. 1968}. Htlgn«. 0. A.. Multhew /./], (WBC 33A. Oalbs: Word Boob, 1993).

Bibliogmphy

341

H:aiiC,•i. 1., ' RC<'hcrchcs sur I~ langue
Hogun. L. P.. Healing ill tht Secottd Temple l'eriod (NTOA 2 1. Frciburg/G6ttingc-n: Uni v.:rsiL!ilsvcrlag/~ndc-t\hto\.-ck & Rupt\:~·hl. 1992). li &!ig., H. G.. ' li ol mc~· "M:tpping Theory" and the L:tn\1scspc of Me-mal Tramlt~tioo Proccssc~·, in K. M. ""Sn leu,•cn· Zwt~n sod T. Na..sijl:cn~ (o.'ds). TrnnslutiQII Sru1,· 261- 82. Hyviirincn. K.• Dit' Ubtr·set:;tms \'()II ;tqt~i/(1 {ConBOT W. UJl'flS3I:t: Almqvi!>l & \Viksd l. 19?1). Jahlc•l!>:l:y, A . 'The Con~-cp1 of Sotnatoform Disorders: A Comment oo llw: Mind-Body Problem in Psyehis uy' in Y. Ono tt al. (\:ds). SQitMttcfimn Disordeu A mnMwide Pcrsptctiw (Tok)-o: Spring.:-r. 1999),pp. 3- lt). .l:uick.J,. 'Aquila'll Kchd~th '. 1f?.111ls 15 ( 1990), pp. 13 1- 9. krcmius. J.. 111e Pumbles ofJesus (u:l.OS. S . 1-1. Hooke-. London: SCM. 2•ld cd1l> 19(13). --The Prayers ofJesus (London: SCM. 1967). -New Testamcnr nu·<1fogy {\'01. 1: 1m.os. J.Oowdtn: londo1l: SPCK. 1971). Ksg:maraj. J. J., 'Mysticism·in the Gospel t.t jJ(}lm. An lrtqllit;o i111n its BockgtlHllld (JSt-.'TSup 158. Shcnicld: Shc-nield Ac:tdc-nlk. 1998). K!.~mat~n. E .. ' S!Itz\: hc-iligcn Rcdu c~ im Ncucn Tc~l:imcnt'. NTS I ( 1954-5). pp. 248-60: 'S.:mcnre~ of l-l1>ly Law in the New Tcs!amc.u\ in E. K£..;cm:.nn. Nell' Tt.l10J1lt'lll Qneslions of 1mlay (1rsns. W. I. ~tomaguc: Londoo.: SC~t. 1969), pp. 66-SL Kdt Howard. L Di.sease ami HraliJ1g in 11le ·"-'~"~~' 1btamettt. All Alwlysi.s a11d lnrttpl'l'IUriQit (l:tnham: Univc-t~i ty Ptcs~ ofAmerica. 2001). Ki ng.~bury, l 0 ., 'On Following Jcsu11: the "Eag~r" Sc-ribe :tnd 1.hc "Rcluc1am" Disciple (M:ttthcw 8.18·22)', NTS 34 ( 1988). 1>1,· 45- 59. Kl:tSS('n. W.. Judas. lklroyer or Frii!'IJd ofJt.ms'! (London: SC~t. 1996). Klaudy. K.. IAnguagts itt Translation Ltcllltt'S Qllllu• Thror)'. Te(1ching am/ Proc:lice ofTmmluriQir 1,· 515-37. Kldnman. A.. Palitll/J alld Healtr.t inJhe CQIItt'XI o:f Cullw't'. An E.tploratiott o-f lhf' &1rderlcmd lwn~·ecn A11thmpolog)~ Mt·dicim~ and Psydrialt)' (Beckclcy/ L A.: Univ. of Calif\lmia.. 1980). Kiimmd. W. G., Pmmisf' a11d Fulfilment: 11re E.w~IKttoltJSkal Messugt' of Jenrs (trJJIS. )). M. B:utoo: SBT 23: London: SCM. 2nd cdn. 1961). l amy. M., ' lc Tcs1.anw:m de S:~.im f:phrem lc Srci en'. Compte t~11dL1 dt1 IV* Congrts Sdenrifiqut lntematimUJI des CcttholiqlltS. Premii'Tr Sec:limt. Sdcnces Rt>ligielt.SI'S ( 1898) pp. 173-209. Lane:.• W. L. 711t' Gospel ofMark (J.ondon: M:ac'Shall. Morgan & $c(l(t. 1974). lapidc. P.. Tilt- Resurr«tiQit ofJt>JIIS (Loodoo: SPCK, 1984).

342 Lars~.

Bibliography S.. ' Testing the Tcsa:: a ptclimioary

i.wCS~ig:.tion

of trsns:l.tuion ss :1 test of Wl'iting ~kills '.

in S. l.ar.~CI\ (cd.). Tnmslation. A Meu.ns If) OJ1 £11d (The Dol phi n 18. Asrt lUll: Aathus Uni v.• 1990),pp. 95-108.. Lcbour1H:r. J., ' EJ1tos llymim. L~ SC1lS " au mili~·u M \'Ous" i.'SI·il possible?'. Bib 'B ( 1992), l"ll· 259-62.

Lee. 0. A.. 111~ S,,·mlmlic Nonuti~Y's lJ/ the Four1il Gospel. Tlte lmerp/ay of Fomt om! Meaning OSNTSup 95. Shcnicld: Shcllidd Acadcmk. 1994).

Lightfoot, R. li. {00. C. F. Evans:), 51. l n/111 S Gosptd. A Comrmmtal)' (OXf(l(d: CI.SI\'Ildon, 1956). Lipiliski. E.. Ti:e AmltUttu.ns. T11eir Ancit"IIJ Histo1)~ C.tftw~. Relision (OI.A 100. Lcu\·cn; Peeters. 2000).

Loodc-t, W. R. G., 'Christ :n 1hc RigJu Ha.nd - Ps. CX I in 1M NC\v Tcl\lamooa', NTS 24 (1977- 8]. pp. 199- 228. Loisy. A.. 1uldet· the {l&Cudonym of J. l:uaix, ' lc Commcmaire &-17. L.3tsch<."t, W.. Trtmslutitm Perfonlla/la, Translation Pmcess ami Trrmslation Slrategits. A Ps.w:holingllistic IIIW!Jtigatiun (Tdbiilgcn: Nan. 1991 ). USvcsLSm, E.. lt'SII.\' 011d 'this Gmt'raticnt'. A New Tnlalllt'tlt Stufl.r (ConBl\"T 25. Stoc-kholm: Almq\'ist & Wikscll, 1995). McNamara. ro.c Thr New Tt>Jwment and tltt' Ptllestinitul Tan;um to the Pmtlltc11dr (An nib 27A. Rome: Bi bl ict~ll•t"l i mu:. 2nd cdn., 1978). McN<:: CUP. 19<><). Man!iOll. T. W.. Tlte- Ji·at'hillg tifl e!iUS (Cambt'id,gc: CUP, 19J 1: 2nd C'dn. 19J5}. - -Tht' Sayings"/lr!J.llS ( 1937, as Patt II of The- Mi.ssiun and Me!isage of Je.ms. cd. H. D. A. Msjorc-ll/1. Rcprimcd scparatdy. londoo: SCM. 1949}. Man:-us. J.. Murk I.Ji A New Tra11Siaticm ll'ilh lntrodudion a11d CmnmelltUI)' (AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000). M:usha\1. J. T.. ' TI'IC Amm:Uc Cl
Ncubetl. A . and G. M. Shreve. Truns/atimr w 1h1 (iransla1ioo Sn1(Hcs I. Kcm. Ohio: Kem S!:U<." Univ.. 1992). N61dckc, Th., Compendimu S,vn'ac Grammar (uans. J. :\. Crkhton: london: 'Williams & Norg.stc.• 1904).

Nolland. J.. Luk~ 9:11- /.'?:34 (\VBC ,; SB. Oall:tS: Word Boob, 1993). --Lukt> /li:JS- 14:53 (WBC l5C. Dallas: Word Books, 199J). Nord. C .• Tmns!utins as a PwpoJ~ul Activity: Flmcti<»wlist A.ppmur.hes £,plui11td (~ianthc$-ler.

Sl Jerome. 1997). - -·A Functional TYr)l)logy \'tf TrJnsl:!uions', i.n A. Trosborg (cd.). Text Typolugy and 1'nm.-;futi(m (BTL 26. Am~li.'l'\lam. Bc.ljamins. 1997), pp. 43-(>6. Owen. A. R. G .. Hysttri(l, IJ.wmosis un
343

Bibliogmphy

P:mison. E. M .. N. A. Ls pins and 1-1. A. O~n·, 'Faith Hc:.Jing. A Sl\1dy of Pcrsonslity and Fun~'tion •• liJunud of Nt·n.:oos and Mc-11fal Disease- 151 (1973). PI). 397-409. P:.ul_ A.• •ta Bibk g.tccquc d'Aquila 1.'1 l'idOOiogic du jud:!lismc s ndcn\ ANRIV 11.20.1 (1987), l"ll· 22 1-45. Rcod. J. L. Arrlureolog)' and Jlle Galilean JtSilS. A Re·excunillalimt of tht• fMd~tu·e (Hurrisbutg: Trinity P1X"SS l•ucmatioo:c~l. 2000). ReiD. K., MOglicl•kritnl w:d Grtll~/1 der iilwrset:,wtgs.kriti.k (Milnchcn: Hu..-bner. 197 1); 1i·al/sluti<»l Cn'liciJm - 71re POJeJitials and UmitutiOII.f (frans. E. F. Rhodes; ~fanehcst<.'r. St Jerome. 2000). RciB, K., and 1·1.·1 V<.'nncct, Gmt:dlegun.s; einer t71lgemc-iflm Trat~slutiOIIslhwrie (linguistischc .Arbc-ju.•n 147. T\lbingen: Nic-mcyc1', 1984). Rcnsbagcr. D.. Ort~t'OIItillg the \lhrld. PtJiitit'S <md CoJwmwit)' i11111e Gosptl of John (London: SPCK. 1988).

Rog.crson. J. W., 'The Hcbri."W ConcC!)Ijon of Corpomtc Personality: :. Re-c.-:aminati\'ln'. m NS 21 ( 1910). pp. 1- 16. R<.lSC. L. Failh HmUng (tondon: P..-nguin.. 1971 ). S:.d:s, H.. ' EVCI) 'OOCHas 10 Ue' . iJt M. Sanch..-s :md 8. G. Blount (cds), Soriomltwul DimensiOJIS tif La11guage Use (loodoofNY: Academic Prcs11, 1975). PI,· 57- 79. Sunders. J. N.. and B. A. Maslin, Tht Go:Sptl A
'Und Jesus sprcrch'. U11Jtr.md mngn1 :;tt' aramiiischtll Urs,estall der

\l~rlt"

Je.\'11

(BWANT I I&= VI,I&. Sruug.t~n : Kohlh:.mnw:r, 1985. 2nd ..-dn 19&7).

Schweitzer. A.. Tht Quesl fJj tl:t HiJttm'ml ltSllS. Firs/ Complttt Edition (ltuns. W. •\fontgomery eta/.: t.ondoo: SCM. 2000). SCguinol, T. C., 'The editing funelion of IUilslation' . Bulletill of the Cunudicm Association of AfJplitd Li11guisJio 4 (1982). pp. 151-61. Sclinkcr. L. R~disaweriiiS lmerlmlgllage (london: Longmttn. 1992}. Shorter. E.. From PamiJ.fi.S to Futig11C. ..\ Hi.nmy (if Ps,rdiO.\'OitKtlic 1/!J:tss i1t th~ M(J(/cm Era (New York: FI\."C Press, 1992). Slnrt. R.. 71rt Ri.s.c of Chn'stianit): A SociologiJt Rtt'rJruider.s History (Printtton: Princeton U.P.. 1996). S~.aub.

U., ' D:.s Tier mil den Hllmcm.: Ein Beitrag zu Dan 7.7f\ FZP1'25 ( 1978). pp. 382- 96. ~f . E.. Fo.mll E:.ru. A Cp!ldjc, 1989), pp. 39-44. Thylor. V.. The- Gospt'l AurJrding liJ St. Marl: (london: Macmilla.n.. 1959). TOOt\<:, B. K., ' Disorders of 1-lysleric:l.l ConYcrs.i\'ln'. i11 Ba.-111 (cd.). Somuti~Jtirm, pp. 207- 34.

Stone.

344

Bibliography

TOITC)', C . C.. T1re Foctr Gt>Jpt>ls. A Nt!w TrOJulcrJirm {toodoniNcw York: I.J s~··· 1933).

Tolman. R.. Soc;at C-Uil.St'S of Jif11ess (l tmdo1l: Souvenir, 2nd cdn. 19&1). Tov. E., 'ih~ Sctn~gint\ in M. J. MuldC:r 111\d B. Sysling t'C'ds). Mikro (CRil\l"f II. I. A~n/ M aa.~tri~ht/Philadclphia: Vsn Got\'um/ FOIII\':Ss. 1988) t>p. 161- 88. To,·cy. D .. l•tumlfiw Arl and Act ill 1/re Founh Gospel (JSNTSup IS I. Shdlii.'ld: ShcOicJ.d Acadcmk\ 1991).

Tristram.. H. B.. 71u• Notuml HiSlm)' of lht' Bible (l.ondon: 10tl'lcdn.l91 1).

Chri~1 ian

K.oowlcdgc SociCt)'. 1867;

Troppcc·. l, ' Die Hcrausbildung des bcstimnucn Atlikcls im Scmitischcn'. JSS 46 fWOI), pp. 1- 3 1. \~n Unnik. W. C .• ' The Quo1:nioo from the Old Tcsa:unc.u in Jo h.n 12.34'. ,\1o1·T 3 ( 1959), l"ll· 114- 9 . Vcml~'<'r. H. L A s*opos theory of trmu'lalitm {Snmt> 5). Waks. K., "'Person:.}'' and ..lndelin.itc-" ReiCrcnre: The- use-s of the pronoun ON£ in Prcsctu·day Engli ~h •. Nollinglwm litlStli.slic cimtlar 9 ( 1980}. ~lp. 93- 117. WdlhaUSC'n. L /Jroelitisc-hr w1d Jiidisdte Grscl!idiJe (Berlin: Reime-r. 1894). - -/Jillmg in Jit> Jrci t rJitll £wmgl!liett (Bl'11in: Reimc1~ 2nd cdn, 19 11). Wilcox. M., ' Scmiti~ms. in the New TC!iltunem'. ANRW 11.25.2 ( 1984). pp. 978-1029. Williams. C .. I am Ht>. Tht> lllll!rtJI'ttalitm of 'An1 H1i' ill }l!ll'islt om/ Early Chrisliutt Ultrolltrt' t\VUNT 2.113. Tdbi.ngcn: MeW Sic-bc--ek. 2000). Wrede-. W., ·zur Heitung
222- 33.

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND ANCI ENT LITERATU RE Old Testam('nt

Gene-sis 1.26 6. 122 1.27 1!2 2.3 263 3.19 204 3.22 204 ;. _ __ 103 5.2-1 100. l OS 5.32 101 6.10 256 6.14 248 13.16 49 20.7 152 21 .!2 252 22.4 207 27.35 278. 2SO 28.12 lii. 180. 28 1. 293. 312 28.16 280 30.23 256 49. 1 58

-

~,

Exodus 3.6 207 3.15 207 3.16 207 14-15 294 16 294 16.29 122 20.8-11 263 21.14 ~ 23.12 122

l...e\·itkus 4.3-12 155 4.20 155 4.26 155 4.31 155 4.35 155 13.42·44 154

13A6 154. 155 14.11 155 14.18·19 155 14.20 ISS 18.5 ISS 21.1 257

!'\umbers 2.25 256 18.21 257 20.1 256 21.8

282

2 1.8·9 293 21.9 282.287.304.312 2J .I9 258.259 24.17 250

IXuteronomy 2.19 256 8.3 262 18.15-19 294 2 1.20 137 22.6-7 158

22.21 22.25 30.4

2CH 21).1

242. 266

32.6 260 32.8 260 Judges

6.3 257 l5A·5 172 I Sumucl 14.-15 204 14.52 61. 116

20.31 26.16 26.19

257 257 259

5.4 258

7. 10 258 12.13 156 12. 14---!3 156 13. 1· 14 l>i 14.2 259 17. 10 258 22.45 257

I Kings 17 152 21. 10 25& 22. 19-'!! 181

2 Kings 2.J 257 4 152 4 152 15. 1 256 18.4 282 19 153 E:au

4. 1 257 6.4 164 6.11 283 6.14 256 6. 16 256.257 6.11 256 7.1 5 17J

Nehemiah 3.35 17 1 12.28 257 Job 1.6-12 181 2.1 --6 181 14 127. 129 14. 1+2

2 Samud 2.7 257

14. 10 14. 12

135

129 129

346 14.14 14.21

Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture 129 203

16.21 25S 25.6 25S 30.29 171 J5.S 258

9.5 194 10. 1 256 23.20-21 138 2.1.12 279 24. 14 237

&-dcsiastcs PsnJms 8

1.3 260

26

1.14

260

10.22 17.5 27.4J 30.28 49. 18 49.33 50.40 50.43 51.J7 51.4J

11 1 77 149 171 158 171. 258 158 149 171 258

8.5 23. 258 8.6-CJ 122

3. 11 260 6. 1 260

lOA 259 J2 151. 155 32.13 259 J& 151. 155 40.15- 16 136 4 1 129. 135. 155. 311.312 4 1.6 129 4 1.7 135 4 1.7-10 135 4 1.9 129 41.1 1 129. 136 43.10 171 45.5 I7J

6.11 260

l.amcntution$

7.29 260 8.9 260 8. 15 260 9.3 259, 260 9.12 259

4.3

48..12

173

49.3 260 6 1.13 237. 279 61.10 260 63.1 1

172

n-8 29< n.16 256 80.17 26 80.18 258 88.23 258 103 155 103.3 151. 151 110 243 110. 1 266.278. 280. 28 1. 312 116.3 129 116. 15 129. 135 116. 15 129 118.7 136 118. 14-17 136 118. 17-18 129 118.22-23 12'9 118.25~26 308 144.3

258

146.2 146.3

251 252. 258

Pro\•c:rbs 2.13

I IJ

Isaiah 11.12 216. 267 13.22 171 27. 13 216 l4.4 242. 266 34.13 171 35.3 149 38 153 38. 10-10 151 40 129 40.3 127. 130 -10.6 128. 129 40.6-8 127. 128 42. 1 280. 282 .l.l20 171 49.3 282 51.12

258

52. 13 282. 283. 287. 304. 308.309.311. 312 52.14 260 52 23. 25 53.1 308 S4. 13 294 55 2'14 56.2 25 I. 158

Jel"<'minh 6-7 12S. 129. 130 6.24 148 6.27 12S 6.27-30 128. !03 7 128 7.29 128. 20J--4 9. 10 171 10. 10 207

171

Ezekkl 16.26 18.6 21.12 23.7 37. 18 37.27 40.46 44.7 44.9

157 97 149 257 256 173 157 157 157

Daniel 1.6 256 2. 11 174 2.13 138 2. 11 138 2. 18. 138 2.22 164 2.15 257 2.J5 2 15 2.27 153 2.28-29 126 2.J2 60 2.37-38 63 2. .18 260 2. .18.-39 60 2.44 205 3. 15 125 3.22 284 3.23 5 4.4 15.1 4.9 174 4. 10 9& 4. 19 173 4.22 151. 17-1 4.24 60. 132 4.27 1.12 4.28 174 4.J4 182

347

Index
Hosea 6.2

111.18

D«ad S(!a Scrolls

Am<~

9.7

164

207.233

257

IQapG
11.5

Xll.l3 60. 164 XIX. 10 59 XIX 153 XX 153 XXI.S 59 XX1.13 49.62

Nnhum 2.13 172 Jottt~h

1.1

60

11.10 60

207. 234. 271

IQpHab Zcdt.1riah 2.10 242.266 9.9 308 12.10 243. 277. 278. 280 12.10-14 216.12 1. 266. 261 14.5 192. 221

V11.2 230 V11.9·14 217 4QEna I ii 25 191 l ivS 59

4QI97 t<.·l alnchi 3.1 127. 130 J.2·3 128 3.23 12S J.23·24 125. 126. 127

4ii2

153

4Q203 \'iii. 14

164

4Q204 vi 9 99 S~·riac

PeshJita

Genesis 8.21 63

4Q212 ii.20 60 i\•. 12 ~

Exodus 33.20 79

4Q213a frg 21ine 5

Job 16.21 78. 79 16.20-21 42 35.8 113

4Q242

153. 164

4Q246

52

Psalms

40.5 42. so 94.12 .J2. so

Sc.fin:-

111.14·17

67. 187

192

4QS36 l ii l2 202 4QS41 2ii3 128 4ii6 128 4QS42 Ii 3 ~ 1 i 6 129. 204

348 I i II I i 12

Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture ..J Moceab«s

60 59

4Q558

6.28·29 IJJ 17.20-22 IJJ

115

Simch Prof. 1 5~26

6QDun 26 1

14.18

l i T:;lob IX.9 64 XI.I J 60 Xl ll.6 60 XVI.4 60

Wisdom

132

XXV.6 60 XXVI.2·3 64

XXV11.9 132 XXVIII.5 60 XXVJII.7 174 XXIX.8 60 X.XX.2

299

17.31 299 38. 1-15 151 48. 10 125. 126. 127. 130

111.3 60

X.XXIII.6

156

3. 1 185 --1. 16 185 5. 1-16 185 16.7 282 17. 18 149

l'seudepigrapha

52.4

60

XXX.6 59 XXX.7 60 XXXI.3 60 XXXI.S 60 XXXI.S 59 XXXII.5 174 XXXIII.8 59 IIQIO

xxxvnu

t64

Ahiqttr

70 145 107-8 60 126 60 129 59 171 59 175 164 176 16-1 207 59

2 Baruch 1·1.18

122

IIQI9

XLV.12-14

154

I EIIIXII 1.9 192 ..J 174 5.9-6.4 96 6.~. 1

96

6.6 96 I ~facca!xes 2.50 133 2.64 133 95-J-55 149

6.7-8.1

2 ~faccabees 6-7 I3J

!2:206

7.15

133

7.37-S 133 8.3 133 J ~faccabecs 2.22 l -l9

46. 1-3 97·<.19. 106. 2:11 46. 1-4 30 ..J6.2 91. 9J. 9..J. 95. 100. 10 1 46.2-4 101 46.3 17. .w. 92. ()3, 94. 99. 100. 109. 110 46.4 94 46.4-5 97 46.8 97 46. 14-17 109 47 39 47.4 17. 31 48.2 94 48.2·7 101 48.4 102 48.7 103 48.9 103 48. 10 92 49.60 102

96

12.3 99 14

288

14. 1 99 15. 1 99

22.3 63 32. 1 2 10& 31.3 lOS -12.6 102 45.3 97 46 39 46. 1 100. 109 4

92

58.26-27 105 60. 1 102 60.8 102 60. 10 94 61.1 108 62.5 17. 9-1. 109. 221 62.5·9 102-3 62.7 93. 103 62.9 93 62. 14 93. 103-104 62.27 105 62.'28 106 62.29 106 63. 11 104 69.26 9.1 69.26-29 104-5 69.27 93 69.29 94. 109. 110. 221 70.1 .19. 93 70. 1-4 107-S 71 288 71.5 108 71. 111 98. 108 71. 11 100. 108 11. 14 30. 40. 94. 99. 106. 107. 110 71.14-17 99. 221 71. 17 93. 110 71.29 106 77.3 108 81.5 288 85·90 I ll

Index
90.40 Il l 93.1 98

2 Enoch 22 100. 109 22.10 109 645 10

3 Enoclr 16

T.!lbr. IJ 29 1 T. lfi.m.

5.6 99 T. Le••i 10.5 99

T. Jud. 14 IJS

99

18.1

2SS

E;,el:.ie/lhe Tragedkm, E.tu.gogt'

T. Le1•i 7.4-8. 1 110 10.5 110

68-69 114 4 E~ro

Philo

3.7

204 3.36 112 5.12 112 6.10 112 6.16 112 6.>1 122 7.1 1· 16 104 7.29 112 7.78 204 S.6 112 13 17. 20. 22. 23. 29. 30, 39. 40. 51. 52. .54. 112 13.3 112 135 112 13.11 112 13.25 112 13.3! 112 13.51 112

Jubilees 2.17 122 4.15 96 4.17·24 99 4.21 103 4.11·22 288 4.22 108 10.10· 14 148 10.17 99 P.mlmJ ofSn/(}rmm 8.1'2 97

Dt dtt·ologo

99 122 lk tbrit'llllt' 206-2-1 138 lk spedalibus legibus 4.97·104

138

Dt \'ila cmtlt'mtJiiwr

2 14S .JOMphus

Anriqt1ilies 1.72-6 118 \'111.45·9 148 XVJJ1.14 205--6 XX.97·8 214

Apiott 11.195

138

t\ew Teslrunent Mouhcw

Sib)'llint Orodes

1.21

V.414-6

2.2

51

222

222

349

2.4 222 2. 11 176 2.1J·I4 177 2.23 176 3. 15 164 3. 16 281 u 169 4. 11 281 4.1J 176 5.11 239. 271 5. 16 II. 2.54 5.20 286 6. 12 138. 16-1 6.25 115 7.9 II 7.21 286 8.2 169 8.4 169 8.11·13 240 8. 14 176 8. 18 117 8. 19-20 168-78. 316 8.20 6. 7. I I. 16. IS. 20. 21. 28. 31. J5. 40. 46. 47. 120. 171..173. 176, 271. 272 8.2 1·22 168 8.22 ITI 8.28 ITI 9. 1 176. 177 9.2 152 9.6 II 9.7 165 9. 10 176 9. 15 26 1 9.28 176 10.4 195 10.5--6 2JI 10.11 170 10. 18 232 10.23 2JI. 232 IO.J2 12. 181. 185. 271 IO.J2·J3 117. 179-94. 239. 2.55 IO.JJ 237.271 11.1 231 11.10 127 11.13·14 49 11.16·19 136 11.18·19 20.46. 47 11.19 21. 28 . .16. 42. 136-9.271.27-1. 315. 316

350

Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

11.20.24 156 11.2 1 170 12.8 10. II . 12. 15. 26 12.28 223 12.32 I I. 19. 42. 117. 1 ~3. 271.315.316 12.38 169 12.39 233 12.40 2-J.O. 271 12.41-42 185 13.1 176 13.36 164. 176 13.37 16. 234 13.38 261 I.H I 16. 234. 137 14.13-33 294 16.13 9. 12. 15.235. 236. 138. 282. 312 16.13-20 215 16.16 222. 263. 219 16.18 279 16.17 279 16.20 222 16.21 2.35. 236. 267. 274. 282. 283. 312 16.27 lSI. 237. 2JS. 293. 294. 312 16.27-28 183.137,238. 279. 292. 293. 308. 3 12 16.28 237. 286 17.9 274 17.10-13 17.12 12. 236 17.13 169 17.22 236 17.23 267. 274 17.25 176 18.3 2S6 18.9 2S6 1:8.21 169 18.27 164 18..32 164 19.16 169 19.23-24 286 19.28 181. 185 19.28 131. 238 20.18 236 20.19 201. 202. 261. 269. 274 20.20 169 20.28 236 2 1.5 222 21.14-30 220

"

21.31 2 139 22.16 169 22.24 169 2'2.36 169 23.23 58. 159 24 212- 22 24.2 213 24.3 212 2-1.15 213.2 16 24. 17-1& " 6 2.1.20 213 2.J.21 213 24.22 215 24.23 214. 215 24.23·25 2 15 24.24 213 24.26 214. 225 2.1.2~28 213. 214 2.J.27 212. 214. 216. 224. 226.227. 26 7.271 24.28 213.215. 226 24.30 6. 16. 17. 215.216. 219. 220. 211. 267. 274. 308 24.30-J I 2TI. 278 24.32-36 217 2.1.34 217 2.1..17 212. 216. 218. 224. 226. 227. 22:8. 267. 271 24.37-39 215.226 24.37-41 2 17 24.38 212. 216. 218 24.39 224.226. 227. 228. 267. 271 2.1.40-41 2 1:8 2.1.4 1 218. 226. 235 24.42 2)(). 244 24.43 219. 271 24.43·5 1 21:8 24.44 271 . JO& 24.45-51 220 24.51 220 25. 1-IJ 220 15. 19 220 25.20 169 25.22 169 25.24 169 25.30 220 25.31 230. 1JJ. 279. 293 25.30-46 18 1. 183 15.31 221 . 2JS 26.2 236. 268 26.25 169 4

26.45

309 169 26.63 222. 277 26.64 17. 51. 54. 274.277.

26.49

278.278,279. 280. 281. 282. J 12 26.68 197 26.75 197 27. 1I 222 27.11 222 27.22 222 27.29 222 27.37 212 27.42 222 27.58 169 28.2 169 28.9 289

Mark 127 1. 13 28 1 1. 18 164 1.20 164 1.21-34 "5 1.21 160 1.13-.31 160 I.JO 154 J.JI 160 1. .18-39 170 1.41-44 156 1.45 145 2. 1-3.6 16 1 2.5 152. 156 2.7 16 1 2. 10 152.261.272. 316 2. 1-12 121. 144-67 2. 10 19. 21.31. 36.5 1. 121 . 124. 162-6. 144. 264 2. 16 138. 139. 160 2.13~24 42 2.21 1. 15. 19. 263 2.21-28 19. 42. 12 1- 5. 263. 264 2.28 1, 19. 21. 26. 3 1. 35. 42. 143. 162. NS. 263. 264.265. .115. 315 3. 1-6 148 3.2 16 1 3.6 160. 161 3. 11 263 3.17 26 1 3. 19 195 1.2·3

351

Index i 6.6 170 6.i 165 6.10 170 6.13 165 6.2<1 165 6.32·52 294 655 170 7.11 25 ~ 7.:14 58 8. 1·21 294 8.11·13 233 8.27 235. 236 8.29 182 8.31 130. 201. 202. 203. 204. 209. 210. 211. 224. 225. 238. 266. 267. 272. 274. 282. 283. 312. 313. 317 8.32·33 129. 201 8.38 179-9-1,137. 271. 279. 293. 312 8 ..18-39 279 S.3S-9. 1 308 9.1 225. 237. 279. 286 9.9 266. 274 9. 11 202 9.11·13 14.+1. 49. 125- 31.

268 9.11 44. 45. 118. 125. 129. 130. 143. IS4. 185.203. 204. 236. 254. 266. 315. 315 9. 12·13 1.36 9.31 201.209. 210.2 11. 236. 266. 214. 317 9.J1 211 9.39·40 222 9.47 286 10.12 !!2 10.15 286 10.23·24 286

10.32 187. 210 10.32·33 266 10.32·35 192 10.33 236 10.33-34 201 . 2 10. 266. 317 10.34 130. 26q, 274 10.35 261 10.35·40 20S 10.34·45 44. 129. 131. 196 10.38·39 130 10.39 129 10.45 28. ~ 2. 44. so. 130. 131~. 143. lSI . 184. 200. 236. 266. 21"2, 315. 315 11.17 128 11.17-33 139 12.7·8 130 12.10·1 1 129 12.24 182 13.26 274 12.26·7 207 13.1·32 212 l.l2 156 13.9·13 232 13.10 242 1.3.15·16 226 13.20 213. 228 1.1.21 214. 225 1.3.21·22 242 1.1.22 213 13.23 213 l.l24 213 l.l24·25 242 13.25 242 l.l.26 15. 23. 49. 51 . 54. 61. 117. 192. 193. 216. 219. 220. 242. 24J. 244. 245, 266. 266. 267. 269. 172. 273.308.318 13.26·27 277.278 13.27 216. 228. 229. 2-11 13.28·29 229 13.28·32 217 IJ.29 217 l.l.30 229 IJ.32 230 13.35 218. 244 14.8 130 14.10 195 14.12·26 134 14.18 58. 129. 135. ISO.

295 14.10 129 14.2 1 28. 36. 42. 58. 117. 129. 130. 13~. 198. 199. 210.2 1I. 24S. 266. 267. 295. JIJ. .liS. 316. 317 14.22·24 200 14.24 IJO 14.3 1 196. 208 , •. .15 .109 14.J6 116 14.41 19&. 200. 210. 267. 309 I4.4J·SO 195

t•.so

t64

14.5().52 243 14.58 20& 14.6 1 24J 14.6 1--61 278 14.62 23. 51 . 54. 6 1. 117. 182. 192. 19J. 242. 244. 245. 266. 269. 212. 273. 274. 277. 278. 318 , •.64 157 , •.65 197 I U2 197 15.32 182 15.J4 204

luke-224 26 1 26 1 223 169 281 224 169 263 2.'i2 5 5.34 26 1 6.5 26 6. 16 195 6.12 239. 171 7.27 127 7.3 1-.15 1.16 7.33-:W 20. 46 7.34 7. 21. 28. 36. 42, 136-9. 271. 174.315. 316 7.40 169 8. 1 251 1.5 1.16 1.57 2.46 3. 12 3.2 1 4.2.5 4.J2 4.41 5.17 5.24

352

Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

8.7 223 8.11 1&2 8 .24 169 ~us 239 9.4 170 9.10-17 294 9.18 236 9.20 182 9.21 225 9.22 271. 274. 281. 283 9.26-27 279 9.27-28 225 9.33 169 9.38 169 9.-14 225. 27 1 9.49 169 9.50 222 9.51 169 9.57-58 168- 78 9.5S 6. 7. 18. 20. 21. 28. 3 I. 35. 36. 40. 46. 120. 172. 173. 270. 272 9.59-60 168 9.61-62 168 10.3 223 10.6 261 10.13 170 10.13-15 156 10.25 169 10.30 25-J 1.4 138. 164 1.20 22J 1.29-30 233 1.30 240. 271 1.31·32 ISS 1.39 16!1 1.42 58. 159. 169. 182 1.43 16!1 1.45 16!1 1.47 16!1 1.49 16!1 152 16!1 12.4 ISO 12.5 ISO 12.8 28. 52. 55. 183. 184. 185. 271 12.8·9 179- 94.239 12.9 237.271 12.10 19. 42. 117. 140--3. 190. 271.315. 316 12.12 175 12.13 169 12.39 219. 271

12.3940 '218 12.40 271 , 308 12.4 1-42 2 19 1~.42-46

2 18 .220

12.50 200 13.4 254 13.31-JJ 200 13.32 176 LU2-JJ 130. 208. 234 1·1.18 58 16.8 26 1 16. 19-31 202.206 16.30 206 16.31 206 17 121- 30 17-18.8 2.39. 241 17.5 222 17.20.2 1 26!1 17.20-22 222 17.22 223 •.,.,4, 225. 227.

269 17.23-24 214 17.24 224, '"5. 227, 169. 271 17.25 224. 22.'i. 239. 269. 271 17.26 218. ""4. 227. 269. 271 17.26-27 215. 217. 226 17.28·29 226. 228 17.30 218.224, 227. 269 17.31 226 17.34·35 217. 218 17.35 226 17.37 214. "'6 18. 1 226 18. 1-6 226 18. 1-8 226 18.6 226 18.8 271 18.15 222 18. 16 223 18. 17 223. 286 18. 18 169 18.21 169. 239 18.2+ 2.'i 286 18.31 169 18.31·33 225 18.32·33 202 18.33 271.274 18.4 1 169 19. 1- 10 138 19. 10 24 1

19. 11 222. 225 19. I 1-27 220 19.39 16!1 20.21 16!1 20.28 16!1 20.41 16!1 21 222-30 21..5 16!1 21.5-36 228 21.8 128 21.20-N

228

21.2 1 22.3 21.27 51. >t 213. 224.

228.269. 273, 274. 278 21.36 27 1 21.28 ~29 21.32 229 21.36 239 22.3 195 22.27 22J 22.30 13 I. 185. 238 22.47 16!1. 198 22.4& 42. 195-9. 264. 265 22.49 198 22.50 198 22.51 198 22.62 197 22.64 197 22.67·70 278 22.69 182. 184. 269. 273. 278 23.35 182 24.7 20 1. 225. 241. 27 I. 274 24.36 223 24.47 165

John 1.14 299. 309 1. 14-18 28-J 1.18 278. 289 1.26-36 281 1.32 280 IJ2·34 282 U J 280 U 4 280 1.42 279 1.47 278 1.49 277. 279 1.50 277 1.5 1 13. 276. 277-SI. 282. 286.293. 312. 318 2. 11 309

Index
,

' .1.-.

2&6 3.5 2&6 3.10-11 277 3.11 287 3.13 26. 27-J. 283. 284. 302 3.13-14 276. 318 3.13-15 282-91 3.14 6.274. 282. 282. 283. 293. 304. 308.311. 312 3. 14-15 307 3. 15 282. 283. 304 3.16 283. 289 3.16-18 187. 290 3.17 287. 289. 292 3.18 292 3.18-20 292 3.19 289 ' ? ) 287 -'·-3.22-26 287 3.26 287 33 1-J2 2&9 3.35-36 187 4.1 287 4.2 287 5. 18 291 5.19-30 291 5.20 291 5.22-23 291 5.24 291. 297 5.27 291-4. 307. .3 12.3 18 5.28-29 292 5.37 278. 29S 6.27 297. 298. 303, 313 6.32 298 6.>3 296. 298 6.34 296 6.35 298 6 ..!6 299 6.37 298 6.38 298 6.40 297. 298 6.41 298. 301 6A5 29-1 6.46 278 6A7 298 6.50 299 6.51 296. 298. 299 6.52 296. 300. .301 6.53 297. 298. 299. 300. .303.3 1.1 6.53-54 274. 299 6.54 297. 300 6.55 298

6.55-58 300 6.56 300 6.58 301 6.59-66 297 6.60 300. 301 6.60-66 299.300 6.61 301 6.61-66 299 6.62 274. .301. 313 6.62-63 289. 303 6.63 295. 302 6.64-66 302 6.66 299 6.68 299 6.71 195. 295 7.39 309. 312 8.11 303. 306 8.18 303 8.21 303 8.23 289 8.N 303 8.28 274. 282.303-5. 307. 308 8.29 303 8.30 3~ 8.30-31 3()4 8A8 JO.I 8.52 3~ 8.57 3~ 8.58-59 3()4 9A·5 306 9.5 306 9.6 306 9.13 306 9.16 306 9.17 306. 306 9.18 306 9.29 306 9.30 306 9.32 306 9.33 306 9.34 306 9.3. 305-7 9.35-38 306 9.36 307 9.37 307 9.38 307 9.39 306 11.39 208 12.1 308 11A 195 11.7 308 12.16 308. 309.3 12

353

12.23 274. 282. 308-1 1. 312 12.27 309 12.32 281. 308 12 ..12-33 283. 310-1 1 12.33 '274. 282 12.34 .108-11. 318 12.3S 30& 12.42-43 30-1 13.2 195 13. 18 295 13.2 1 295 13.26 195 13.27 195.311 •.312 13.3 1-32 282. 311- 12 1•. 16-18 1')0 14. 18 278. 290 I.J.22 195 14.23 290 14.25 290 15.26 190 16.5 290 16.6 290 16. 13 290 16. 14 312 16. 14-15 1')0 17. 1 312 17.5 2&9. 312 18-19 282 18.2 196 19. 1 274 19. 16-JO 27-1 20-21 274 20. 17 289 20.22 165 21.22-23 278. 280 Acts

1.7 2..10 1.9-11 229 1. 11 90 2.33 28..1 2.34-35 2-B 2.42 295 2.46 295 3.20 243 5.31 28J 7.56 184. 238,241 19.8 296 19. 10 296 28.7 207 28. 12 207 28. 17 207

354

Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

Rom:ms 1 162 I Corinthians

1.6 126 10.16- 17 295 11. 17-.!4 296 11.23~25 295 11.29 JOO 15.23 213 16.8 296 16.17 213 16.22 52. 218

Rcvda!jon

1.6 1.7 I. 13 1.30 3.3 3.5 3.21 14.1

Tnrgum Pseudo Jonathon

183 266 238 JSJ 219 17<), I &2 183

Targum Probcrbs 27.:22 2 15

183

1·1. 14

238

16.15

219

!2. 18-19 188 22.20 218

Galatians IJS 279

RA BU I ~J C

3.12

Genesis Rabbah

ISS

L.e,·ilicus 13.24 65 Thrgum 2 Chronicle~ 14. 10 78

UTERATURE

Tnrgum Psal m~ 8.5 112- 13 9.8 113 44.20 171 80. 18 53 88.5 65 11).1. 14-15 64. 11 3

7.2 21. 34. 75 56. 1 207 68. 12 280

Thrgum Job 16.20.21 42 3329-30 42. 78

~.,•itkos

Rabbuh 18. 1 208

Targum Jeremiah 51.43 64

Numbers Rubbah 19.3 35

Thrgum Er.d:.icl 28. 13 172

4.16 218 5.2 219 5.23 213

Eslher Rubbah 9.2 207

Tnrgum Micah 2.2 113

2 TI1essalonians

T:ugum Gcnc:sis

Bcrakhol

2.1

4. 14

i9.6 72

Philippians 2.6-S 90 2.9 183

I Thessalonians 2.19

213

3.13 4.15

213 213

213

I Tim()(hy 6.14 218

37

T:vgum Pscudo Jonathon 77

Hebrews 238

James

5.7-8 213 5.8 218 2 l'e tcr 1.16 213 J . ~ 213 3.10 219

72 73

Genesis 40.14

2.6

100.2 100.7

Midr. P,alms 21.5 192

T:ugum Ncofiti Genesis 1 .2~27 75 2.23 42. 76 4.14 76 -10.23 77 49.22 65

T:ugum Pseudo Jonathon

E.1.odus 13. 14 65

M.Abolh 1,13

202

M. Kidd. IV.I4 174

m. Shab. 6.6 ID b.Bcr

I John 2.29 4.12

213 278

T:u:gum Ncofiti Exodus 33.20 77

l Oa 21a

126 126

355

Index
288

y.Kcl

Apbrabat

11.314 (3Sa) 70 12.3/19(35b) 7)

fNIIWJIStrtJiio

b.Ki
y.MQ 3.5140 (S2d)

b.Ncd

y. Nat.

4 la

165

7.1118 (56b)

b.San 3Sb 221

107b

V.20 84 V.21 9. .86 73

Ephraem 202

y.Ncd.

COIIVUtllfary tHl lhc Dialt.fJOrotl

H/J (39b) 74

V.19.10·11

y.PC$.

V.24.10·12 V1.24:t.l·2

137

b. Scm Vlll.l

1.&111 (2&) 6 .3/3 (33<1

208

b.Shab. l47a

74

n

1i!J.t(IJ11t'fll

y.Qid. 123

1.7122 (6Jb)

7 7 7

158

121-6 78-9 124 250 297-304 79 944 250

y.San. 7.213 (Nb) 74 10 .2147 (29a)

75

Eusebius

b.Sukl:ah 53a

71

y. AZ 2.3n (4 Ja) y.lkr. 1.5JI0(3b) 2.&13 (5b) 2 .&110 (5c) 2.8/12 (5c} 3.1/ 12 (6.:1) 5. 1126 (9>)

205

68 68 69

y.Shabb.

HiJ.Ioria £cdcsiwtico

1.5114 (3b) 6S 1.7110 (3<) 66 2.3/5 (4d) 74 19 .3/4 (17b) 74

111.39.15

Gregory of N:uianrus

y.Shevi. 4.2112 (35b)

164

Oroti011 30. 21 3

9.1112 (3Sb)

72

69 70 62

y.Sukk. 1.212 (52b) 74 J.4/2 (53c:) H

66

l ,l/15 (63di

73 Groffus

72

y.Tcr. 8.915 (46a)

74

y.GitL 9.7/ 5 (5():)

A,~aiJISt Emwmius

y.TI1'nn.

y. ·erub 9.311 (15cl

Gregory of Nyssa

111.1 .91 2

y.Oem.ai 2.1117 (22d)

160

14

y.Ycb.

AnmJt11Iimws ill qmmwr £mngt'lio & Acla

Apmtolomm

4.714 (Sd) 72 S,l/21 (9a) 74

On ML 12.8 10 On Mk. 1.44 II

y.Kil.

PATRISfi C SOl:RCES

Hippolytus

9.4/4 (J'lb) 70 9...1/6 (J2d) 205 9.4/19(J2c) 71

2 Clement

JV.J0.2

3.2

IV. I 1.3 4

y.Hag. 1.1112 (7oo)

74

179

4

356

Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

Refitratio Omnium H
Hfflldolus

Tmctat11s dt> Adrersurio

1.27

257

32 8 L u<'ian

lraneus

J-.seudo Attwn asius AJ,·trsLIS HutrtJes

Dips.udts Or1 the l ncanwli(m Agaillsl

1.30.1 6 1.30.12-13 6 111.3.85 6 V.IJ. I2· 13 6

5

257

Apollinari.s 1.8 3

Pericles Tertulllan

Jacub or Ser·ug

11mcydides 1,1-*0.1

262

Ado.:ersu.f Man:imwm

Homily against the Je•,·.f 1.17 s VL I7J4 9 V1. 175-6 9

111.7 4 JV.IO 4 IV.I0.9 5 lV.IO.II 5 IV.IO.I2 S

J erome

Ad,·ersus Praxeam

Ctmwumtariorum in

2 2

2

2.14-35

N11tllralis Hiswriu

10.3 Theodore bar Koni

Ubtr Sd1oliu111

s

5·9

CLASSICAL

LITERATURE Aeschylus

Justin Pt'rsi<ms Dialogue 31.1 4

403 257

76.1 4 100.3 4

Aristotle

Karsal

9.33

Homif.\' On tire Epiphan.v of Our Lord

Artem.idorus Oaldianus

Hist. <m.

387

V1.769b 257

Pliny

SS-CJ

0.:10. 7.7-8 87 Dan. 7.13 89. 90 D.ln. 7.13-14 88-89 0..1n. 7.14 89. 90 Dln. 7.18 87 Dan. 11.44 88-89. 90 Dan. 11.4445 90. 91 0.:10. 12. 11 87

i.AI-I'J

4

Daniekm Libn' 1/J (I \') 1).;1n.

Plato

2 15

8 Ontimcritt>~r

1.76 284 IV.49 284

2 15

I NDEX oF M oDERN AuTHORS

Abbott. F.... A. 22. 32. 33 Allison. C. D. 170 . 173. 183

Anderson. H. 163 Appd R. 249 Avuk>s. H.

152. 154

Buker. l . H. 147 Burr. J. 60 Burrctt. C. K.

Bnssnett S.

132

247

36. 48 G. R. 190 lkckwith. R. 260 Berger. P. ISS lkt7.. 0. 50. 51

227. 2J I. 2:42. 247. 261 . 275. 2:76. 27S. 27(), 285. 290. 293. 295.29 7 Cotc.hpole. D. R. 12:1 Clx.stc:mwn. A. 247.253 Collins. A. Y. 43. 246. 255 Collins. J. J. 52. 110 Colpc. C. 35. 36. 37. 47. 50 Conk. J. 8 . 53 Creed. J. r..t 2 -1. 217 Crossky. J. G. In. 160

Buuckhum. R. l.

lkas.lcr-~tutTtay.

Blac.k. M.

21. 22. 34. 97. l OS. 157.214 .

215. 224. 225. 240. 277 Bohen. I. A. II. 12. IJ. IS. 55 Borgen. P. 294 Borsd t.. F. H. 25. 26. 52. 187.274 Brown.. R. E. 28 I Bul!mann. R. 27. 28.29 . 37. 144. 175. 186. 187. 274 Buri:en. D. .J7. 48. 246. 281.285. 288 Burney. C. F. 170. I 72. )73. 3M

Dnl mt~n. G. H. 61. 18 1. IS! O.:wid. A. S. 1-17 0
D.wila. l. R. 288 De Jongc. ~i. 132

Doerr. H. A.

H6

Downing. F. G. 207 Downing. J. 132 Otuper. J. A. 216 Dupont. G. 21 Dupont. J. 232: Dupont-.Sommer. A. 153

Edwards. R. A. Ec:rdmuns. B. D.

Cudbury. H. J.

188 IS. 144

190

Cncloux. A . T. 30 Cansdak . F. S. 170. 174 Cnquot. A. 107. 110 Cumgounis. C. C. 110. 112 Curmignac. J. 157 CmoiL J. T. 22..1

F<:uilkt A. 232 Fitt.mycr. J. A. 47. 6 1. 229. 239. 2..'i2 Flcddc:tm."'nn. H. T. 182. 190 Frt:<'d. E. D. 276.289. 308 Fuller. R. 48

Curson. 0. A. 284

Gaillan!us. l. 12 Gaston. L 188 Gathcrcok. S. 136 Gntli. F. M. 53

Cusc.y. P. M.

7. 14 . 15. IS. 29. 30. 37. 38.

39. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45, 46. 47. 49. 51. 58. 61. 77. 78. 82. 83.85, 87. 91. 95. 107. 113. 116. 117. 11 8. 120. 121. 12.5. 126. 127. 12 &. 129. 131. 134, 136 . 137. 138. 1 4~ 1 G.I43. 1 4S.I 5~ 1 53 . 157. 1 59.

160. 165. 170. 171. 179. ISO. 181. IS•. 185. 187. 191. 196. 197. 198. 200. 201. 202. 203. 208. 209. 213. 2 1&. 219. 223.

Gci!-1. H. 40 Gnilka. J. 144. 162 Goorgcs. ~t. 243 Gtobbc. L. 1- 251 Grolius. H. 10. II. 12. 13. 55 Gundt)'. R. H. 144. 162

358

Index af Modem Authors

J.bencbcn. E. 186. 181 Hagner. D. A. I 70 HaiiC\'i. l. 96 Halligan. P. W. 147

H.!lh·crson. S. 247 1-Wmpd. V. 170. 172. 173. 209 Hanson. A. T. 280. 304 Hare. D. R. A. 2 46. 255. 264. 265. 291. J04. J l l Harvq. A. E. 148 Htl)'.

D. M . 243

Hi~,gi ns. A. l B.

I. 132. 306

Hilgc:nJdd. A. 16. 17 HoO'munn. A. G. 16. 91. 94 HoO'munn. P. 184

Hogan. L P. 153 HOnig. H. G.. 45. l iS Holm·Nidr.cn. S. 260 Hooker. ~f. D. 46. 47. 132. 146. 15 7. 159. 16J Horbury. W. 53. 114 Howard. J. K. 147 Huchnergard. J. 56 Hyviirinen, K. 25 1, 260

Jabknsky. A. 146 Jan~n. H. l. 24 Jarid :. J. 260 Jc:n:.mias. J. 2S. 6 1. 170. 172. 173. lS I. 19 1.

207.209. 215. 234. 246 KagatU'Iraj. J. J.

288

!Gse.mann. E.

I81. 188 Keams, R. 48. 49. 50. 107 Kci.r Howard. J. l -17 Ki npbt1ry. J. D. 176. 177

Klm:scn. W.

198

Kloudy. K. 248 Kld n. M. L 76 Kldnmnn. A. 146 Ktacling. C. H. 24 Kiimmd . W. G. 46. 47. 51. 52. 183

250 L...1nc-, W. L 163 L...1pide-. P. 207 Lapin~ N. A. 146 Larsen. S. 247 Lcbourli
l..."tm)'• •\ f.

Lindars. B. 38. 39, 46. 48. 52. 209 Lipifiski. E. 67 Loodcr. W. R. G. 2 43

Loisy. A. 90 l.Ovcstum. E. 230 !l.'k Anhur. H. K. 207 Mc:NamarJ., M. 283. 284 McNeil. B. 260 ~kNc-i k. A. H. 260 Manson. T. W. 30. 31. 32. 132. I 76. 224 Marc-us. J. 24. 53. 156. 162. 166. 247 Marshall. I. H. 147 Marshall. J. T. 61 Maslin. B. A. 197.281 Mocks. w. A. 166 Menken. M. J. 294. JOS Mcl7.gc-t. B. M. 165. 166 Mc)·cr. A. 10. 18. 19. 20. 2 1. 32. 33. 55. 6 1. 124. 170. 173. 249 Mickkm. E. R. 147 MU!kr. M. I. IS. 39. 40 MUlkr. U. B. 52. 190 Murph)'. ~f. R. 146 Muyskcn. P. 249

Ncubc:.rl. A. 248. 249. 250 NOidckc. Th. 57 /lioUand. l. 170. lB . 229 Nord. C. 250. 253 Olson. D. C. 107. 10& Olto. R. 186 Owen. A. R.G. -45. 146

Pattison. E. ~~- 146 Petrin. N. 2'9, 30. 95. 18'& PC$Ch. R. ISO Rccd. J. L ISO ReiB. K.. 249 253 Rensberger. D. 285 Roge-rson. l. W. 31 Rose-. R. P. 27. 146 Rose-. L 146 Ross. l. .\ i . 43. 246 Sacks. H. -41. 187 Sanders. J. N. 28 1 Sch.1ffner, C. 250. 253 Sch.1gcn. S. H. 205 Sc-hmidt. N. A. 96 Scholtc:on. w. IJ. 1-4. 15. 16

359

Index ofModern Autlrors Schuchan:L B. G. JOS Schulthe.ss. F. 57 Schub.. S. 15. 16 Schulze. L Th. 15. 16 SchwankL 0. 207 Schw·a n:. G. 47. 61. 170. 172. 173. 202 Schweitzer. A. 23 I Schwdzet. E. 29 SC:guinot. T. C. 249. '!SO Sdinker. L. 249 Sharman. H. B. 29 Shorter. E. 147 Shn:V<:. G. M. 250

Toone. B. K. 146 Torrey. C. C. 224.225 Totman. R. H6 Tov. E. 252 TOY<)'. D . 285 Tristmm. H. B. 170. 171 Trapper. 1. 59

Sil v~r. 1. R. 147 SjOberg. E. 25. 95 Srn.allcy. S. S. 276. 27 Smith. C. S. 4 1 Smith. M. H. 171. 17J

Vos. L.A.

Slttrt. R. 266 Sl!lub. U. 82 Stone. ).i. E. 112 Sn:jccr. A. D. 248

Y..m Unnik. \V. C.

H.-1. 249 WrtTKs. G. 12. 20. 22, 30. JJ. 34. 35. 37. 38,47. 51. 52.55 Vid hauer. P. 29. 30

182. ISJ

Wales.. K. 4 1. 187 WdJhaUS<'"-11. J. 246 Wikox. M. 58 Williams. C. 303

Williams.. P. J. 197 W. 144

Wrcd~.

Zkgkr. 1.

Thyk>r. v. 14 5. 151 Thdsohn. J. 221 TOdt. H. E. 22. 23. 28. 29. 182. 183. 186. 187

J IO

VcrtTK~r.

251 . 260