The issues pertaining to the Aramaic behind o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou have been discussed with a growing pace in recent years. No scholarly study exists in a vacuum, however, and those that address the Son of Man problem are no exception. Consequently, the Aramaic issues surrounding the Son of Man debate are best understood in their historical settings.
The following review of the debate may be divided into three parts, the fi rst starting with Tertullian’s allusion to Daniel in the second century and running to Fiebig’s comprehensive treatment in 1901, the second commencing with the resumption of the debate after the Second World War until Sjöberg’s study in 1951, and the third being heralded by Geza Vermes’ presentation at Oxford in 1965 and continuing to the present.
The Debate Part 1: To the Early Twentieth Century
Foundational to any modern study of the Son of Man sayings is the linguistic background to the term ‘Son of Man’. Ever since the second century, exegetes have drawn a correlation between Daniel’s vision and Jesus’ Son of Man sayings in the Gospels.1 But the expression was typically treated in linguistic isolation, being understood only as a Greek expression until the Reformation. A Hebraic background for the phrase was then posited by Ulrich 1. Tertullian,
Adv. Marc. 4.10.
2
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
Zwingli.2 It was not until about 100 years later, however, that Johannes Coccejus commented on Mt. 8.20 by positing an Aramaic background to the phrase.3 Since that time, the majority of scholars have assumed the correctness of Coccejus’ basic linguistic position and have subsequently disputed about what that Aramaic background actually was.
The argument that the phrase ‘Son of Man’ derived from an Aramaic expression still had its advocates, even through a rather languid period for philological studies of the matter in the eighteenth and most of the nineteenth centuries.4
Nevertheless, this period saw a dramatic rise in the variety of interpretations offered for the term ‘Son of Man’.5 Then, on the cusp of the twentieth century, several landmark studies brought greater prominence to the position that the background lay in some Aramaic expression. In Israelitische und judische Geschichte, Julius Wellhausen posited Jesus’ use of Aramaic )#n) rb to mean ‘I’.6 Nathaniel Schmidt argued for a non-titular, idiomatic usage meaning 2. Delbert
Burkett,
The Son of Man Debate (SNTSMS, 107; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 14. This view was argued as recently as 1923; it has, however, decreased in popularity since then. For a list of scholars who take this position, see Burkett, p. 14 nn. 2–3.
3. Johannes
Coccejus,
Opera omnia. vol. 4 (Amsterdam: Someren, 1701), p. 15.
4. For example, ‘. . . erst Jesus adelte den #nrb = ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou’ (Paul de Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen [Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1866], p. 25, n. 3). The lack of any philological pursuit in addressing the problem during this period has been described thus:
‘[T]here appeared many studies indeed, which in one way or another, touched upon this question, but . . . these discussions inevitably suffered from the obsession of the times and the philological issue was drowned by other interests’ (Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man
[WUNT, 38; Tübingen: Mohr, 1986], p. 11).
5. The variety was so great that Lietzmann writes: ‘Was hat nicht alles “Menschensohn”
bedeuten sollen! Idealmensch, der die Menschennatur verherrlicht; messias, aber im Geensatz zum Gottessohn der Juden, als armer, niedriger mensch; Messias als Träger aller Menschenwürde und Menschenrechte; Messias als präexistenter himmlischer Mensch; Messias als Organ zur Verwirklichung des durch ihn zugleich dargestellten Menschheitsideales in der Welt; Messias – ohne Nebenbedeutung; Bezeichnung des Berufes Jesu, wie sich derselbe durch seine Menschwerdung bedingte; Messias im Sinne des “Idealmenschen” als Gegensatz gegen den national beschränkten “Davididen”; Messias, als Erzeugter eines Menschen der Gattung Mensch angehörig; schliesslich soll es Messiasbezeichnung im Sinne eines im starken Glauben erhobenen Anspruches sein’ (Hans Lietzmann Der Menschensohn [Freiburg i.B.: Mohr, 1896], pp. 23–24).
6. Julius
Wellhausen
Israelitische und judische Geschichte (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1894), p. 312, n. 1. While his note brought greater prominence to Aramaic theory, Wellhausen would later abandon this view [Burkett, Son of Man Debate, p. 84].
1. Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou 3
‘man’.7 Arnold Meyer then argued in Jesu Muttersprache for retroverting o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou as the phrase )#n) rb )whh, ‘that Son of Man’.8
Meyer’s use of the pronoun )whh was roundly rejected by his contemporaries, however, in particular Lietzmann and Dalman.9
Hans Lietzmann’s overriding criticism of Meyer’s work was that it was insuffi ciently systematic:10 ‘But all these latter papers do not provide so much a systematic working-through of all this material but rather only hints in what direction the solution of the question is to be sought.’
He then surveys the ways the phrase ‘Son of Man’ was used in Aramaic and Greek as they were known in the late nineteenth century. Lietzmann insisted that Aramaic grammar did not allow the term )#n) rb to be used for a specifi c individual.11 Further, given the lack of the phrase among the rabbis,12 he concluded that the phrase ‘Son of Man’ was a technical term developed out of
‘Hellenistic’ Christian theology.13
Dalman contested Meyer’s grammatical constructions as unattested, stating,
‘There is no example that )#fnf)j )w@hhf or )#fnf)j rba )w@hhf would have been 7. Nathaniel Schmidt, ‘Was )#n rb a Messianic Title?’ JBL 15(1/2) (1896), pp. 36–53.
Schmidt takes signifi cant issue with the selection of options presented by other scholars: )#n rb, )#n) rb, #n rb, #n) rb. Rather, Schmidt notes, several other options exist in Syriac ()#n)d hrb), Christian Palestinian Aramaic ()#n rbd hrb), and other corpora (p. 45).
8. Arnold
Meyer,
Jesu Muttersprache: das galiläische Aramaisch in seiner Bedeutung für die Erklärung der Reden Jesu und der Evangelien überhaupt (Freiburg i.B.: Mohr, 1896), p. 96.
9. Hans
Lietzmann
Der Menschensohn, (Freiburg i.B.: Mohr, 1896), p. 84; Gustav Dalman, Die Worte Jesu. vol. 1: Einleitung und Wichtige Begriffe (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965 [1st ed. 1898]), p. 205. Lietzmann further rejects the Aramaic theory of the phrase’s origin, alleging that the equivalent phrase for o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou does not exist in Aramaic. Rather, )#n) rb simply means ‘the man’ (o( a)/nqrwpoj) ( Menschensohn, p. 85). This conclusion was subsequently challenged by Dalman, who argues for )#n) rb as applicable to a defi nite individual despite its not appearing in the primary source literature as such (Dalman, Worte Jesu, pp. 195–208).
10. ‘Alle die zuletzt genannten Abhandlungen aber bieten nicht sowohl eine systema-tische Durcharbeitung des gesamten vorliegenden Materials, als vielmehr nur Andeutungen, in welcher Richtung die Lösung der Frage zu suchen sei.’ (Lietzmann, Menschensohn, p. 28).
It is worth noting that Leitzmann’s criticism is not directed at Meyer alone, but at the work of Uloth, de Lagarde, Wellhausen, Eerdmans, and van Manen, as well.
11. Lietzmann,
Menschensohn, p. 84.
12. Lietzmann,
Menschensohn, p. 50.
13. Lietzmann,
Menschensohn, p. 95.
4
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
used in the same way. Still less would mere )#fnf)j rba have been possible.’14
Surveying the use of )#n) rb and its cognates in several corpora of both Hebrew and Aramaic,15 Dalman concluded that the phrase is well-attested as referring to a single, specifi c individual.16
Shortly after the fi rst edition of Dalman’s Die Worte Jesu was published, Paul Fiebig published Der Menschensohn, the results of which corroborate Dalman.17 Dialoguing with Lietzmann, Meyer and Wellhau
sen, Fiebig fi rst surveyed the sundry forms of both #n) and rb across the earlier literature in which compounds with rb are not found frequently and the later literature in which they are; his point is to clarify the meanings and uses of the various words in question before considering them in construct.18 Fiebig fi nds no detectable difference of meaning in the uses of #n), )#n), #n()) rb and )#n rb.19
Further, Fiebig discounts the mistranslation theory espoused by Meyer and, at fi rst, by Wellhausen as ‘to be completely excluded’.20 He then concludes:
‘o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou is = the Man from Dan. 7.13 = the Messiah. Is it 14. ‘Es giebt aber kein Beispiel dafür, dass )#fnf)j )w@hhf oder )#fnf)j rba )w@hhf in der gleichen Weise gebraucht worden wäre. Noch weniger wäre blosses )#fnf)j rba dafür möglich gewesen’ (Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 205).
15. Dalman compares the use of Aramaic #n) rb and Hebrew Md) Nb across Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, Mishnaic Hebrew, the Targumic Aramaic of Onqelos, the Aramaic of the Samaritan Pentateuch Targum, the Targum of the Prophets, the Christian Palestinian lectionaries, Aramaic recensions of Tobit, and both Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions
[ Worte Jesu, pp. 191–97].
16. Dalman,
Worte Jesu, p. 197.
17. Paul
Fiebig
Der Menschensohn: Jesu Selbstbezeichnung mit besonderer Berück-sichtigung des aramäischen Sprachgebrauches für ‘Mench’ (Tübingen: Halle a. S.: 1901).
Dalman, Worte Jesu, pp. 191–219.
18. The corpora of the former are addressed in the fi rst half of the fi rst part (pp. 8–25) and include: the Biblical Aramaic corpus, Targum Onqelos, the Samaritan Aramaic corpus, the Targum to the Prophets, and Aramaic inscriptions. The latter corpora (pp. 26–53) include: the Sword of Moses, Talmud Yerushalmi, the Midrashim, Talmud Bavli, the Christian Palestinian Aramaic lectionaries, the Syriac corpus of the time, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (referenced as
‘Targum jeruschalmi I und II’), and the Targum of the Writings.
19. Fiebig,
Menschensohn, pp. 59–60. He concludes: ‘Wir sehen: keiner der vier Ausdrücke ist eindeutig und sie alle berühren sich in ihren Bedeutungen mannigfach unter einander. Das ist den bisherigen Erörterungen über den sprachlichen Thatbestand gegenüber besonders zu betonen; denn Lietzmann, Dalman und Wellhausen heben die Mehrdeutigkeit der einzelnen Ausdrücke nicht hervor’ (p. 60).
20. ‘völlig ausgeschlossen’. Fiebig, Menschensohn, p. 74.
1. Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou 5
right that “the Man” as self-reference to Jesus = the Man from Dan. 7.13 = the Messiah is . . .’21
Without a doubt, Fiebig’s analysis is the most comprehensive treatment of the Son of Man problem of his generation. As a consequence of his work, Dalman’s retroversion of o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou to )#n) rb prevailed for the next 50 years as the mainstream solution to the linguistic aspect of the problem.22
The debate Part 2: after the Second World War
Renewed interest in the linguistic approach to the Son of Man debate arose after the Second World War with the publication of three major studies that presented alternatives to Dalman’s conclusions. In the year following the fi rst edition of Matthew Black’s An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, J. Y. Campbell argued for a misunderstanding and subsequent mistranslation by those who rendered into Greek the supposed Aramaic Vorlage of the Son 21. ‘o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou ist = der Mensch aus Daniel 7.13 = der Messias. Ist es richtig, dass der Mensch als Selbstbezeichnung Jesu = der Mensch aus Daniel 7.13 = der Messias ist
. . .’. (Fiebig, Menschensohn, p. 75). This statement is reiterated and emphasized later in the thesis as well (pp. 119–21).
22. This is not to suggest that Dalman’s work lacked its detractors; however, what criticisms of his work there were did not gain adherents and were poorly conveyed. One notable exception to the unusual lack of debate in the fi rst half of the twentieth century is Nathaniel Schmidt’s vitriolic ‘Recent Study of the Term “Son of Man”’ JBL 45(3/4) (1926), pp. 326–49.
The author decries Dalman’s study as unscientifi c and ‘a mistaken estimate based on questionable data’. The main criticisms are Dalman’s tendency to weigh textual evidence – especially Palmyrene and Nabataean – without due consideration of the genres involved: ‘A philological observation may furnish a signifi cant clue, but it must be followed through all the literary data, with due regard for the necessary criticism of sources and the main theories propounded in this fi eld. Historical methods must be applied in the sifting of the material and the search for ascertainable facts’ (p. 327). For all of Schmidt’s rhetorical vigour, however, the article lacks any substantial rebuttal to Dalman’s detailed discussion in Die Worte Jesus.
It is worth noting that, while Meyer’s Aramaic argument was rejected, the understanding of the phrase that he espoused continued to fi nd favour. We know of the dissent largely after the fact, by way of the posthumous publication of A. J. Wensinck’s notes on the matter. Wensinck agrees that the phrase referenced ‘man’ but dissents from its being a form of self-reference.
Despite the presence of this view, Dalman’s view certainly had the greater number of adherents and was regarded as the authoritative position. So Matthew Black. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd edn, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), p. 296: ‘Gustaf Dalman, hitherto the recognized authority on the subject [of the Aramaic backgrounds to the New Testament]’.
6
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
of Man passages. He contested Dalman’s late dating of an indefi nite sense for )#n) rb, suggesting that the argument was self-fulfi lling – one naturally fi nds later phenomena in sources of late dating. Campbell instead argued that an indefi nite phrase may be made to carry a defi nite sense at any time.23 He further posited that such a reference in Aramaic was probably accompanied by a demonstrative adjective: )#n) rb )whh.24 That demonstrative was unnecessary in Greek and was probably dropped. He concludes that the phrase was thus misunderstood by the translators and was thought to be a title.
Shortly after Campbell argued for a mistranslation, John Bowman attacked Dalman’s arguments directly, employing both Targum Onqelos (on which Dalman relied for his work in Die Worte Jesu) and the Palestinian Targums from the Cairo Genizah. In the latter, Bowman found instances of both )#n rb and #n rb with an indefi nite, general sense.25
In 1950, Erik Sjöberg revised Dalman’s conclusions.26 Sjöberg, like Fiebig and Dalman, surveys a vast array of ancient Near Eastern texts.27 With Fiebig and Dalman, he fi nds that #n()) rb was probably used often in the Galilean Aramaic of Jesus’ time. Against Dalman and Fiebig, however, he fi nds that the phrase is not self-referential but pronominal, suggesting ‘a man’ or ‘someone’.
While much of the corpora that Sjöberg used are today of questionable relevance for the present study, his was the fi rst to attempt a large-scale diachronic analysis by broadening his scope to non-biblical works that preceded Jesus’
time by several centuries.
23. In support of this, Campbell cites Paul’s self-reference in 2 Cor. 12.2-3: ‘oi)=da a)/nqrwpon e)n Xristw|= . . .’.
24. The phrase may also be )whh )#n) rb in Campbell’s view.
25. See Gen. 4.14 and 9.5-6.
26. Erik Sjöberg, ‘Md) Nb und #n) rb im Hebräischen und Aramäischen’, AcOr 21
(1950–51), pp. 57–65, 91–107.
27. In the broad range of corpora used were Targum Onqelos, Targum to the Prophets, Elephantine Papyri, Nabataean inscriptions, Palmyrene inscriptions, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, and the Syriac corpus. It is worth noting that the diachronic range of the corpora used by Sjöberg is extraordinarily wide, extending from sixth century BCE to – at the earliest
– sixth century CE.
1. Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou 7
The debate Part 3: after Qumran
After Sjöberg’s study, the fi el
d lay fallow for 15 years. In 1965, Geza Vermes gave a lecture in Oxford that was subsequently published in the third edition of Matthew Black’s An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts.28 After surveying the literature of the debate, Vermes states:29
[I]t may safely be accepted that ())#n rb was in common use, both as a noun and as a substitute for the indefi nite pronoun, in the early as well as in the later stages of the development of the Galilean dialect, and that the employment of the defi nite or indefi nite forms does not substantially affect the meaning.
Vermes then takes as the points of contention the use of the phrase as a circumlocation for the fi rst person and the possible messianic connotation behind its use ( viz. Dan. 7.13).
Vermes’ study took the debate forward in that his was the fi rst study to use the fragments from the Cairo Geniza that Paul Kahle published and the fi ve columns of the Genesis Apocryphon published by Avigad and Yadin.30 In addition, his corpora of comparison included Talmud Yerushalmi, the Aramaic of the Genesis Rabba, Codex Neofi ti, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the fragmentary Jerusalem Targum, the Palestinian Talmud, and the Babylonian Talmud.31 He thu s concludes that ())#n rb is a Western Aramaic circumlocution for the fi rst person and is used to indicate humility, humiliation, danger or death. Noting readily that the phrase is not well-attested, he posits that this is not a refl ection of the rarity of the phrase: ‘It is more likely due to the rarity in the extant Aramaic sources of the sort of idiomatic setting in which such a grammatical phenomenon might normally occur’.32 This rarity, however, does not affect 28. Geza Vermes, ‘The Use of #n rb / )#n rb in Jewish Aramaic’ Appendix E in Black, An Aramaic Approach, pp. 310–30.
29. Vermes, ‘Use’, p. 314.
30. Paul
Kahle,
The Cairo Geniza (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959); Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin, Genesis Apocryphon (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1956).
31. It is worth noting that, aside from the Genesis Apocryphon and Codex Neofi ti, Vermes’
corpora date at least 300 years later than the time of Jesus and the earliest Christians.
32. Vermes, ‘Use’, p. 327.
Who Is This Son of Man Page 2