Who Is This Son of Man
Page 9
Second, Casey presents evidence to suggest that the emphatic state was optional for some kinds of expressions in various phases of the history of the Aramaic language.5 Unremarkably, he fi nds that the Qumran Aramaic version of Job from Cave 11 yields a host of examples of nouns in both the absolute and emphatic states in which these states do not appear to mark any discernible 3. Casey,
Solution, pp. 56–57.
4. Casey,
Solution, p. 59.
5. Casey,
Solution, p. 60.
52
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
difference in defi niteness. What this suggests to Casey is that in generic and some other expressions, the use of either state was optional and that it is
‘therefore natural to fi nd that ())#n()) rb may be used in either state, since it is a generic expression’. Again, however, if it is indeed natural to fi nd that the expression can be used in either state, it seems odd that while the plural does appear in either state in Middle Aramaic texts, the singular only appears in the absolute state, not in the emphatic state required to explain the articular form of the Greek expression. That the states are in some sense ‘optional’ for some words/expressions in Middle Aramaic merely highlights the lack of evidence that )#n()) rb is one of these such expressions.
Finally, well aware of the absence of the singular emphatic form of the expression in Aramaic texts originating from a Palestinian provenance around the time of Jesus’ time, Casey resorts to later texts for examples of the form his argument requires by insisting that:
Qumran Aramaic can safely be used in the reconstruction of the sayings of Jesus. It does not, however, go far enough, for the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain enough Aramaic to form a language. If therefore we confi ne ourselves to them, we do not have enough Aramaic to reconstruct the whole language of anyone. (p. 57) Casey is quite correct to suggest that the Scrolls do not contain enough Aramaic to form a language. Indeed, to rely on Qumran Aramaic in isolation to assess how normal the singular emphatic form of )#n()) rb was in the Aramaic of Jesus’ time would not only be unwise, it would also be unnecessary. The Qumran corpus is only one of several corpora which together comprise the phase of the language known as Middle Aramaic (200 BCE–200 CE).6
If the absence of the singular emphatic form of the expression from the Qumran corpus is indeed, as Casey suggests, an accident of preservation (or lack thereof), and if it was indeed a normal or ordinary way of referring to
‘a man’ at the time of Jesus, it seems reasonable that there should be at least 6. For an authoritative list of corpora belonging to Middle Aramaic, see S. Kaufman,
‘Aramaic’ in R. Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic Languages (New York: Routledge, 1997), p. 116.
3. Re-solving the Son of Man ‘Problem’ in Aramaic 53
some evidence for it in the not-insignifi cant number of Middle Aramaic texts originating in Palestine. It is, therefore, to these texts which we now turn.7
While the Jewish communities in the East later played an important part in the preservation and transmission of Targum Onkelos’ translation of the Pentateuch and Targum Jonathan’s version of the Prophets, there is wide agreement among Aramaists that the consonantal texts of both belong to the Middle Aramaic phase of the language, having originated prior to 200 CE.8 While the question of provenance has also been long debated, few are able to escape the arguments of Nöldeke, Berliner, Dalman, Kutscher, Greenfi eld and Tal that Onkelos and Jonathan have their origins in Palestine.9
In view, therefore, of their appropriateness in terms of period and provenance, and because of the amount of textual material they offer for our purposes, what do Onkelos and Jonathan tell us about the use of )#n()) rb?
7. The primary texts cited in the following discussion may be accessed online through the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon project (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/).
8. So, for instance, E. M. Cook, ‘A New Perspective on the Language of Onqelos and Jonathan’, in M. McNamara and D. R. G. Beattie (eds), The Aramaic Bible (JSOTSup, 166; Sheffi eld Academic Press: Sheffi eld, 1994), p. 150 on the basis of the existence of variant reading traditions from Nehardea which ceased to exist in 256 CE. For the early date see also S. Kaufman, ‘Aramaic’, pp. 115–29; Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘The Language of Targum Onqelos and Literary Diglossia in Aramaic’, Eretz-Israel 14 (Hebrew; H. L. Ginsberg Volume; ed. Menahem Haran; Jerusalem: The Israelite Exploration Society in cooperation with The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), p. 187, and most recently Douglas Gropp,
‘The Linguistic Position of Onkelos and Jonathan Aramaic’, paper presented at the Meeting of the International Organization for Targum Studies in Ljubljana, 2006.
9. Contra, for example, Geiger, Ginsberg, Rosenthal, Epstein and Kahle. See Goshen-Gottstein’s review of the discussion in ‘The Language of Targum Onkelos and the Model of Literary Diglossia in Aramaic’, JNES 37 (1978) pp. 169–79 and cautious preference for a western origin. While E. M. Cook’s critique (‘A New Perspective’) has helpfully sharp-ened the debate, see W. Smelik, The Targum of Judges (Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 20–21 for warranted reservations regarding Cook’s position, partly on the basis of the clearly ‘western’
use of the nota accusativi, a feature which encourages Gropp ‘Linguistic Position’ to favour a Palestinian origin.
54
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
Targum Onkelos to the Torah and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets Targum Onkelos to the Torah10
In Gen. 11.5, where the Hebrew text offers a defi nite form of the expression (Md)h ynb) ‘the sons of mankind’, Onkelos predictably supplies its Aramaic plural emphatic equivalent ()#n) ynb) and offers the same in rendering an undetermined plural form (Md) ynb) ‘sons of man/Adam’ where it appears in Deut. 32.8. On two other occasions, Onkelos also supplies the plural emphatic form in order to make explicit a subject which is merely implied or infl ected in the Hebrew.11 In Gen. 3.20, the same plural emphatic form ()#n) ynb) is reasonably supplied as a substitute for Hebrew yx ‘the living’.12 Even less surprisingly, this same plural emphatic form is offered when the translator is confronted with defi nite (Md)h [Gen. 6.1]) and indefi nite (#wn) [Deut.
32.26]) words for ‘mankind/humanity’. Finally, in Num. 23.19, the same plural emphatic form ()#n) ynb) is used to render not only (#y) [‘a man’]) in the fi rst half of the verse, but also the Hebrew singular form of our expression (Md) Nb
[‘a son of man’]) in the second half.
On the evidence furnished by Onkelos, while the plural emphatic form of our expression ()#n) ynb) is clearly a natural (or at least acceptable) way for the Aramaic translator to render a variety of related Hebrew expressions, it is striking that the singular form in either the absolute (#n()) rb) or emphatic state ()#n()) rb) is entirely absent from Onkelos – this absence made all the more conspicuous by the opportunity presented in Num. 23.19b to translate the singular form of the expression in the Hebrew (Md) Nb) with what might seem to be its ‘natural’ equivalent (#n()) rb). Indeed, that this latter form is not offered by Onkelos in its translation of Num. 23.19 or at any point in its translation of the fi rst fi ve books of the Hebrew Bible suggests that, so far as Onkelos is concerned, )/#n()) rb (in whatever state) is not only an unnatural way to refer to ‘a man’, but in fact either unknown or unacceptable.
10. The CAL text of Onkelos consists of the Bar Ilan text along with relevant variants from the base text and critical apparatus of Sperber.
11. Gen.
4.26
)#n) ynb (subject implicit in Heb.); Gen. 48.16 )#n) ynb (subject implicit in Heb.).
12. A more interpretive substitution is found in Num. 24.17 where the plural emphatic ()#n) ynb) takes the place of Hebrew (t#-ynb) ‘the sons of Seth’.
3. Re-solving the Son of Man ‘Problem’ in Aramaic 55
Targum Jonathan to the Prophets13
The widespread conclusion reached by others that the linguistic features and translational approach
of Tg-Onkelos are virtually identical to those of Tg-Jonathan is borne out by an examination of its use of our expression.14 As we have seen in Onkelos, Jonathan predictably provides the Aramaic plural emphatic ()#n) ynb) ‘the sons of man’ to render both the analogous plural indefi nite (Md) ynb, ‘sons of man’)15 and defi nite (Md)h ynb. ‘the sons of man’)16 forms of the Hebrew expression. Also like Onkelos, the plural emphatic is used to translate both #wn)17 and Md) (in its defi nite18 and indefi nite19 forms).
In addition, but also unsurprisingly, the translator of Tg-Jonathan supplies this same plural emphatic form to render Hebrew #y) (man)20 and My#n) (men).21
The ‘naturalness’ of Tg-Jonathan’s rendering of the above Hebrew terms and forms with the Aramaic plural emphatic ()#n) ynb) ‘the sons of man’ is supported by Tg-Jonathan’s provision of the latter even when there are fewer (or indeed, no) obvious prompts in the Hebrew text.22
More interestingly, whereas Md) Nb ‘a son of man’ in Num. 23.19 is, as we have seen, rendered by Onkelos with its own ‘natural’ plural equivalent ()#n) ynb) ‘the sons of man’, Tg-Jonathan prefers to render the Hebrew singular indefi nite Md) Nb in Isaiah and Jeremiah with its own singular absolute equivalent (#n) rb) ‘a son of man’ as we can see from Jer. 49.18:23
13. The CAL text of Jonathan is based on the Bar Ilan text (Sperber’s J) along with variants from the latter’s main text and critical apparatus (excluding tosefta variants) and the long tosefta annotation in Cod. Reuchlin as per Sperber.
14. The differences which do exist appear to be lexical rather than morphological or syntactical. See A. Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1975), pp. 202–13, followed by W. Smelik, Targum of Judges, p. 15 and Gropp, ‘Linguistic Position’.
15. 2 Sam. 7.14; Isa. 52.14; Jer. 32.19; Ezek. 31.14; Joel 1.12.
16. 1 Sam. 26.19; 1 Kgs 8.39.
17. Isa. 33.8 and 51.7.
18. Md)h: Judg. 16.7, 11; 1 Sam. 16.7 (2×); 2 Sam. 7.19; Isa. 2.20, 6.12; Jer. 33.5, 47.2.
19. Md): 1 Sam. 24.9 [10]; 2 Sam. 23.3 (Md)b); Isa. 13.12, 29.21, 44.11, 47.3, Jer. 32.20
(Md)b), 49.15 (Md)b); Zeph. 1.17 (Md)l); Zech 9.1.
20. Zech.
10.1.
21. Judg. 9.9; 1 Sam. 2.26.
22. 1 Sam. 1.11, 2.8; 1 Kgs 8.27; 2 Kgs 10.27; Isa. 14.12, 24.21, 45.18, 65.4; Hab. 3.4; Zech. 4.10.
23. See also Jer. 49.33, 50.40, 51.43.
56
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
Md)-Nb hb rwgy-)lw #y) M# b#y-)l
MT
#n) rb hb btwty )lw #n) Nmt byty-)l
Tg-Jonathan
KJV . . . no man shall abide there, neither shall a son of man dwell in it.
Evidently, on these occasions, the translator’s literalism (i.e. desire to render a singular with a singular) discourages him from supplying the plural emphatic form Jonathan and Onkelos normally provide elsewhere.24
While the absolute singular forms provided by Tg-Jonathan here still offer us no evidence for the use of the singular emphatic form which is required to explain the articular form of the Greek expression, Tg-Jonathan’s rendering of Isa. 51.1225 and 56.2 (see below) might seem, at fi rst glance, to offer some evidence of the use of the singular emphatic:
hb qyzxy Md)-Nbw t)z-h#(y #wn) yr#)
MT
hb Pqtyd )#n) rbw )d dyb(yd )#n) ybw+
Tg-Jonathan
RSV Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast . . .
While the elusive singular emphatic ()#n) rb) does appear here and in 51.12, comparison with the example from Jer. 49.18 above explains why. The reason that the singular emphatic appears in 56.2 is that Hebrew #wn) and Md) Nb function as the subjects of relative clauses whose defi niteness is implied. Just as the RSV is obliged to supply the article (‘ the son of man’) to express this in English, so too Tg-Jonathan supplies the emphatic form ()#n) rb) ‘the son of man’ in Aramaic. Far from suggesting that the singular emphatic form
)#n) rb ‘the son of man’ was a natural way for Onkelos and Jonathan to refer to ‘a man’, all that such examples suggest is that the singular emphatic 24. Even more interesting is the case of Mic. 5.6 where for the comparable A-B pairing of Md) ynbl/#y)l Tg-Jonathan actually supplies the singular #n) rbl/#n)l rather than the plural as might be expected. While such behaviour might be attributed by some to inconsistent translating practise or a different translator altogether, the change likely stems from the Tg-Jonathan’s desire to harmonize its rendering of the plural form (Md) ynb) in v.6b. with the singular form in 5.6a (#y)).
25. MT
Ntny rycx Md)-Nbmw twmy #wn)m y)rytw t)-ym Mkmxnm )wh ykn) ykn) Tg-Jonathan.
by#x )bs(kd )#n) rbmw ty)md )#n)m Nylhd Nwt) Nmm Nwkmxnm )wh )n) )n)
3. Re-solving the Son of Man ‘Problem’ in Aramaic 57
was an acceptable way for an Aramaic speaker to specify a particular son of man (in this case, a son of man who ‘holds it [justice/righteousness v.1] fast).
Summary of Onkelos and Jonathan Aramaic
While further analysis of the Onkelos and Jonathan Aramaic corpus would be required to determine what is statistically the most common means of referring to ‘a man’, the above investigation has at least served to establish that the singular expression )#n()) rb is not a ‘common’ or ‘normal’ way to refer to ‘a man’ in the Aramaic of Onkelos and Jonathan. Indeed, one can only speculate as to the considerations ( socio-linguistic, religious or otherwise) which have motivated Onkelos to supply the plural emphatic Aramaic form to render Hebrew Md) Nb, (Num. 23.19) rather than the absolute singular form,
#n()) rb.
With regard to Tg-Jonathan, while the absolute singular form still appears far less frequently than its plural emphatic counterpart, #n()) rb does at least appear on seven occasions, allowing us to draw the safe but unremarkable conclusion that it is a ‘natural’ rendering of its Hebrew indefi nite singular equivalent Md) Nb, where the latter appears in the Hebrew text of the Prophets.
While the singular emphatic does appear twice, it is clear that these appearances do not in any way support the notion that )#n()) rb was anything like a natural or ordinary term for referring to ‘a man’ in the Aramaic of Onkelos and Jonathan.
Other Middle Aramaic corpora
Supplementing Onkelos and Jonathan is a wide range of original manuscript archival texts and epigraphic texts in Aramaic which have been found in and around Palestine (or closely associated with it) and are to be dated prior to 200 CE. Obviously, these texts provide a quite different literary fl avour from Onkelos and Jonathan, refl ecting the range of commercial transactions and personal correspondence found at Muraba’at, Nahal Hever and other locales.
If the singular emphatic )#n()) rb was indeed an ordinary or natural way to refer to ‘a man’ in fi rst-century Palestine, one might suspect to fi nd some evidence of it in texts such as these.
In the epigraphic texts, the plural emphatic form ()#n) ynb) ‘the sons of
58
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
man’ does appear on, for instance, amulets from Horvat Marish26 and else-where27 and on a manuscript preserved in a Geniza.28 The singular absolute
#nrb appears on a silver amulet bearing Greek and Aramaic29 and rbg Nb is found on a mosaic at Ein Gedi.30
Once again, however, this corpus provides no evidence that the singular emphatic form of our expression was a natural way to refer to ‘a man’, particularly given that this was apparently done by means of #n).31
Likewise in the archival manuscripts, #n) is used on more than one occasion to refer to ‘a man’, as we can see from one of Bar Kosiba’s letters:32
Nyzr) ltmw (wqtm #n) lwk [ ] )lb#mlw Nnwhyl hsbwk rb Nw(m#
‘Simon son of Kosiba to Johanan and Masballah [ ] every man from Tekoa and Tel Arza’
In a divorce writ found at Murabba’at, we fi nd rbg being used in a comparable way:3
3
Nybct yd ydwhy rbg lwkl )tn) yhml
To be a wife to any man of the Jews who desires . . .
26. J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993), amulet 13, column 1, line 14 (h#n) ynbw).
27. Naveh and Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae, amulet 26, line 13.
28. Joseph Naveh, ‘A Good Subduing, There is None Like It’, Tarbiz 54 (1984–85), pp. 367–82 (378–79). T-S K1.143 magic book (lines 8, 11). (CAL reference: 52701010) 29. R. Kotansky, J. Naveh and S. Shaked, ‘A Greek-Aramaic Silver Amulet from Egypt in the Ashmolean Museum’, Le Museón 105 (1992), pp. 5–25 (line 16).
30. J.
Naveh,
On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1978), text 70, line 9.
31. See for instance, J. Fitzmyer and D. Harrington, Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Rome: Pontifi cal Institute, 2002) (hereafter, MPAT), text 69 (Ossuary Jebel Xallet et-Turi) line 1; L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: The Israel Antiquities Authority and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), text 455, line 1 (pp. 178–79).
32. MPAT 59 (5/6 HevEp 14, line 2).
33. MPAT 40 (MUR 19 ar, lines 6 and 19).
3. Re-solving the Son of Man ‘Problem’ in Aramaic 59
Again, however we fi nd no evidence of )#n()) rb in either the absolute or emphatic state.
Finally, the only evidence from Megillat Ta’anit suggests that in the Aramaic of this text too, #n) rather than )/#n()) rb in any form, is the natural way to refer to a man.34
Summary of Middle Aramaic found in other corpora
The solitary occurrence of the singular absolute expression #nrb in the Aramaic of these corpora (see above) and the apparent absence of the singular emphatic expression )#n()) rb weighs heavily against the suggestion that the latter was a normal or ordinary way to refer to ‘a man’ as Casey suggests.