This basic approach was brought to renewed attention by Geza Vermes, initially in his essay,
‘The Use of Bar Nasha/Bar Nash in Jewish Aramaic’, in Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd edn; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 310–30.
30. Owen and Shepherd, ‘Speaking Up for Qumran’.
8. Summary and Concluding Observations
173
by Owen and Shepherd in this volume reiterate their forceful argument, and engage Casey further and effectively in my view. This lack of evidence of the defi nite-singular form in Second Temple Aramaic texts is also consistent with the lack of any instance of the articular-singular form of the Hebrew equivalent (Md)h nb) in the Hebrew OT. For reasons that are not entirely clear, thus, it seems that the defi nite-singular in Aramaic (as the case for the equivalent in Hebrew) in fact was not in use, or at least not used with suffi -
cient frequency to have left instances in the available evidence of Aramaic of Jesus’ time.
Casey points to instances from centuries before or after the Second Temple period, and insists that in this particular idiomatic expression Aramaic remained constant across several hundred years and various locales. This is, of course, a possibility, but assertion does not comprise evidence, and repeated assertion does not increase the probative force of the claim. It would be equally plausible to think that, as with living languages generally, Aramaic changed across centuries of time. It is certainly the case that there were various regional dialects of Aramaic. Moreover, although the extant body of Aramaic texts from roughly Jesus’ time and geographical setting is frustratingly limited, we cannot ignore or downplay the absence of evidence that the defi nite-singular equivalent of ‘the son of man’ was a common idiom. Indeed, Casey’s claim that this expression was common and unremarkable in Aramaic usage of Jesus’ setting actually makes the absence of supporting evidence all the more serious for his position. Instances of an unusual and infrequently used expression might not have been preserved in the modest-sized body of fi rst-century Aramaic. But the total lack of any instance of a supposedly common idiomatic expression is very strange indeed, and I do not think that Casey’s efforts to defl ect the force of this defi ciency have been persuasive.
Williams’ essay reflects doubt about Casey’s position similar to that expressed by Owen and Shepherd. Williams makes the further valid point that one can connote particularity in various ways, in ancient Aramaic and other languages. So, even if Casey were correct in his claims about the usage of the defi nite-singular form, )#$n) rb, there were other means by which Jesus could have connoted a particularizing force in his self-references. Lukaszewski expresses a broader hesitation regarding our ability to make confi dent claims about the details of fi rst-century Aramaic, the effect of his argument being to
174
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
cast doubts on the sort of efforts that Casey and others before him have made to retro-translate the Gospels sayings back into Aramaic. Given the sort of caution expressed by Lukaszewski, these efforts can be regarded as interesting exercises, but they carry very limited probative force. Further, the very weak basis for these efforts should make us cautious about pronouncing on the historicity of individual sayings, or positing some distinctive meaning of them, on the basis of retro-translation. But this point takes us beyond ‘the son of man’
debate and into the wider efforts of Casey and others to use retro-translation as a basis for critical judgements about the Jesus tradition.31
In light of the linguistic data we have surveyed, therefore, I am led to give renewed support for the proposal I offered in a previous discussion of
‘the son of man’ issue published in 2003.32 That proposal is that o( ui(o&j tou~
a)nqrw&pou likely represents a careful translation of an equivalent, unusual and distinctive Aramaic expression, probably )#$n) rb. This singular-defi nite form of the more familiar Semitic idiom for referring to someone as a human,
#$n) rb (‘a son of man’), was retained and deployed exclusively in sayings ascribed to Jesus in the early decades, because the expression was regarded reverentially as Jesus’ own distinctive way of referring to himself. It did not represent some established title in Jewish tradition, nor did it comprise some new Christological title, and so did not claim for Jesus some honorifi c status.
Instead, it functioned in the tradition drawn upon in the Gospels simply as Jesus’ preferred self-referential device.33 In Aramaic, there was a particularizing force to this unusual singular-defi nite expression, as there was in the articular-singular Greek translation, o( ui(o&j tou~ a)nqrw&pou. That is, the expression designated Jesus in particular, and it could be deployed in any statement intended to make reference to Jesus.
I further propose that the most likely reason that the Jesus tradition linked Jesus so closely and uniquely with the expression is that he actually used it.
That is, Jesus likely made )#$n) rb his preferred self-designation, which 31. See also the earlier cautionary discussion by Loren T. Stuckenbruck, ‘An Approach to the New Testament through Aramaic Sources: The Recent Methodological Debate’, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 8 (1991), pp. 3–29.
32. Hurtado,
Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 290–306.
33. As I noted in Lord Jesus Christ (p. 305, n. 119), a speech-formula is not the same thing as a ‘title’, for the latter term typically designates some offi ce or honoured status.
8. Summary and Concluding Observations
175
formed a salient feature of his own speech-practice, his ‘voice’ or manner of speaking, in linguistic terms, his ‘idiolect’.34 This would be an example of what competent users of languages often do, adapting idiomatic expressions, either in form or connotation, to serve some new and particular semantic purpose.35
The obvious next question is what might have prompted Jesus to formulate and deploy so regularly this apparently unusual expression with its particularizing implication. We have already noted the proposal that ‘the son of man’
originated through Jesus identifying himself with the human-like fi gure of Dan. 7.13-14, and I have indicated why this seems to me unlikely. I propose, instead, that the expression simply refl ected Jesus’ sense that he had a particular, even unique, vocation in God’s redemptive purposes. That is, I suggest that Jesus saw himself as having a special role and mission, and that he used the expression for ‘the son of man’ self-referentially to express this conviction. It did not indicate what that mission was, and did not lay claim to any offi ce or previously defi ned status. Instead, ‘the son of man’ functioned to express his sense of being chosen for a special purpose before God.
I emphasize that this is a historical, and not a confessionally based, claim.36
To consider that Jesus saw himself as having a unique signifi cance and role does not require that he did or did not see himself in terms of the specifi c post-Easter claims about him. Nor does it require that one assent to him having any such special signifi cance. Also, it is not so strange an idea as bourgeois moderns might at fi rst think. A sense of being divinely called to a unique mission or role is neither unique in history, nor in itself indicative of mental health problems.37
34. I refer to my discussion in Lord Jesus Christ, p. 292, where I provide further distinctive features of Jesus’ speech-practice ascribed to him in the Gospels. For the notion of ‘idiolect’, see e.g. Lyons, Language and Linguistics, pp. 26–27.
35. See e.g. Lyons, Language and Linguistics, pp. 22–23; Ruth M. Kempson, Semantic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 50–74.
36. I plead guilty to the charge of being a Christian (take me to the lions!), but my proposal does not depend upon or in itself promote a Christian stance on Jesus.
37. See e.g. Rodney Stark, ‘Normal Revelations: A Rational Model of “Mystical”
Experiences’, in Religion and the Social Order: Vol. 1, New Developments in
Theory and Research, ed. David G. Bromley (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1991), pp. 239–51; Bromley,
‘How Sane People Talk to the Gods: A Rational Theory of Revelations’, in Michael A.
Williams, Collette Cox and Martin S. Jaffee (eds), Innovations in Religious Traditions (Berlin/
New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992), pp. 19–34.
176
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
We know of other fi gures who fi rmly believed that they were divinely commis-sioned for a unique role. Paul is perhaps the most obvious example from the NT, in his conviction that he had been destined by God before birth to fulfi l his apostolic vocation (esp. Gal. 1.15-16). Although we have no comparable fi rst-hand testimony, we should also presume that John the Baptist saw himself as specially called by God to announce eschatological judgement and salvation to Israel, in the mould of the OT prophets. If we broadened the survey, we could also include fi gures such as ‘the Teacher of Righteousness’, commonly thought by Qumran scholars to have had a sense of unique calling, and others across the centuries and in various religious traditions.
The specifi cs of Jesus’ own sense of his vocation need not detain us, and it would require much more space than is available to explore adequately and defend any proposal about what it was. For the purpose of accounting for his use of the expression ‘the son of man’, it is suffi cient to posit here that Jesus thought of himself as having a particular, probably even unique, divine vocation and mission, and that this sense of being a particular mortal called to a special role in the coming of the kingdom of God found expression in the use of that distinctive way of referring to himself.
Conclusion
This book does not address all matters concerning ‘the son of man’, and will probably not settle all minds on the issues included for discussion in it. But I believe that it brings together a collection of studies that consolidate and confi rm some important points for further exploration and debate. Among other points made, several contributions combine to show that Casey’s confi dently proposed solution to ‘the son of man’ problem has signifi cant problems itself.
The origin of the expression o( ui(o&j tou~ a)nqrw&pou probably does lie in some Aramaic expression. But the Greek phrasing and probably the underlying Aramaic equivalent were both unusual, and were each intended to connote a particularizing sense. The most economical explanation for the restricted pattern of usage of ‘the son of man’ in the Gospels is that it refl ects a reverential attitude towards Jesus’ own distinctive use of an Aramaic equivalent, and an effort to convey that use in the Greek rendition of Jesus’ sayings. The evidence of choice in the retention and deployment of the expression in the Gospels
8. Summary and Concluding Observations
177
probably refl ects the aim of the authors (and the tradition on which they drew) to give the sayings of Jesus a certain recognizable verisimilitude, using what had become known as a key feature of Jesus’ speech-practice.
INDEX TO SCRIPTURE AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES
OLD TESTAMENT
Deuteronomy
2.6 94
5.16 96
3.7 143n44,
Genesis
6.4-5 96
148n57
1.1 LXX
151n67
32.8 54
4.2 161
3.15 140
32.26 54
8.4 161–3,
171
3.15-20 139
33.11 143n44
8.5 139
3.20 54
11.4 162
4.14 6n25
Judges
33.13 161
4.26 54n11
9.9 55n21
58.6 143n44,
5.1-24 155
16.7 55n18
148n57
5.24 157
16.11 55n18
62.10 161
6.1 54
80.16 161
9.5-6 6n25
1 Samuel
80.17 162
9.6 12
1.11 55n22
80.18 171
11.5 54
2.8 147
89 94
28.12 114
2.26 55n21
97.5 148
40.23 12
9.9
13, 34, 50
110 96,
171
48.16 54n11
16.7 55n18
110.1 78–9,
79n2,
24.9 55n19
81–4, 82n10,
Exodus
26.19 55n16
86n19, 87–8,
20.12 96
94–6
21.17 96
2 Samuel
143.3 LXX
139, 161–2
7.14 55n15,
94
145.12 161
Leviticus
7.16 94
16.30 80
7.19 55n18
Isaiah
19.18 96
23.3 55n19
2.20 55n18
20.9 96
6.12 55n18
1 Kings
9.5 94
Numbers
8.27 55n22
11.1-9 142,
145,
1.18 149
8.39 55n16
145n47
1.20 149
11.2 145,
146n53
6.24-6 79
2 Kings
11.4 145,
146n53
7.13 85n18
10.27 55n22
13.12 55n19
21.9 109
18.4 109
14.9 143n44
23 54
14.11 143n44
23.19 54–5, Job
57,
14.12 55n22
139, 161
17.12-16 143
22.23 147
24.17 54n12
38.6-7 151
24.21 55n22
26.53 149
29.13 96
26.55 149
Psalms
33.8 55n17
2 94
40.3 81n8
2.2 145
42.1 144,
144n46
Index to Scripture and Other Ancient Sources 179
42.6 144
40n36, 46–8,
Joel
43.10 109
62, 78–9,
1.12 55n15
45.1 143n44
84–7, 86n19,
45.18 55n22
89–96,
Jonah
49.1 144
95n44, 98,
2.1 43
49.2 144
105–6, 116,
49.6 144
131, 139,
Micah
49.7 144,
144n45
142–4,
1.3-4 148
51.12 56
171–2
5.2 151
52.13 108n33
7.7-8 35
5.3-4 94
52.14 55n15
7.8 36–7
5.6 56
52.7 55n17,
7.9
48, 85, 142
7.6 42
85n18
7.9-10 36,
143
56.2 56,
60
7.9-14 36
Habbakuk
58 96n48
7.10 34
3.4 55n22
61 96n48
7.11 36
65.4 55n22
7.12 36
Zephaniah
7.13 viii,
4–5,
1.17 55n19
Jeremiah
7, 23n95,
9.1 55n19
2.6 139,
161
25, 30, 34,
14.21 147
36, 38–40,
Zechariah
17.12 147
40n36, 44,
4.10 55n22
27.40 139
46, 48, 64,
9.10 94
32.19 55n15
&
nbsp; 92–3, 115–
10.1 55n20
32.20 55n19
16, 166–8,
33.5 55n18
170–1
OLD TESTAMENT
47.2 55n18
7.13-14 36,
37n22,
APOCRYPHA
49.15 55n19
84, 91, 96,
49.18 55–6
170–2, 175
Judith
49.33 55n23
7.14 36–7,
37n24
8.16 139
50.40 55n23
7.15 85
51.43 55n23
7.17 85
Wisdom of Solomon
7.19 35
9.6 160n5
Ezekiel
7.19-21 35
16.7 109
1 114
7.21 36–7
2.1 60
7.22 36
Sirach
8.12 60
7.23 36
47.11 147
16.2 59
7.24 36–7
17.2 60
7.24-6 36
2 Baruch
24.1-2 60
7.25 37–8
22.1 114
26.2 60
7.26 37
28.2 60
7.27 36–7, 4 Ezra
31.14 55n15
37n22
13 46–7,
86
33.24 60
8.9-12 143
13.1-13 47
33.7 60
8.15 34n13
13.3-35 145
39.17 60
8.17 140–1
13.10-11 145n47
44.5 60
9 38
13.21-56 47
9.23 37
13.37-8 145n47
Daniel
9.24 37n24
2 85,
99
9.25 38,
85
1 Enoch
3.25 34
9.25-26 36
1–5 133n10
3.54 LXX
147
9.27 38n26
1.4-6 148
4.17 143n44
10.5 34n13
6–36 133
4.25 143n44
12.2 116
9.4 147
7 viii–ix,
13,
17.13-4 91
10.16 156
35, 37–8,
12–14 156n85
180
Index to Scripture and Other Ancient Sources
12.4 156
48.2 47,
85,
62.9 47,
85,
14–15 158
138n27,
138n27, 148
14.1 156
142n42
62.14 47,
85,
15 156
48.2-3 144,
149–50
138n27, 148
Who Is This Son of Man Page 26