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 VII
Abbre11iatio11s
"
CHAPTER I The State.of Play
CWAPTER 2 Tile-Use of the Anunaic.Tcnn (K)1V;(N) u , •Son of Man' 56
CHAPTER 3 The ·son of Man Concepr' 82
CJ.JAPTER 4 Six Authentic Sayings 116
CHAPTER 5 The llealing of the Paralytic (Mark 2.1- 12) 144
C i-IAPTER 6 Jackal< lla,•e lloles (Man. 8.19-201/luke 9.57-58) 168
C i-IAPTER 7 The Son of Man io the Heavenly Ulul't (luke 12.8-9//
Man. 10.32-33; Mark 8.38) 179
CHAPTER 8 Octl'ayed by a Kiss ( Luke 22.48) 195
CWAPTER 9 Jesus Predicts his Death aod Resurrection 200
CHAPTER 10 Other Synoptic Saying,.:; 212
CJ.JAPTER II Translation and the Use of Scripture. From Sayings of
J es-lL~ to the Sy nop•ic Evange-lists 246
C i-IAPTER 12 The-Johannine-Sayiog.:; 274
C i-IAPTER 13 Conclusions 3 14

Bibliography 321
/1tdex of Scriplllre and Ancien/ Literatllre 345
Index of Modem Aullwrs 357
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 Anchor Bible
Ad1•. Haer. Adversus Haereses
11d~>. ,\1c. Adversus Marcionem
Ad11. Pmx. Adversus Praxeam
AGJU Arbeiten zur Gesc-hichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristenlums
Akk. Akkadi:m
An Bib 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. Aeschylus, Per.fians
ASTI 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. Babylonian Talmud
BaL Bampton Lectures
2 Bar. 2 Banrch
Ber Berakhol
BETL Bibliothec-.a ephemeridum thoologicarum lovaniensium
BGBE Beitrage.zur Geschic.hte der biblischen Exegese
/Jib B iblica
BibRes B iblical Research
/JJ RL B ullet ill tif the JtJ/m Rylrmds Libra(\'
8111/..M 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 Beitrage.zur Wissenschaft vom A1ten und Neuen Testament
CBM CheSler Beauy Monographs
CB Q Cmlwlit· B iblical Quarterly
CChr.Sl Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina
2 Clem. 2 Clement
ConBNT Coniectane.a biblica. New Testament
 Abbreviations

CO !~ BOT Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament

I Cor. I Corinthians
CRINT Cornpe.ndia renun iudaicarun1ad Novum Teslame.,uum
csco Cotpu;. Scriplorunl Chrislianorun\ Otieo1alium
cur Curetonian
Dnn. Daniel
Dec. De decalogo
Dem. Denum:rtrmio
Deut Deuteronomy
Dial. Dialogue
Dips. Dipsades
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desen
EBib Etudes Bibliques
Ebr. De ebrietate
EKKNT E\langelisch·Katholisc.her Kon-lfnentar zum Neuen Testament
I En. I Enoch
2 En. 2 Enoch
2 Esd LXX "Ea5pa, n·
E"'. Es01e.r
E,...R. E.'ther Rabbah
ETL Ephemuidu lheologicar Jowmienses
Eu.s. Eu.sebiu.s
Exod. Exodus
Exp7im Expository Times
Ezek. Ezekiel
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Lite.ratur des Ahen und Neuen
Testaments
FlPT Freiburger Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie und Theologie
Gnl. Galatians
Gen. Genesis
Gen.R. Genesis Rabbnh
Gitt. Gittin
Gos. Thom. Gospel ofThomas
H.A. Hi.\·to1in Animalium
hark Harlde.an
Hnb. Habakkuk
Hdt Herodotus
H. E. Historin Ecc/esinstica
IJag l~agigah
Hos. Hosea
HSM Harvard Semilie r--•tonographs
HTR Harwrrd 11u•<Jiogic<d Rew·ew
HTS Harvard ·Theological Sn1dies
IBS lrisJr Bib/inti Studies
 Abbrer•iatians XI

ICC lntemalio nal Crilical Comn.eruary

IG lnscriptiones Graec.ae
lsa. Isaiah
Jas James
Jer. Jeremiah
JBL Jaunrtrl of Biblical Litemture
JJS Jaunral ofh "\vi.\·11 Studies
Jn John
Jon. Jonah
Jos. Josephus
Josh. Joshua
JSJ Jaunrnl for the Study ofJudainn i11tlre Pu sifm. Hellenistic and
Rama11 Period
JSNT Jaunrtrl for the Study (if the New Testame11t
JSI'<'TSup Jaunral far the Study of the New Testament. Supplemenl Se.ries
JSP Jaunral for the Study of the P.u mlepigrap/w
JSP Jaunwl for the Study of the P:reudepigraplw. Suppleme-nt Se.ries
JSS Jaunrtrl ofSemitic Studies
ITS Jounrnl of71u!fJ!ogiml Studie:r
Juh. 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. Ketuboth
I Kgdms LXX I Kingdoms
2 Kgdms LXX 2 Kingdoms
3 Kgdms LXX 3 Kingdoms
4 Kgdms LXX 4 Kingdoms
I Kgs I Kings
2 Kgs ?_ K.mgs
Kil. Kila.yim
Lam. Lamentations
Lev. Le.,•iticlJS
LCL Loeb Clas.sic.al Library
LD Lectio divina
Lk. Loke.
LXX Septuagint
M. Mishnah
I Mace. I Maccabees
2 Mace. 2 Maccabees
3 Mace. 3 Maccabees
Mal. Malachi
MekhY Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael
Mic. Micah
xii Abbreviations

Midr.Ps. f\.·lidrash on Psalms

Mt. Matthew
MQ tvh)•ed Q:nan
MT Mas.soretic Text
Noh. Nnhum
Naz. Nazir
NCB New Century Bible
Ned. Nedarim
~eh. Nehemiah
Neof Neotili
N.H. Naturalis Historia
NHS Nag Hammadi Studies
NovT ."'..tol'llm Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum. Supplements
NTOA Novum Testal'llentunt t l orbis antiquus
NTS New Testamem Suu/ies
1\um. Numbe.rs
NumenSup Numm. Supplements
Onq Onqelos
OTP 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 Peshiua
2 Pet. 2 Peter
Phil. Philippians
PO Patrolo.gia oriental is
Prov. Proverbs
Ps. Psalm
Pss. Psalms
Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
Ps-J Pseud(>·.JonathAI'I
PTS Patristische Texte und Sltldien
IQnpGen. Genesis Apocryphon
IQpHab Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk
Qid Qiddushin
I IQTg)ob Job Targum from Qumran
R. Rabbi
RB Revue biblique
Ref. Refuwlio Omnium Haeresium
Re\'. Re\'elation
Re1• Tlwm Revue thomisle
Sam Samaritan Targum
I Snrn. I Samuel
 Abbrel•iations XIII

2Sam. 2 Samue.l
San. Sanhedrin
SBL Society of Biblic~l Literature
SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series
SBLMS SBL Monograph Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
sc Sources Chretie.nnes
SE Studia Evangelic.a
Sem Sernal)mh
Shabb. SMbbat
Shevi. Shevi'it
Shevu Shevu'ot
sin sinaitic syriac
Sir. Sirnc.h
SNTSMS Sode.ty for New Testament Studie.s Monograph Series
Spec. Leg. De specialibus legilms
sr Sllulia tlreologica
Suk. Sukkah
SUNT Studien zur Um,,•eh des Neuen Testaments
Ta'an. Ta'anith
TBii Theologische Biicherei
TDNT G. Kiuel and G. Friedrich (eds), Theologit·al Dictimuuy <if the New
Testami'nt (trans:. G. W. Dromiley; II vols; Grand Rapids:
Eerd1Hans, 1964-76)
T.Ephraem Testamem of Ephraem
Ter. Terumoth
Tg Tan:mm
~

Theod. Theodotion
I Thess. I Thessalonians
I Tom. I Timothy
Thuc. Thucydides
T.Jud. Testament of Judah
T.Levi Testamem of Levi
Tob. Tobit
TSAI Texte und SIUdien zum antjken Jude-nnun
1T Theologisch 7ijdschrift
TU Texte und Untersuc.hungen
TWNT G. Kine I and G. Friedrich (eds), Theologisclu:s \llOrterlm ch ;..m1
Neuen TeJtame11t ( I I \'Ois; Smugart, Kohlhammer, 1932- 79)
TyuBul Tyndale Bullethr
1Z Theologisdu• Zeitsdrrift
\'. verse
Vit.Cm/1. De l'iln t.:mrtempfil•tt
VTSup Vetu.t TesttJmentum. Supplements
xiv Abbreviations

IVBC Word Biblical Commentary

\Vis. Wisdom of Solomon
IVUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Te-stament
y. Yerushalmi (c Jeru:t<'tlem/Pales1inian Talmud)
Yeb. Yebamolh
Zech. Zechariah
ZAW Zeitsdrrift fiir die allleslamemliche Wis.u nscluift
ZN\V Zeitsclrrift fiir die neuteJtamentlidte \Visseusclwfi
ZTK Zeitsclr.rift fiir Theologie uud Kin.·he
 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 the-
Sou 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<ltitHJ (fonhcoming). Earli er, s:ec also extMs.ivc pans of M. Milllcr. Dtr Ausdmck
'.4/t•t!schrnsolm' in dm Ewmgelirrt. VOraii.\'St'l:;mgenruul He<leulung (AThO XVII. t.c-idcrl: Still.
1984).
3. 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<trticularpersou. One maj or li11e ofintt-l'Jlretatiou
took the reference to be to Mary. For example. Gregory of Nyssa qu01es Eunomius
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<vuo:v .. .
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<ll'lic.ular refetenc.e to Mary ooutillued for cenrurie:.. II
be-gan to \\'ane-under 1he-critic.isrn, lirst fnade during the-Refotm;ujon period, 1hat
the second article in 0 uiO;- ToU O:v9pc..lnou is the masculine To\i rather than the
feminine. Ti)c;. This criticism requires a more literal understanding of the reference
to Mary than is found for example in the above passages of Tertullian and Gregory.
 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;
Yivb!JtVO<";, cK>J.ci: &Vnpo; AOOIJ ...(i t.~i:\1 OOv ini yijt; yiyo~ro\1 uiOr. ci:v&pWnoo,
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 ~<lary or to Adam in this theological kind of
way. there was nothing to stop a theologicaJiy minded Father from holding both
interpretations at once. Gregory of Nazianzus provides a straightforward e~ample
of this, a.s he discusse-S the various names of Je-sus:

YiOc; OE O:....epQnoo, 1(01 OuX TOV A&iJJ, ~eal OuX rrw nap6ivov. it Q\1 ~~ro· "TOV JJ£v,
c.lr, nponcl"Topo;, ,..Y,. Bi, ~ 1Jil"TP0t: v6lJ~, ,;a'100 vOf.l~ ytvvl)o~t.Y,:.
Son of man both because of Adam und bocausc of the \'irgin from whom he was bom. thc-
ooe as forefuthc:r. the: olhcr us moth~r. both uocotding 10 and nol :Kconfing lo the law of
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. s~ 1 ,t,·.n-1. >l-4 bd i)w.

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<o)nou titniv. ¢o n..Oj.ltVOV
tt
tJlv .::o'l ytv01l£VOV dvepc.)nov aVTOv IJflVUn. oU.::: Ctv6pt:.:~nlvou 6t onippcnoe;
Urr&pxovTo: 611Aoi.
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 <like a ~ of n\!tn' OlC!UlS t ht~t he appc:l.tc.:l to be ;lnd
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<O~tveo; ...
The Soo of 1nan was brought to him. bomc by s cloud ... (IV.tl.3)

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 the-
time 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<uttii/0\JI;. ~ uioi:r.- civEipc.)nwv -roOt,

Ovt}pc.)nooc;. t::o:t uioje; T(o)v tr~-r(o)v -roU; npotfl~Tor;· (.Siwj.to- yOp EoT• Tlit; 'Eepaic.lv
OtoAiKTOU.
Hc-ealls. 'l'lissons' tln~c cnu\ls!cd willt raising dw army.:-.~ •~ (nrecallcd}~onsof men. and !he-
prophets (arc called) f,(lllSof tile PfOt)hcL~. Fol'i1i ~ :m idiom ofdw bngua~ of dle Hc-hre>A·~
6 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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 ul<X- roU
O:vOpc:.)rrou. and comments:

-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<tO:V
rrpo~o 'll'i'~c:.:~v ...
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<o)rrou has both the artides, to
expound a text without them. Theodoret comments further on the meaning of the
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 <il)SJ>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
Clwi ~t (111,4 :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.
 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.
C<numentairt dr L ·Ewmsile Ctmronlu.nt. Tt~r Syriaque (!tis Chestu Beatly 709HCB~1 S. Dublin:
l~ odgc~ Figgi~, 1963): L. lcloir(cd.), Suint Ephrem. COtltlllt'ntaiJ·t d~ L' El 'Ufl.f{if~ Conrunlatrl. T~.rlt
SJriuque (.4fs Chtslt r Be-a lly 709}. Folitu AJJitiwrels (CBM 8. lcuvcn!Paris: Pecten~. t990).
8. SC"C P.M. Caso:y, Aram(li< Suuras tJj Murk :V GOSJ)tl (SNTSMS 102. Cambridge: CUP,
t99S). pp. t 58--<>8: 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 1rec. (Homily a,~;aill.fl lite Jews
1, 17)

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 vols: CSCO 55. 69: SS 19. 26,
1954). vol. I, p. 344, lines 5-9.
 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- the-
Son 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-<unnu~nte.don rvfl. 16.1 3:

u;; x-:;.;y 1\t)l\i ;;-~ ~'?K XJ,~i l 'K :'"u1lirJIO 1(';7 ; 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'.
10 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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
of x.tXIJ(K) 1J is instructive, both there are. a large number M examples ifl
becalL~C

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·
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<K 1:: (so.o1 of man) mcan1 •any
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"<ll in the.debate dOWO tO prescntlirnes. It cO'ectively
c-asts aside the Semitic evidence on the ground that the conclusions based on
it are not consistent with the actual expression 0 v'u)t; TOO O:vepc..lnou, read in
accordance with Christian tradition as a title of Jesus alone. This was a much more
reasonable approach in the. time of Gaillard than it is now. for the transition fro m
a Semitic. exp1-ession sudt as 01~ p h) the Greek 0 v'rck toU Ovepc..lrrou had not
been accounted tOr. Gaillard•s third argument is that the irHerpreta(ion of 0 uib; toU
OvOpc.lnov as a tetm tOr 'rllan' would not1itthe context of Jn 1.5 I. This is true, and
it should remind us that use of the Johannine sayings wa~ to be expected throughout
the pre-c.ritical era. It also exemplifies the dependence or relatjvely conservative
views of1his problem on Chrlsliatl tradition. It is also a ruajor tearure-of Gaillatd's
positive argument that 0 ui6t; toU O.v8pc..lrrou indic.ates the promised Messiah. This
is bas.ed on a large number of prooftexts. the messianic interpretation of which is
drawn frotn specifically Christian traditioo.
This was a central feature of the argument of Scholten in 1809.1"" Scholten headed
str.Ught for Jesus as ~·lessiah. and then to 0 uiO:; tOO OvOpc.lrrov meaning that he
was the ~·lessiah prophesied by DanieL as aJre.ady observed by many interpre.ters.
After going through all the biblical exal'uples of 01~ lJ . and apoCr)'phal examples
of v'u)t; clvijpc.lrrou too (I Euocll had still not been published), he tabulated all 1he
examples l)f Son of rnan sayings it1 the Gospels. II will be noted that at this stage-
Scholten did not discuss the everyday meaning of the Aramaic (x.)oiJ(K) 1~ as well.
The. downplaying of this Aramaic e~pression has remained a feature of interpreters
who lOcus on Dan. 7. 13 tOr their interpretation of 0 uiOc:;- tOO O:v8pc..lrrou. This was
muc.h more.natural for interpreters in the.days of Scholten than it is now. because so
much less \ vtlS known about the usage or the Aramaic (N)iJJ(K) 1J. and because 1he
\ 1.:ork of Grot ius. Bolten and others had so many obvious faults.

Scholten then proceeds to expound his main point

Appdlatio 0 uiO:; t<>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<t imperaturos. eundem.
qui Messiae nomine indicatus fuiL Et ipse quidcm Jesu~. hoc cnunciatio. de st J.ocutus est.
non de alio.11

14. W. Scholten. Spt <imm Hemletlellli<o·1'hmlosinwr, de Appdlalione toii u'.oii TOO

Ov&pWnov qua /i'.fll.t se Mnsiam professus ul (Paddcnburg & Schoonhoven: TrJj<:~'1i ad Rhenum,
1809).
15. Scholt..-,l. Dt> <lpptl/(di<>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<!
conditione., locurus est'. seH on· with Jn 1.5 I, the sigoilieant use of Johannine
traditil)fl '"hich I have already noted in Gaillard. The following sec.tion. the Iitle of
which indudes •de hul'uili r..·tessiae conditione' , justifies mtal depar1ure frotn Jewish
traditil)n about the Messiah by means of Jesus· 0\\'11 teaching 1hat the Messiah
would eventually come to his destined power not withom suffering and dying.1ll
The c.ombimuion of this kiod of argument \1/ith 1he kind of refereo<:e 10 Dan. 7. 13
and othe-r le-:<ts whieb I have-j·ust ooted 11'1eans that wheoever Jesus' life and teachiog
fits into Jewish tradition about the Messiah. this shows that he ' "as fUlfilling lhat
expectation: but when he diffl"rs from it that does not count against his being the
rvtessiah. This remained a feature of conservative Christian arguments. and Scholten
fined his interpretation of 0 uiO:;- ToU O:vOp<.lrrov inh) this nexihle framework
without ditlkuhy. A o 1!$pecially notable inse•1il)ll of the Mes..~iah where he is abl!e-nt
ffotr1 the co1Hext of a Son or matl sayi1lg is at Mk 9. 11 13//Mt. 17. 104 13 ~ \\'here
4

Scholten comments on the view of the scribes:

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.
Dis.~~tJ'IIillc) tl~t jillo ht)IJI/11/:J ud At~li(fmmr Df~trum JdfJ!tt. uti Du11.
f'IJ I J. /;/, Ch. II.
17. P. M. C~y. St>ll t)j.ltftm. 11u~ Jurt'tpr~tUtrltm mul hiJiuetlc<' uj'Du11itd 7 (London: SPCK.
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<lh would
come before. the day of the Lord.*
In addition (0 putting fOrward his own opinions. Scholten rnade tmrnerous
criticisms of others. rvtany of these are very effecth·e. and two of the.m are. wonh.y
or note ai this poiot One is his critique of the view that 0 u·u:lt; Toli Ov6pc..)rrou
really means ·son of Adam'. Schollen poi1Hed out that if this ' "as what Jesus meant
in Aramaic. the Gospel translators would haw rendered it 0 uiO:; Toli 'A6a~. This
is one of the decisive objections to this view, and it is regreuable- that s.ubseque.nt
adherents of this view did not take more notice of it.:• Secondly. Scholten criticizes
the work of J. A. Bolten.n Ooe of his objections is that the Gospels we n~ not written
in Syriac. TI~i s is not a.'> 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

20. Casey. Ammai< Soun:es ofMark's Gospel, pp. 122- 3; pp. 125-3 1 below.
21. Scholte-n. D~ <tppt'llotiOJu• ro!i uioii roV &vOp<Jn-ou, p. 163.
22. Scholtc:n. D~ <lpptllariOIItt roti uioti roV Ov8pGi1Tov, pp. 174-9.
?'
-'· L Th. Schulze. Wm1 MeJtKhmstHIII rmd rom Logos. Eitr Beilra,~ ~'" biblischttl
dtri.fUJiogie (G(l(ha: P~nhcs. 1867). pp. 1-80.
24. Schulze, \ilitl Ml!nscht'tt.f<>lm. pp. 12- 15.
25. S~hui2C", \bm Mmrcl1msolm. pp. 20-2 1.
 16 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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~"'"<Is to another major step. In d iscus~ing MI. 8.20, which
shows no sign of Dan. 7.13, he argues that it dl)es have it in rniod re-.all>' 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'<!'llCe. was publis-hed in I821, IOIIowed b)' aJl editioo
of the Ethiopic. version. A Gennan translation soon followed and an improved
teX( and German translation were provided by Dillmann.~ 1 h.ave alre~'ldy noted
the lack of underStanding M (K)vfJ(K) -u ifl anempts to understand •he Gl).<;pel
tenn 0 v'1~ roV O:v8pc.lrrou, and the domination or scholarship by Christian
tradilion. The same trouble beset the. Similitudes. In C.Oflsequence. many scholarS
argued that t:he. Similitudes were a Christian work. or that they had suffered from
Christian ioterpolations. For example. it1 1857 llilgenfeld began his description M
the main content of the Similitudes as the ddioeatiou 'des Ausen\1tihhe1l oder des

26. Schulze. \~11 MmsdreJIS(Jhn. p. 33.

27. Schut~ \ 0m Merudrmsohn, J)J). 4)-41.
28. R. l aul\'nce. Tilt! Bo~'ik of Enod1 1l:t! Propltl!t ... nt>IV}ir.u tr-wrslute-tl fitmJ w1 Ethfopic:
lttaii/IJcripJ in 1/ee Bodleia11 Library (O:<f(J(d! J>:.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<li.fcht' A{)Oku(\plik ill ilm~r geschidetlichm EJ1twirl:.lw1g Uena:
Mauchc. 1&57), p. 152.
 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<lkes 'der r...tensche.nsohn' look Iike a title. just as if it were a translation
of 0 viOt; toU OvOpc.)rrov. Hilgenfeld added a number of other poinlS. He did not
believe lhat a Jewish community could be described as Holy and Elect. nor that a
Je\1/ish figure-could be deS<:ribed al> 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 stage-
occur 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 die-
Gerechtigkeit hat ... •. h was this treatmenl M ' Son of man' as a tide •hat led to tlle-
Sou 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.

31 . luurcncc. 711e Bock of Emcll tire Pmpht'l. p. xl.
32. 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.<tuh, 1866}. pp. 9- 34. ' Die ldre des ~1\'-osc-hcnsohncs•.
34. 8('yschlag. Christologitt. pp. 14-16.
18 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

with a lower vie.w of the tille 0 uiO;- roV OvOp<olrrou. referring to the heavenly
ideal Man :Uld Mes.siah of Dan. 7. 13 witl1 his himmlische Herrlichkeit. So e.ven
at ML 8.20// lk. 9.58, the rl'l.ain point is said to be the grem contrast betwcerl the
himmlische Herrlichkeil of the Menschensolm and the c.ontcxt of the saying. This
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 <if
E11odr. I lis \VOrk was not as inftue-ntial as it might have been because-it wa.'> 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.

36. 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 <k:s mc-.nschc-n" in hcl b<lck
"Henoch•". 1T 29 ( t895). pp. 48--71: \V. C. van ).fancn. • J)c ·~Zoon dell mcnschcn" bij ~-! enoch'.
7T29 (1895}, t)l). 263- 7. I regl\"t tha! I do nm h:we acccl!l! to thi:j; dd>.'l!e. :ul do nM r~d Dutch: I
owe the: latter references to ~f. ~t. ).fiilkr.
31. 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~<leulung fiir die
Erldiinmg dtr Redm l t'Sll und dtr £1¥mge/irtJ iibtrlttmpt (Frd hutg i.BJLcipzig: Mohr (Sicbcck),
t896). For a ge,l!.'tsl :IS$CSS.ncm of ~ic)w's wotk. sre C:~sc-y, Aramaic Sourr:es <1/Mark's Gospt'l.
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 \\'<L'> 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. Mcyc-t•."-l•rrterspmche. p. 9 1.
40. Meye-r. Mlttlfm-prache. p. 93.
4 1. 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 <k:rsc-1 ~ im Amrn!lischc-n
nic-hl existicn und aus spr.-chlkhen GrUnden nkh cxi.s.tkn:n kunn:'"

42. Meyer. Mutrtnpracht', pp. 95-U.

43. f\okyer. Mutraspracht'. pp. 96--7.
44. 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.
 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//
4

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, where-
Jacob of Kefar Niburnyya, ordered by R. Haggai to rome and be beaten for ruling
that iis h should be ritually slaughtered, responded as fOllows:

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. Dupont. Le Fils de I'Hommt. pp. 4 1-(,0, 159 .
52. M. Bl'lck, 'The Son of ~t:l!l in the Teaching of Jesus', £xp'fim 60 (1948--9), l)t). 32-6
(34-5).
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&lt 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&lt
bluntly ca..~ts aside the interpretative section of this chapter, inte-rpreting the-ntan-
like 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<Hvidu:.Jity
and puts ' Ihe t)COple ofl:hc S3i.nts of the Most High' io his t)L"'~.5"

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<lJ)'. T6d1 then tums finally
to the Simililudes. which he thinks provide the most de-tailed acc.om)J of 'lhat Mao'
in late Jewish apocalyptic literature. He retails imponant facets of the. Son of man
(igure, including for example his pre-existence and his function as 1he eschatological

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

54. E.A. AbOOn, 'Tht' Son of Mun' or Conrribl•litms w 1/ee Smdy of Jltt' 71rouglet oflr!J.Its
(Oi:.tCS.iatica VJU. C:-.mbridge: CUP. t9t0). p. xv.
)). 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 the-
Sao 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. 195t): HI' 71urt Comtlh (tram;.. G.
\V. AnMrson; Oxli>rd: Blackwdl. 1956).
5S. Mowinekcl. HI' That Comt'IIJ. p. 352.
59. Mowinckct. H,. Tltut Comnlt, pp. 352- 3.
60. Mowil\Ckct. He Tltut Comt'tll. p. 351.
6 1. Mowinckcl. Ht> That Comnle, p. 420.
24 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Primordial t>.•lan ' , c.onceptious of \\•hich he supposed to have been 'widespre<ld ir\ the
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-.<fo,vinckel acc.ordiogly
referred to e-xtensive previo·us schoJarship to back up his conce-pt M this l'ig:ure.o..'
This scholarship drew on e.xtre-me.Jy variegmed sources. and r\'towincke.J djd the
same.
For example. he begins with a cosmologic-.al conception fro m Norse mythology,
'the ~tt1ry of the giaot Ymir, kilfed by I he Aesir, wlh) made-the earth fro1n his body,
the sea. the Jakes. and the rivers from his blood, the vault of heaven from his skull,
the douds frorn his braios. and so oo. •e.a l ie switches stra.igl1tto lraoian eschatology,
where <the eschatological saviour Saoshyanl is regarded as an incarnation, both M
Zarathushtra~ the tllunder of the religion, and of Gayl)nlart, the Primordial Mao. '6s
Next comes a.n element of Indian reli.gil)US speculation: <At the be.ginoing of eac.h
new age, it is the Primordial Mao or god-Man (Purusha), who is inc.amated in a new
figure.' Mowinc.kel the.o s hins to the concept of the Jirst man in litne, noting Adan•,
as weH as the Dabylonian Oannes, who had previously been l'uodarne.•ual to Jansen's
c.onstruction or a r...tan figure.i4 With much material of various kinds, Mowinckel
pul~t together 'the most importanr feature$ in the figure of Ant1mlpOS'. Berore listing

14 such te.atures, he acruall)' notes that they 'recur with val)•ing freq uency in its
di tferem t(m:n.-:;'. For example, his sec.ond feature is the oarne-of this cre.ature: ' lie
is c.alled M<lJt lhe Ooe like a man, Amhropos, the Primordia] Man, Adam, Adamus,
Adan~ anus. A nosh, Enosh, Mortal Jnuno11ality etc. ~t-7 One wonders what a C.(HOplete
list might have looked like!

62. Mowinckd . He Tlral Comerlr. p. 422.

63. Mowinckcl Hr Tlral Cm11t!th, 1). 422. nn. 1- 2, ci1ing inltr alia R. Rdb:mste:in.
Pcimmrdrts(Lcipzig: Teubner. t 9~). pp. 81ft'.; W. &ur.;!OCl, Hmtptpmbltmtdtr Grwsi.\·(FRLANT
tO. Ol'iui.ngcn: \~nde-nhocd: & Rut)rccht. 1901). pp. t60tl'.: A. Chrilltcnsc.n., Lt.s t)11t!.f du pmnier
lromme e/ du premitr roi dm1s l"ili.sroirt' ligtndairt ties lr,mien:s (Arr:hil't"S d"Etru/('$ Orirntales
14. St(l('kholm: Norst.:<h. 19 J7}: R. Rciru'nSJd n. Das manJiJ'i.srhe 811dr Jes Hmn dtr GrOJ.fe
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 . Mowine-kd, He 71rat Comtlh. p. 423. citing V. GrDnbc-ch. Nurdi.ske myter og sag11. pp.
lJIT.
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 "'The-
aunosphere 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. he-

6S. 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<k!rolm, p. 265.
69. Mowi_n,ckcl. Ht That Comtttll. pp. 448- 9.
10. F. 1·1. Bor!IC.'h, T1re S01r ofMall in Myth and History (London: SCM. 1961).
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<n ion of Psalm&, aod it cannot be reconciled with the rnundane meaning of
(~)VJ(~) u . For rea.-o;ons of this kind, Dorsch's first five chaplets c.annot be regarded
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. Borsch. SmJ o/Matl in Myth and 1/istmy. p. 114.

72. Borsch, Sm1 ofMml itt ,!tfyth a11d HisUII)'. t). 273.
13. 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 were-
separate 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 these-
predictions 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<Lll such a figure fOr Jesus h) expect. Perhaps as a result of

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 <lrr 1)'1JQ(11ischm Traditio11
(FRLANT 29. N.F. t2. CWn ing~·n: Vandenhoccl: & RUJ>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.
28 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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&lt 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.

19. E.g. T&l!, Mt>mrlle11so/m. 1). 32: Son of Mun, p. 35.
80. nidl. Mms<hl!'tt.wlllt. pp. 62- t04: S<»t ofMall, pp. 67- tt2.
St. TMl. Mm:>dll!'ll.wlw. p. 39: S<»t ofMall. p. 42.
82. Hidl. Mms<hl!'ttwlllt. Ch. IV: S1Jn of Man, Ch. IV.
83. E.g. T&ll. Me11srhensohn, p. 164, rcfctYi.ng 10 Jeremias in 7WlvT v; p. 7tl n. 32: Smt tJ/
Mon. t). t77. referring to J. Je-remias. Thl!' Stn·am IJ/God (SST20. london: SCM. t957). t). 102.
84. Tlilil. Mmsch1!'11sole11, p. 116~ SmJO/Mall. p. t25.
 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:<isteutentes
Himmelswes;en und geh6n der Apokalyptik an .. .•-'111 We shall see that the problem
looks quite-differem when we.consider why Jes11s cannot be shown to have used the
term (x.}oiJ(x.) ,J when teaching about the kingdonl or God.11"'
It was: narural that ltoch destructive scholarship should produce critici$m. Most of
this will n-ot be considered here. because it was of a conservative rather than incisive
nature. In the 1960'S, two scholars were C!'$pecially prominent in serious criticism
of the Son of !\.'Jan Concept. the British and subsequentJy North Americ-.an scholar
Perrin. and tJ1e Scandinavian Leivestad.ill Perrin discus..<;ed the three major sources
or the ' apocalyptic. S-t.)ll of Man conc-ept', Dan. 7.1 3, 1he-Similiwdes of Emx:h and
4 Ezra 13. lie argued thai the term 'son or man' is nm a title in any of the$e three
works. In particular, he noted that both the-Similitudes of E~toch and 4 E:ra 13 set
olT with careful refcre.nc.e back h) Dao. 7. 13, and e.ach of the-m is -using this text
r.1ther lhan using a titJe. He also noted that they are very different from each other.

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 <kr Men.~lleflJ>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/<lS um detailed e11ough 10 be altogether satisfactory, tOr he did

not deal with either d1e Ge.•ez te:d of the-Similitudes or with the versions of 4 E:ra
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 <ie'ez text of the Similitudes of Enoch . and consequently his discussion
o f this work cn--aks and gr()O).OS a1 sig:n ificaot poi1HS. Jle did a lso hit Vielhauer very
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 derive<! the tenn 'Sl)n of man' frottl Dan. 7.13. One. of the problerns
with the lr.'lditional view is that in that text, \1JK "1:::!~ is not really an itt<lividual ligure.
but an abstrnct symbol of the Saints of the "'lost High, who are in effect the people
or IsraeJ.?! This was the basis or the view tl!.al (K}o..-"J(K) ""lJ ifl the teac.hiog or JesaJS
could have been a corporate term. After disc.ussion of the Danie.lic text. Manson
sought to impose this understanding on the use. of this term in the Similitudes of
E11odr. This was completely unconvincing.''.\ ~~tanson argued that the Son of man in
the Similiwdes is an idea: this idea exis1ed in the mind of God before the creation
of the world. It contains a dl)uble oscillatil)O: 1he-group idea tintl.:o expre$Sion in the
concept ohhe elect and righteous ones, wherea.:; the individual idea finds expression
in two pe,rsonalities - at the beg:in.ning of the-course of events in Enoch, who is
regarded a..:o the liN:t human individual to embody the Son of man idea, lhe nude.us
or the elect and righteous ones; a1 the eft<! it finds e.xpre$Siorl again in 1he-figure-of
the Messiah who is to carry Out the linal vindication of the saints.
What is so remarkable is the remoteness of this abstract intellectualizing from
the text and tho-ught-world of the Similitudes. Already at J Eu. 46. 1-4, the first
appean1nc.e or the figure usually describe.d as 'that son of 1Han'. Manson considerS
him 10 be 'evidenlJy• syrnbolic. l11is is a quite arl>itrary 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<l H. D. A. Major t'l ul. Reprinted scpamely. l01ldcm: SCM. 1949). pp. 7"2- 3.
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.
 71te State of Play 33

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 the-
most 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.
1

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 the-
argument 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

103. Abbou. Tl1e Smr o/Mmr·, t>l). 108--9.

104. 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<al )('wish S/udies (b:id!.'1l! Brill. 1915). pp. 147-65.
34 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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
1

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

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 \Ve-
should 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.<ion (x)v.il(•) 1J: Mk 2.10, Mt. 8.201/Lk. 9.58, and Mt. 11.1 9//Lk. 7 .34. lie
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 <fuL On the mher hand. he made ve-ry l iuJe use M Ibis
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 the-
Ge'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. P. M. C:.:>cy. 'Th~ Sol\ of M:w. Problem'. ZN\V 6? (19 76}. pp. 14?- 54 (147).
tl 7. Casey, 'The Soo ofM:.n Probl~m·, !). t5-0.
t18. Casey, ' "'!100 of m:.n" il\ the Simili/L1des of Etux·h'.
38 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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. ~ 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

119. Casey. S<m t/Man.

120. C:tscy. Sen t)j'M«Jt, t). H6.
12 1.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).
 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'
1

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 the-
speaker. ~·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

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!.
40 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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\<lenschensohrl" ist, den er geschaut hat.·
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
Jra.w:h(a) als Umschreibung ffir liC-ine eigcnc. Person
b.:nutzt '·"'

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. f\Mikr, DtJ' .-\11sdnrck 'Metucllt'nsohn', pp. 70, 72, 15, 88.
129. Millie•·· Dl'r Altsdruck 'Menschrosohn, ll· 154.
130. 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. 594-
604: 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).
 71te State of Play 43

speake-r. n~~e or these were from the T<ltgums (Neof I Ge-n. 2.23; Tg. Job 16. 20-
2 1: 33.29-30), and thn.>e 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<olTTOt; or u'1 6c;
O:vOpc.lnov. A. Y. Collins O:v6pc.•.:mo:; . and Ross 0 O:v6p(.)no:; olJrOt;, O:vOp<olrroc;,
n ; or &v9p(.)noc; Tic;.'~ Hare was also among those scholars who approached the

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}.
 71te State of Play 45

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 the-
p lural. r\<tk 9. 12 slu)wS that this strategy was occasit)nally difficu lt to apply.
because here there was a genuine reference to the death of Jesus. but referenc.e to
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 Lcuven-
z,\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 <kr spt~hlichcn
Frsgwt1rdigkc-it dicsc-r Thc-9e, daB das Rdlsc-1 dicsc-r Redcfoon Jesus auf dies Wc-isc nidu zu
l&c" is1. 1 ~"
The cxcgccical vioknre, to OA•hich Case-y and Lind:us appC3r iOtccd, so as 1oundcrstand Jesus'
tsl.k of' man• :.sa spoxial kind of ordinaty cm1,1oynlc-•u of this word as:. circ-t.unJ(ICulioo 1\w
'I'. shows togethe-r widlthc- linguistic qucs(ion:.bility of this bypmhc-sis..th:ll 1M problem of
this speech-form of Jesus Cfltlll(l( be solvc-d in this way.

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 <k:r Menschcn:s.ohl\1' Sit;.WJS.'>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
1

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

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 <k•• ~iCIISChcAA"'Ihn?', p. 157. rcfcnoing w J. A. Fit:unyct, ' The New
Testament Tille"Son of Man,. Philologically Consid..-rcd'. in J. A. Fiumycr,A mmdcrittg Arameun.
Collecll~d Ammaic Essa.u (SBLMS 25. Missoula; Scholars.. 1979). t)p. t43-60 ( t 54): idem.
' Aoo1hcr View of the "Son of Man,. Debate' , JSNT' 4 (1979). pp. 58- 6S (62).
150. Cf. fonhcr G. \·Crmcs;:. ) l'.'WS 1he )t'h' (J.ondon, 1973), pp. 188--91: idtm, 'niC Preso.~,u
Slate of the "Son of ~f:ltl" Debate' , JJS 29 ( 1978). pp. 123-34 (127- 30): idtm. 'The "Soo of
~ian" Debate' JSNT I (1978), pp. 19- 32 (23- 5" ): Fitzm)'el', 'New Tcstamcm Thl..- "Son of M:.n,..',
pp. t<t9-53: Fitzmyc1', 'Aoolher View', esp. pp. 61-4; 0. Schwarz. Jt>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<lt tif
N.H. Gsmd0· (JSNTSup 100: Sltcfficld: JSOT Pre~ t994), pp. 72- 94 (84).
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
1

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
\ a.o;sal. citizen. smallholde.
1 r, and Lord (Herr).m This \'iew involves confusion

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<hifhte f'iiii!S
<hristologis<htll HtJhl!iiJ.titds (T.:ibingcn: Moht' (Siclx:c-l:), t980): \~1 . 3. Re1igiunsgndtidlllidte
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 gew<tlr.mm gttiitttt' wulnad1 Jem 1(1(/ ~wherrlidlte Gere<htt (iilbi.ng~n: Ouldc-·01\IO::k
\mlbh. 2002)~ Pan 2. 0 ufO; roti cWepc.iiTO!l uls lrolreil.\·titularts \'hrlgebi!Je {TObingcn: Ouldc·
Otuck Gmbh. 2003)! Pat! 3. Die Epiplrmrie Jes Mmschmsoltllt''S in der UNt: Die truns~lldem·
escltdlolugi.fcht £piphunic dl!s MeJisdtmsoltllt'S (it'ibingcn: Gutde·Dt\Jcl: Gmbh. 2003): Pat! 4.
0 ..Vp1or. uls Hohtilltilef ( TUbing.cn: Guide·Druck Gmbh. 2004): Pan 5. Der Allh~rr wrd die
Ubrisbleil~ndtll (Tt'ibing~n: Guldc·Dmct Gmbh, 2004).
154. Kct~mll. MorpltnlogiK!te und SermuiuJt,gisdw SwJie. pp. 9-8:&: :uld li>r 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 !Jtni-
Tp~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.
50 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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

163. Kcsms. Entchristologi:>ienmg, p. 74: 1,· 16 ai)C)Ye.

I(J4. 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.
 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 <lnlple citation of secondary literature in his footnotes.

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 ~<lowincke l and Borsch. 173 As J. J. Collins p·ut it in 1992,
'The notjon th.at the Son of Man was a \•ariant ofa wideltpre.ad myth of the Pritnordial
r...tan has bee1l laid 10 rest with ru) regre-ts. •.,~ The second change was the effective
replacement of the Son of Man Conc.ept with views about the messianic overtones
of WJ 1~. These views were. ,generally connected with l'nessianic inte•vre-tation l)f
Wl~ 1D in Dan. 7.13. but sonle scholarS brought fOrward a considerable variety M
other passages in support of this kind of view. Collins himself concluded that there
\Ve.re 'comrnoo assu111p1ions about the interpretation of Daniel 7 in lirst century
Judaism ... ' , so that anyone 'who spoke of one in human lbnn riding on the clouds,
or appearing with an AncienrofDays, or in aoy tern\S reminisce••' of Danie-17, \VOuld
evoke a figure with disrinct 1raits which go beyond what ' "as explicit io the text of
Daniel's vision.•ns TI1is conclusion '"as based on his diSClL;;sioo or the three major
texts previously used 10 fonn the Soo M Man Concept, Daniel 7, the Similitudes <if
£11odr. and 4 E:.ra 13. In a revised ve 1~ion of tl1is essay, published i1l 1995, he also
oO'ered sorne discussion of 4Q246 and 1h ree passages M Sib. Or. V, and concluded
that "'Oavidic Messiah" and •·son of Man" we-re um murually exclusive c.onceprs.
Each i1wolves a d uste.r or rnotifs. which c.ould be made h) overlap•.'"'
In the light or some change in what \\1a...:; being Jooked for, more aod more pa..;;sages
could be considered as supponing this kind of vie\'l. The most extensive survey \Vas

170. U. B. Mlll!.-r. 'Ptll"llic- und r..k,19Ch<'1\SOM•. ZNW 92 (2001), pp. 1-19.

171. Millkr. •Psrus.ic- und Mcnsdt.-.nsoh.n'. t>. 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" Firs1Ccmu1y Ju<bi~m·. 1>1>. 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<ln. 7.13 ns lhe
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
1

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
 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 c;•.
•seed'. 1~fi. •compaoioo', nv. •to cover ', :71', ' to kmw.•'. and 7J. 'all.
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
11 d oes
Aramaic to fonn a language-. If there lOre we confine ourselves to them., we. do no!
have. enough Aramaic to reconstruct the. whole language of anyone. Accordingly,
we l'nul\-1 rnake careful use o f later Aramaic som"C.es 100. I illustrate this with son1e
e.xample~~ from 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.
58 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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<t caused sc-holars much tro·uble, and befOre- we leamt fro.n
the Dead Sea scrolls hov..- much llebrew infl ueoced the At arn aic of our period, it
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 is<f>cxp•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\<lany of the
scrolls do not concern such sec.tarian matters, and He.brew ones which do call them
by the polemical tenn m J?m 'ld1.n. This is another impOrtant word which requires
us to swdy later source material induding in this c.ase Jose.phus. who also uses it as
a loanword.
The Greek te:\:t of the Gospels also shows interfere-nce fromAramaic found only in
lat~r sources:. For example, at Uc 14.18 the expression dnO ~.u Ck is not satisfactory
Gre~k. 1l is a literal translation l)f the idiomatic. Syriac expres.:;ion x:m 10. which
means •au at once, and which is found also in Christjao Palestian Aramaic. We
must i!U'er that 1\in 10 \Vas i 1~ use.in theAramaic.l)f our p~riod :' In some cases.. a word
which Jesus must have used oc.curs in earlier Aramaic sources. but is only found
in later sources with a meraphoricaJ meaning required by a Gospel passage. For
example= at Mk 14.21 UnO:.yEt is used with relerence to Jesus' forthcoming death.
The Greek word Vn6:y(o) was not a nonnal tenn for dying, whereas lhe equivalent
Aramaic 7n• was used with this refere.nc.e. There are plenty or examples or this ir1
lat~r Jewish A.ran1aic. (including passage 27 beh)\\ and in Syriac, and the word
1 },

itself occurs in earlier sourc-es with the mundane meaoing 'go'. We must infer 1hat
this word \IJAS already used as a metaphor for death in first c~o tury Ga.lilee.s
Finally, some. words are standard but rare because they refer to things which are
not Ol)rtnally discussed in e.xtan1 tex1s. TI1ese \\·ords include x:m. ·n1int•. ~n~\7. •dill',
!\'""IJiii, ·n~e' , ~JlllJ , 'c.ummin', which we need in order to understand 1he Aramaic
bac-kground of Mt. 23.23//Lk. 11.42. In each case., the-word ought not to be in doubt,
because there is only one Aramaic word e:\:tant. None of them occurs at anything
like. the right period because sources such as the Dead Sea sc.rolls do nO€ containany
djscussions of herbs.'"-

3. M. Witeo:.., • sc-mitis.:mJ~ i.n (ht' New TC:itan~m\ ANRW 11.25.2 (1984}, pp. 978-l029
(998-9).
4. See furthc-.r Casey. Aramaic Smur:es ofMarkS G(1spd, 1>1). 42- 3. 53-4.
5. Sec furth<.':rCascy,Aramaic Somr:n ofMarkS Gospel, 1)1>- 233-6.
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 <H Qumran \\'e
find ~oWlPJ at IQapGen 11,5 and I:'W\PJ at IQapGen 11, 10, both meaning ' ifl truth':
~no\7, 'joy'. at4Q542 1i 3, and not7 at line II ; oWy, 'truth' at4Q212 iv.l2 al (1/:.ir.

93.10) and ~c\if1p at ii.20 (/ £11. 91.19).

In I JQTgJob, we tind l'll't.-"1 lOiJ~ (IIQTgJob X1,3) li.)r y;z.-"1 01~ (Job 27.13), as
well as ~'lrlif1 iXlJK ( II QTgJob XXV,6) for rpn 01~ (Job 34.30). A parlicular decisioo
was ~qu i red by the ~tans lator whenever a one-consonant prepMition was att<lc.hed
directly to the front of a noun. because in suc-h c-ases the pre-senc.e or absence of
th-e article is not marked in a c-Onsonantal l ie-brew text. In a devastating review
of scholarship on the. Hebrew an icle. Barr showed lhat lhe vocalization of the
~·IT produced far more. occurrences of the an icle in some texts than their authors
had written in front of nouns without attached prepositions.• It follows that the
vocalization or the MT is no guide to how our translator understood the text h is
acco!'dingly sigoiticant 1hat there arc seve-ral cases where-he took differeot decisions
about the same or sifuilar generic nouns. So we find 10t) ( IIQTg.Job XXVIII,5)
for ,or. (Job 36.27), and x,oo7 (I IQTg.lob XXXI, 3 <ll>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 <nn7 (IIQTgJob Xlll,6) for m,7 (Job 28.25); jJliJ ( IIQTg.lob XVI,4)
lor ""' (Job 30.15) and''""' ( IIQTgJob 111,8) for ""' (Job 20.6).

8. A. Cowley. Aramaic Papyri ofIll<' Fifth Ctnlllt)' B.C. (Oxford: Cl:trcnd\'Hl. 1923).
9. J. B:tn·. "'Oo."l ~mlill:Jiion"and 11tc Oo."Rniu.' Ankle- in Bibl ic:~J Ho."bn.'w',JSS 34 ( 19&9), pp.
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 be-
re~,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:<pl't'$Sion. 1 ~ llhe-refOre
proceed with the knowo use of the Aramaic tenu (~)JLiJ(x) -u.
In the first plac.e. (x)'dl(x) u was a nonnal tenn fOI' 'man' . Examples or this
inc-lude many general statements. such as passage I.

I. IQspGen. XXJ.I3: .\iT~:;;! (Oe.n. 13.16}.

And 1 wilt multiply ~our SC\:d like the du!Ot of lhi: Cilflh which no son of man c11n coum .. .

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.
I I. Sec furth~:r W · 256-61 below.
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 ;:~
Wh~:n i1 bites a >'IlK: (!<00 of) m:1n, 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.

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<l

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 the-
two forms are by no means interchangeable.
Naturally, the tenn ( x)Wl(~) 1J, being nonnal in tl <Hural Ararnaic. was used in
translation Aramaic as well. This is illustrated in passages 7 and 8.

1. Pc:;h Ge-n. 8.21: )ofT o;l(;i (twice) .

•:i:li"70 11l7:l :-;;:!:," ;.:11 ;;:!71 IOSI "'=:1: ~Z'J.'\ ""0 7oo K!.IK7 ;o.:?;:.? :l""l ,.p i K ~., :U?! 1\"'\'l ,1lK"
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 ~;ziJK -a ill used l\1/ice lOr people as a whole, rendering the equally _geoeral
01~:1 .
64 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

&. 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
D'R\;i as in passage 7, il re.nders <v"u ~ (wice.
 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, because-
it 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 h<lS prefem.'XI
to rende--r it with ;ziJ ""lJ becalLI!C this is a gene-ral tenn li.)r any person, and thus sujtable.
for this completely inde-finite refere-nc-e.

14. Tg. J>s. 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.
66 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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 do. Whc" he :;aw M imponanl (son of) 100" ~meti ng hi ~ 1own, ht.'
US(.d 10 !'C'od him a gift.

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 x-.·:;;-::t ;:;.:: K't3-c ;~;
He t>n."S.CI"VOO one (son 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 because-
God 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<ll person, whethe-r tt.nonyn-llrus, gene-ric or specific.
This fonns the- cuhur.~J background for the particular idiom central to this book.
whereby a speaker ntight use a general slatement c.ontairtin.g the tenn (?\)~J(K) -a to
say something about himself. or himself and others. or about whoever was clearly
from the context, panicularty in mind.

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:<<llllples are hl)wever all in the-de-fioite state. exoept
in passage 47 where WJ'U follOW$~. because in Syriac the definite state was the nonna.l
state of the noun. The earliest example is from long before the time of Jesus.

20. s~'"fiiX' 111.14-17.

vo' ~ \X"~ 1:: n.1<l':P ;;ln~ W l"i:''l1-o 1:: :::? ,., jio- •n.;.:,1'i- Tn~'z: '1-:.: ~!s1 1:!:!? ?v jiO' i-U
onvW i:.IJX "0 <l.ill~ 'i ;;.~ m 1~X ':J'J.~ :o[?J '?;; j:)V' FH ,.,?'; M~"'? ii':l~V ';;; ~'i 1,7.; ~:!; 7.;
.:m X"''S:O~ '1 K""n' •;;7x .,J'?
A.nd ifyou think of killing me- :1.nd you put ii>''"~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 llar-
ga'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 <k:ar 10 him :.s hi ~ !';On.

In this paslUlge, two othe-r MSS have Ki9J Vat. Ebr. 133 has ;,~) "'IJ.. a diO'ete-IH
"'IJ:
spelling of the emphatic state. Thus all four manuscripts haw Lhe emphatic state in
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.
 711e Use of the A ramah: 1enu (.'")vi:;(.''\) 1::1 69
23. y. a..... 2..81to (Sc>.

A (soo of} man whose .oothcr dc,.pi ~cs him and a(nothcr) wife of hi ~ r:11h~'f honours him,
where shall he: go?

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::-,
Rabbi ~, how C\'il is
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!

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, he-
S.""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
70 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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 '<T:rN 1:11 :<~:- 10
h is n(l( ass soo of man £.l)C.Sth31 he com~s (again).
 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<lndard Yerushalmi spelling M the
absolute state: and the London MS. Or.2822 has !VJK -a. The parallel passage y.
Ke1. 12,3/4(35a) is les.c: \Veil anested. IIere leiden Or. 4720 has KIVJ 1J , the standard
Yerushalmi spelling of the emphatic state. and it is followed by the edilio princeps.
h is dillicult to sort out the te:<t of passages l ike this. II is llOwe,•er sure-ly probable
that t11e distinctive D.abylonia.l spelling 1.9J'K 1J is sec-Ondary, and that the prosthetic.
Kirl 1.9:JK u or london Or. 2822 is due to it. Since the fOllowing saying of the rabbis
has !VJ -u in the absolute-state in most witnc&;es including Leide.l \ Or. 4720 ofboth
passages, with only VatEbr.l33 havi ng the emphatic state ;11V:J -u, it is surely more
probable than not lh< H 1he- original le-:<t or the ti rs1 sayil)g had the emphatic. state-
;,t.?:J 1:1 in bl)th passages. It is howe,•er much more impOrtant that the meaniog of
this saying. and iLl) usage of {N)tt/J(K) 1J., is not aiTected by tl1e$e- variations. This
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 <lf man :m: a !>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. Tile-
general 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 n·,~n
Aod M (son ol) 1nt11l say~ 1h:u's not ttl~ Cilll~ unk11s Jtc sgnxs with 1M fir.il (opi.nioo).

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,
<H y. Tc.r. 8,9/5(46a)//y. Pes. 1,8/11(2Sa) the context is a dispute about the eJTect of
unclean ordinary stuff in the same vat as a priestly offering. The general level of
meaning oftLiJ 1J is not that ofall people., b utl)f all de-b;uing rabbis. In this particular
ease, WJ -u re fers especially to R. Jose, '"hose opinion the rabbis were attempting
to deri\'e. The ge.neral level of meaning is the same in every example. At y. Shabb.
2,3/5(4d). with 17':>.'\, 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. 10.2/47 (29a).

Thi ~ 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 <lut.hor ofNeof I
was making deliberate use of this idiom, and declaring that in creating a particular
person. Adam, God was creatjng humankind.

-10. Ncof l GC"n. 2.2.\. lnllcnioo.

'K" KT.i?. ·;;;:: ttl t :r -::.,, ;'j o-u 'll: KO n•;::m-.; ;;~:: 1'=< .Kii: -o v:. :-...~K 10::.-m ~~ :->'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 <'~<n. 4. 1 ~. •s

t'l-u7 ,t;~" n.., 'J1X 1~•_, tm~G~,x '~~'> ·1'n' ill iT.i ;;~::;• ·n· m,i:' x;;
.:;""\>.>:1!?
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.

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 ~K '"h'":ill j'1 ~;· 'n' i11T<) x;;

Look! You have bsn i~hcd roc this dsy from I.IJ>Oil the fscc of 11le c-ardl. and from ~(Of'C you
it is ool possible for me to hide.

Here the Targumisr has ahered the text simply to say lhat Cain himself could not
hide from God. With iLc; use of~) 1J.. p<lSS<}ge 40 has generalized. Unlike passage
15. For tbc text. .\ i . l. Klein. Gtlli~alt .Wamrsaipt.~ (}f the Paleslinian Turgwr~ to 1/Je
Pentc/JI!IIrh (2 vols: Cincioaui: l·l cb•~''' Union College Press, 1986), p. 9.
16. On u·s nlll:.tions which contradict the 11acrcd text. sec M. l. Klein, 'ConveNe Tr:.nlll:llion:
A Ttltgll.mic T.xhniquc', Bib 57 (1976), pp. 515- 37.
 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
•. . ~nHll ::!;, 1llXl
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 ...

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 be-
the 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<ltement, and Joseph·s action again show·s that x-.7J -u in the translation of the
scripn1ral text has been deliberately applied to him at the same time.

44. Ncofl Exod. 33.20..\ tTo•xa

.'IT"l ;:.!.; "'C w ·~::~;;; ,;:;~" n.., o•,x ·~:-: ·tn>:~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.
DIN;'l
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. Sre C;LS.Cy, '(x)i'l{N) -a in 1hc Aramaic Tmnstmi-o•ts•, pp. 113- 16.
78 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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<IiJ ,J in pa.t;sage 43. As I
pointed out i11 discus..~ing. 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<lJ(K) -o is um ut1usual io the Aramaic translatjons of
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 ji;".r'I'OK l'\lK ~'lOOK 299--300
~ ~;1'7 :o;d !i:!' om ;;on? K~l;; 7:1; 30 J- 2
K:!'? 'T~i l'l'Ki ~,.; 'lll1YO r ;: ;:•y:! 303-4
29'1- & I haw given an undcnaki.ng to ('rod that I shall be buried 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<ll\
Artd hi." sttid, ' You cannot s~-c my f:.ec. bcca~ a (/the SOl) ol) ma.n dOl'S tlOI sec me and
lh·o:. '

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 ~<zbK "'\J
is sufficient ro indicate l11e deliberate use of a general sunemcm whic-h has especial
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" t-l ~mcrn: Eilt Btiuag :ru 0:111 7.1f'. FZPT 25 (t978), pp.
382-96.
 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 \\~th tradition. most commonly
Christian tradition.
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, <ialipapa conunents on Dow. 7.18:

Q'l\'.l~':;;; '7;; i~IU ':::l Po;. O'.l.X

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

3. On the Syrian uaditiOI). ~e Ca:>cy, Son t>fMaJt. Ch. J.

4. 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
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<llion of the additional hom of Dan. 7.8 ir1
terms of the acti\'ities of Antiochus Epiphane.s during_ the ~·laccabean pe.riod. Then
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<a vol. I (Paris: Fitmi.n-
Didol i:'l Socii, 1894).
 Tfu! ·s~m of l'lf(m' Cmrcept 85

l"l:01 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<crucial to !his
i1Wes1igaaion, because or irs c.lose correlation wilh 7.14. It is this ch)se correlalion
which fnakes it absolutely cle.ar that ' the people of the I lol>' 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<V: io 7.27, the people M the 1h)Jy Ones of the Mos1 J-.ligh are-
g_ivtl'l Kill~i K:rJ731 ~no7tJ. In 7. 14. his l07W is eternal (o7;;), aod his king_dorn/
kingship (;~m:ho) will not be damage<l: in 7.27. the pe.ople's kjngdom/kingship
(;-.nlJ 71l) is e.ternal (u7;;). In 7. 14, all peoples, oa1i01'1S and tonguel< will sen1e him
(llrf'rJ' ;,7): in 7.27, all domi ni t)lt.~ ·will ser\rt and l)bey it (11ill'ln1li'11V17-J• ;,7). The~~e
considerations oug_ln 10 be regarded as decisive: the man-like figure-(WJK "UJ) is a
sy111bol tOr Israel, who is described in the inlt-rpremlive sec.tjon as •d1e Holy Ones
or !he tvh)st Jligh', ' the l loly One$'. and ' !he pe.l)ple of the Holy Ones of the Most
1--Jigh'.
This interpretation was also preserved in the. Syrian tradition. but it has been
more dillieult to realize thil<. because of the iofluenc.e of specific.ally Christian
tradition. Christians believed that the. Son of man in the New Testament was Jesus,
and a small number of Son of man sayings in the New Testament clearly refer to
Dan. 7. 13. In the west, thereli.)re, 1he tnan-like figure was interpre1e<i as Jesus. This
appe.aled to Syrian exege-tes too, and some of them appropriated it by means of
what I call the ' £ypolog_ic.al interpretation l)f prophec.y•, wha1 French scholars c-all
'prophClies a double vis6e'. This supposes that a prophet predicts a future-event:
this future event really occurs: it is also a type of another event in the more distant
future, which also occurs, or will occur in due c.ourse.~ The interpretation of Dan.
7. 13 auributed to Ephraem is an exarnple of this method:

~i. See futthc1· P. M. C:Jllcy, 'The Fourth Kirt_gdom in Cos.mas lndicOJlk-ustcs and the
Syri:~n Tradilio•l'. Rivisla di 5Jmiu ~ Ll'lltraluru Reli,s:iosa 25 ( t9S9). PI'· 385-403 (396- 9}, wi1h
bibliography.
86 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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<Hds refer 10 !he Mac-cab..--.:s, bUithd r cssc-ruiaJ qualily is
fullilkd i11 our Lord 11tc Mcs~i ah. 7

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. There-
slu)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:

Si hoc de ~'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.

S. P. M. Casey, •Porphyry :md 11'lc Origin of 1M Book of Daniel'. JTS NS 27 ( 1976}, P~'·
15 -33: 'P\"lf j)h)'l)' and Syrian Exegesis of the Book of Daniel'. ZNW 81 ( 1990). 1)1). 139-42.
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 1.44-
45. 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. 13-
14 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-<unn1ent on the stone at Dan. 2 .35:
.. . quod ludaei cl im1>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. ...
90 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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." <kbc-1 quomodo cum nubibus cacti
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<k\s Mach:~b& ;:_..;: qui ~'St dit du •fi ls. d'hommc' qui arrive
surles nutts du cid."
It al'l)ears thai Po1-phyry applied to Judas M.scc:~baeus ~A•hat is said of the 'soo of 1n11n' who
come.s on the clouds ofhen\'cn.

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<TOil£,.
The tirsl major point is 1he commen1 of Jerome at Dan. 11.44.45. I have noted
that Jerome sets up both the stone of Dan. 2, and the SOil of ma1l (ille tilius hominis)
fi·o m Dan. 7. 13, and says quite d e-arly lh<ll Porphyry lhaintains thalthese prophecies
concern the Jews. This is very straightforward evidence that Porphyry believed
that 1he man-like tigure-was a symbol of the Jloly Ones or the Most High. who
were the Jewish pet)ple. Afler considering Jerome.'s other c.on-unents in detail, I
conduded. again on the basis of very clear e\ridence. that Porph)'l)' belonged to
1h-e Syrian tradition, and in h!rpreh~d 1he man-like tigure as a symbol of lhe Jews
<H 1he time or the Maccabe-an victory. The se.cond major point is the-gram1har and
syntax or.Ten)Ote's comments at Dan. 7.1 4, which make clearthat Porphyry did not
be.lieve that the 1't1an-like t·igure was Judas Mace abacus. The re<Juest for a re.;;ponse

9. 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<lin as he was that the man-like figure was an individual, namely Jesus, made
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\<laccabeao victory. In this
ntauer the Syrian tradition presetved the o riginal interpretation of the-author(s) of
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 tlle-
Most 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 be-
regarded 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 was of central jmponance to the formation of the Son of ~·tan Concept
II. 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 Judaeo-
Cbristian 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. lau.rtn.x. Book of £11odJ 1l1t' Pmphe1. p. :d.

13. Hoffmann, Dus Slrrh Hemx·lr. pp. 346-7.
14. Dillmann. Dus Such Htnodr. p. Ill. For Lhc t<.'lU.. Dillmann. Libu He11oclr Atllliopke.
t 5. 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- independence-
of 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 CtvOp<o)rrou. lle simply continued and itHensilied the
scholarly habit of rending the Similitudes against an assumed bac.kdrop of Christian
tradition.
As this tradition of scholarship sought to interpret the Similitudes. it was faced
with a major fact which may have pushed it io this direction. 01~e or the three
terms for Son of man in the. Ethiopic text of the. Similitudes is walda ·;sua/a
·e mmaJ.r(?itiw (I £11. 62. 7,9, 14 ; 63. 11; 69.26,27; 70. 1; 7 1. 17). In the fOur Gospels,

16. R. 1-1. Chttrlcs. Tht' BtX>k of Ewdr: Transhtrtd from Pmfe:>St)J" Dillmmm S £1hiupic Wxt.
t'mr.ndt<d a11d m ·i.w•d ... (.Oxford: Cbrendon, 1$93). p. 51: and f01· his :~til l css.cmi-t~l cdi1ioo of lhc
tcxl. R. H. Char)($. Tht' Ethiupic Vtrsiun of the Book of E"udr. Edited fivm TilY'Itty·thn-e m.u.
UJgt'll!t<r with the fra,g,mentary Grtek und 1Ati11 Wrsimu (O:d\wd: Clarendon. 1906).
11. Chari~. Hook of EntJch, p. 128.
IS. CharJ~. Hook tif F.Jwch, J). 315.
19. C'tlarJ~. Htmk of Enoch, ~'P· 315- 16.
94 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Son of Man ' Problem

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

20. Chsrl.:s. Book of Enofh. p. t28.

2 1. Ch.1r!e;s. Book ofEnorll. p. 128.
22. 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.
 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 the-
Aramaic (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.•!<He.was not however able to carry this through as far
a..:; it should gt). For example, in commeo1i1lg on 46.3, he did oiTer a partial Araruaic
reconsU11ction:

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<nivsat2: 1liiher be:-.tin-llht '''ird, auO'ass.e-u. ·~~~ SjBbe-rg did not ht)\\'ever explain
how ~:z.iJ -u could function as a tjtle. 110r did he carry through properly the potential
insight shown in the second half of this se.ntence. Rather he argued that even if il
were not a title. which 0 u'1 6c; roU O:vSp(.)nou in any case surely must be, 'der
Au~ruck doch cinen besonderen Klang hat'. and the being seen by Enoch is in aoy
case 'der gaoze besondere llimmli:sche M ('fl.fch • . ~ 11

I ha,re noted lhat PeJTin and lieYe$iad be-came promine-nt in scholarly attacks t)n
the Son of ~·tan Concept, but that neithe-r they nor those New Te-Stament scholars
who ignored the-m welt: prope-rly comperent in Ge'ez.Jo In 1976. I did tackle 1he
Gc'ez text of the Similitudes. and used it to argue that in the original text the term
'St)Oof man' was an ordinary word for tnan:" It is this work which now needs to he
c-arried much further, by reconstructing and interpreting the original source whic.h
was once translated into Ge·e-2:.
There should be no doubt that lhis source was in Aramaic. We now know fro m
the Dead Sea Scrolls that most of J Enodr was written in Aramaic. because lhis is

25. Se-c 1>1,· 20-2t atxm:.

26. E. Sjtlbc-rg, Dtr Mmschen.wl111 im iilhiupi.\·chnJ HtlltXhbuc/J (l und; Glc...-rup. 19<16).
27. Sj~be-rg. Mf'lr.w·hensolm, p. 49.
28. Sj6bcrg. Mmschrnsohn, p. 50.
29. 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·.
% 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<lr<" detailed djscussiou of t.hc oldo:-r schol:l.tS:hip, s...--;: N. Schmidl, ' The Original
Langu:.gc-of the Pamblcs of E1liX'h •• i11 R. F. Harpc••et ul. (cds). Old Te.rtot/IE'Jit a11d Semitic Slltdies ilt
MeliiOJ)' of u: R. Haqwr (2 vols~ Chic:.g.o: Univ. (If Chic:.go. 1908). \'OL 2. pp. 327--49 (329-36).
 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:<t. Moreover, "'Vl::l c.mrld have bee-o direc1ly translated with
ya&arri. All our evide.nce is accordingly consistent with the Ethiopic text being a
direct translation from an Aramaic original
There are l\IJO further point~ in favl)ur of this. FiN:t, I have n01ed that the
fragments of J Euacll from Qumran are.in Aramaic.The.Similitudes contain :.t funher
de\•e.lopment of the figure of Enoch. going significantly further thao other ruaterial
in J Enoch. The central focus of the.Simililudes lies in the-figure of E~1och aud the
deliverance of the e.tec.t from oppression by the wicked. The differe-nces betwee-n
these different groups are quite basic. For example. the opponents may be described
a..:; •the kin.gs and the JlOWerful', and they will be cast dl)Wn because 'they do not
exalt and do not praise him and do not confess from whom the kingdom wao; given
to them' ( I En. 46.4-5). They ate not ai any stage ac.cused ofdetailed legal offences.
such as for e~ample having sex with a woman during her menst111al peritxl. This is
forbidde n at Ezek. 18.6, a prohibirion violated by people at P:ss. Sal. 8. 12. \!Jho then
further proceeded to e-at sacrificial meat in the Ternple. The descriptions of the Elect
are equally basic. They are not said to do anything exceptionally righteous, suc.h
as living in a state. of purity: indeed they are nowhere said to keep all the details of
the Law, though it is assumed that they are basically observant. They are said. for
e-xample, to be ' the faithful who hang \rpon the narue of the Lord t)f Spirits' (I En.
46.8). This means that the authors t)f the-S imilitudes had no reason to c.hange fro m
Ararnaic tt) I febrcw, the language of le.arned students of the Law. On the contrtll)',
writing for a group of faithful Je.ws distinguished by their de.velopmem of Enoch
traditions, they had every reason to keep to Aramaic, the lhtguafmm:a of Judaism
in general in Israe-l, and the language of their own traditions.
Thirdly. the main son of man passa~es make excellent sense in Aramaic. When
they are pn)r)C!'rly recoostruetOO. \\'e iind that (K)WJ(K) "'U ernerges as a Mnrtal tenn
for ·rnau'. as it is in all extant Aramaic source$. I pn)llOSe to illustrate this here by
rec.oltstnlc.ting some of the main passages, leaving more extensive discussion of
more complete reconslructions to a future. monograph, which is nec-essary for suc.h
de!ailed discussion. I begin with the opening of1he tirst son of 1nan passage, I En.
46. 1-3.

36. M. Black. n1e Hook nfEtl<Kh nr I Enoch. t\ Nl/11' £rtgli.f!r £dirim111"ilh Cmmllt'IIIO')' atld
Tt•.rrual Notes (LcKk·n: Brill. t985), p. 185.
98 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

.:#' 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<l: jl!;;; i') ;;•:,~1 .2
.:·":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
"J ~'?;;• x1:. K.,~.,o~r•
.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
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! ·s~m of l'lf(m' Cmrcept 99

It foJh)WS that is not a tide in v. 3 either. TI1e following relative cla1.1.~e

:•ndJ~ ,~
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 the-
denoument 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;:

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$S
(0 ypaJ,JanUc; Til.; O!KOlooUvqc;, ~a~uif€ !idiq). At 14. 1, the account of Etu)Ch 's
\•ision and re-primand ofthe Watchers has a tide which begi11S '11)e-book of the words
or righteOlL<;ness/truth': the Greek has Bi~oc;: AOy<olV 01Katomivqt;~ the Ethiopic.
uw~~wf qti/(1 .~~i!di!q, and d1is 1i1ne we have some of the-Arart\aic., juw\7 "7~ ,~o
(4Q204 vi 9). It is especially i mp011at~t that ]:Jr.:.~ rathe-r than (:i)Yi~ is the mlderlyiog
tenn. It is characteristic. or the Aranmic fra_gmeots. and oonsequendy I have-used it
in the above. reconstruction of J En. 46.3. It has connotation..;; of ' truth' as well as
'rigtuet)USI\es.s', and bolh are appropriate-for the tigure-or Enoch. AI I En. 15.1, GlXI
himself: cornmissioning Enoch to take the news of his judgen·u~ot 10 the Watchers.
addresses hirn as ri,ghteolLo;ltrue man and scribe of rightet)usness/truth (0:v0p<olrroc;:
<iAllOI\,o.;-Kat ypOIJIJan.;;- ~ ci:XI)Iniac;. bi'isi~tidi!q l\'ttfa~uif€ ~·idi!q). lt is like-ly
that we have hc.re- (\1!0 altemati ..·c translations of some fOm~ of }'<O!Y1p. Regardless
of this detail. it follows from all this evidence that. when the Similiuules (if EmKh
were wrilte-rl, the righteousne$S of Enoch had bet.'11 a ' "ell-established teature of his
dmmcter for more than a ce-ntury. At a similar time. the book. of Jubilees opined that
becalLo;e of his righteousness. Noah's lite on e-arth \\'aS 1\lore e.xc.ellent thao any of the
sons of men exupt Enoch (Jub. 10.17). Much later, two passages of the Te.,·wments
of the 1i1··clve P(Afriardr:r refer back to the book of Enoch the righteous (T. Levi I0.5
~if3AC>.'; '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
100 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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 ~:¢ Inn-.;:-;-,•;. nn p; :o;d::o; -a · ,yn.x K.i!l~ ;;:r .2
.1\0ilo X~ Oi j? .,y~ :V.· 't ,K·~;;o· ·~u ml'nl\i o;y- p ,N'l11\: Xij'.'.li:l 1'-am;; .:::r.y l'lt . 3
.x:i?~ p 'J:t? 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.
(t.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.

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<ld)' nall1ed berore God befOre-the c.remioo M the universe. h is not yet dear
whethe-r he was pre-e.xistem or more sirnpl)' IOreknown. AI v. 6, the filet that he
was hidden before God befOre the creatjon of the-world stroogly irnplies his pre-
existence. At v. 7, we are told how the Wisdom or God ~X: vealed him to the holy and
the righteous. We a!'e not give.o a time for this event. 11mus1 be after the.crealiOtll)f
the world for there to be people for him w be rt\·ealed w. On !he olher haod, it does
not seem to be in the-eschatological peril)d either. II is there fore the same-time as v.
4. which is during nonnal human history. This makes excellent sense of the position
of Enoc-h in the de\'otions of this soc.ial subgroup. From their perspective. Enoc.h
~X:ally had been revealed to thel'n. 'the hOI)' and the rightet'fus', as he had not been
reve-aled to the rest of the Jewish people.
Enoch's extraordinarily elevated position in the belief and experie-nce M this
group is furLher shown by the functil)nSwhic-h he is given. As a 'staffto the righteous'
102 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

aod 'hope ro the broke.l -hearted• (v. 4), as well as the person \!Jho 'guarded the lot M
the righteous' (v. 7a), he must have been c-entral to the religimuoexperienc.e of this
group. It is even more extraordinary that he shoud be presented as ' the light of the
Gentiles'. While th is is frntn Isaiah {42.6 : 49.60), in ou r period it 1nust be dte work
of people fa"ourably disposed rowords the large number of Gentile Godfearers
fo und throughout the diaspora.
The immediately following pan of the. Similitudes retums ro eschatologic:al
events. At Cit 52. 1h)Weve.r, Enoch rel!mnes his journeys, interspersed with events
which happe-n i1t the places whieh he sees. At Ch. 56, this shi tls to Israel, aod at Ch.
57 the second simil itude ends with people. l~l l ling down and worshipping the Lord
of Spirits. Chapte-r 58 marks the beginniog of the third and l'inal sifuilitude. Again,
howevet, we fi nd Enoch seeing things, and at 60.1 there is a very strange-date. in the
500th year of the we of Enoch. ,vho did not live that long. At Gen. 5.32, this is a date
in the life. of Noah, and at I En. 60.8 the speaker refers to 'my great-grandl~nher,
the se\·enth ffomAdam•, being take-n to the garden of Eden. Scholars have therefOre
re~sonably seen this chapter as a Noah apocalypse whic.h has been edited in. At
60.10, the speake-r is addressed as waldn sab ·e. This is the same term fl)r ·son M
man' as before. It must again re-prese.JH (K)WJ(:o:) "U. This is an ordina1y tenn li)r
· mao·. used as a fonn of address. TI1ere is accordingly no problem in its having lh)
flu1he-r connectioo \\1ith the use o r •son of man' in the rest of the Similitudes.
In Ch. 61, the main narrati\fe of the S imilitudes appears to resume, with the
eschatological j udge-beiog described as •the Chosen One'. Tt1e Ethiopic is !Ji!my.
which mu~t re-preseot the Aramaic. K,.,,J. Al tht' beginning of Ch. 62, (;ifKi hint.t;tH
invites the kings and the mighty and the exalted and the landowners to see if they
can recognize the Chosen One. The se-lling is evidently eschatolog_leal, and the 1ef1'11
·son of man' is used several limes in the description of the-'Chosen OJ~e' . I propose
Lhe followi ng Aramaic. reconstmction of these verses .
..111?' 'Oi :>J Jrn p ; 1'(1,!;;:-; ;~ jlilo '7') ;;y ,; f l!:i ioil'(J'i1 jl:i~lt JU~K, jl?;;i ·; jl:U>:/7 jl:-ll'.l jmi'l .5
• ~-; X'nj ";~ 17ll1 ~-:1? K!iiK l'i~i ?:1• X..,::·;.1 X"J7ll :illll'1'l :-.JlliJd'1 :U'O"'Cl'1 .6
.:-;·-.·r.~ ;;·";~; ;;'rn o;y x-7~ :o-cl ll'(.\il~ -u 1'(.;;; Noo:u: ~7,; it: ' j .1
.l'(i:i x:yr:: :o:·-r;u 'b :om;:> l~li?"> xV;y ; :;;1:;. ;;;rnm .8
il!>"J'l :1"; t•» ;n·; p; xV1x ;:h juo- r·•~o, K:~· 7,; p7m r"ix; x-7;;; K"u·~~ K":h::; ?J i'~,.9
.:nw i=' r er."
5. A.nd they will lo..'ll: a1 ~c-h o.thct snd be :.f.-aid :tnd lower 11\cir .Cl'lttntet\Sili:C~ sod di ~tre~s
will seize them. wht'n they see thai son of mnn !>itting on his gklrious throne.
6 . And Lhc king.~ :.nd the mighty :.nd aUthe lsndownc-r~ will bless and prni ~ Clnd magniiY
him who ruks O\'t'r c\'Ct)'lhing. he who was hidden.
7. F(l( from of old th:u !iOO of m:m wa..; hidden, a.nd the Mos1High kct)l him bcf.:~re lljs host,
and tc\'c--alcd him to the clcct.
8. And 1hc oommunit)' of the holy ones will tK- sown, snd all the chosen will SL"'I'Id bctOrc-
him on that day.
9. Al)d all the ldng,~ a 1)d miglny snd cx.altOO :l.rtd lh,)Sc- " 'ho rule 1hc dry ground wm fall down
and wor.;hip. und they wiiJ stl thc.ir hope on thai son of mun. and the-y will bc.secch him and
stel: llk'rc)' from him.

Given the-context, it is dear lhat throughoul this passage the 1enn 'son o r mao'
refers to the 'Chosen One'. Al 62.5, the Elhiopic term lOr •son of 1nan' is ~w.rldn
 Tfu! ·s~m of l'lf(m' Cmrcept 103

IW'ifT, a change from the use of waldn S(tb ·e in 1he-prtvious examples. It is diflicult
to see any si£.1lific.ance in 1his change. Bmh ex:pressil)nS mean 'soo of 1nan' in tlle-
sens.e of 'human being' , and must go back to ao origio.al Aramaic ( ~)'Ii:J(K) 13. We
should infer that after n gnp of severaJ chapters. one or another translator simply
wem for an established alternative phrase. Nonetheless. this c.hange caused trouble.
Ethiopian Christians came to believe that this is a wonderful prophecy of Christ
Jesus. and some of them perceived waldn biN!si ~a son of a man in the sense that
he wa~ born. as we all are., with n human fa ther. Accordingly. all late MSS read
,mfda bi'bit, •son ora woman', with the virgin bil'th of Jesus in rnind. This reading
mus1 ac-Cordingly be regarded a'> secondary. It may be for 1he.sanle !'e.ason that Tana
9 reads walda sab ·e. Before. the tenn 'soo or man'. all MSS ha\•e. a dernon..'>tralive.
almost all of them ~iku. I have accordingly reconstructed p1, as befOre-. Tilt-
demon.strative is again anaphorie. It refers back directly w the 'Clh)stll One', and to
the earlier l'>CCurrenc.es of(~)~:(~) 13 in Chs 46 and 48. This figure is still sittiog on
his glorious throne as the eschatological judge, who tu)w rec-ei ...es adoration ffom
the ''~eked kings and mighty.
At 62.7, the Etbiopie text has the first occurre-nce of walda ·~guala 'i nunal!iitiw.
This is the second change in tl\ree verses. h stroogly suggests a translator who
did not like ,wtfda sab 'i . a1~d \Vho did not know quite what to do. h is difficult to
irt~agine any1hing mhe1· than (~)19~~) '1J in an Aramaic source-text. In the Ethiopic.

text. the immediately preceding word is /.:.Ona. which must be. taken in the meaning
'\!Jas' with the p roc.edi,~g pa11iciple (tlbri ', ' hiddeft'. to give the meaning ' the S\)1\ of
man '"as hidden'. The Aramaic underlying ktina must however be ~1;1, or ;n;,. This
may also be r)<ltt of the pa.~t ten.:;c of the verb 'to be', as the translator has interpreted
it, but Kl.'1 may equally well be. the de-niOIIStrative pronoun. ' that'. I propose that
this makes much beuer sense. as in the above reconstruction. This is anaphoric. and
refe.rs biltk to the inunedicnely preceding figure. previl)u.:;ly known as the 'Cht)se"ll
Ofle'. and of whom the tenn (x}ol:J(x) I J has been used se-veral times already. Tilt-
existence of this figure ·rrofn of old' is consistent with the story or Efl(ICh, who
was thought to have been with the angels for three hundred years (Jub. 4.21. cf.
Gen. 5.22), which could reasonably be. interpreted as God keeping him 'before his
host'. The revelation to the eJect is given no time indication. but it is clearly neither
in primordial time nor in the last times. As at 48.4,7a, this re-ftec ts the situation of
Enoch as re.vealed h) his adherent~. including the author(s) of the Simililudes.
The fOllowing ve-rses look forward to the last limes. At "· 9. the kings and mighty
will sel their hope on ' thal son of man'. The tenn for •son or man' in d1e-Ethiopic.text is
again walda 'iguala ·euww~1iitiw~ and here it is preceded by the demonstrative~i!ku.
I havt· acc.ordiJlgly reconstructed p1 xtVJx. "'0. In both languages the demonstratiYe
is again an.aphoric. It Jooks bad to the figure already under diSClL~Si on, a1~d this
deHoing partid e is agaill lleeded precise-ly ~aus.e (~)td:(x.) 1:1 on its l)\\'n is not fit to
be a title or a prec.ise term. The hope.of the wicked is in vain.
The nextlh!J verses deseribe the final punish1flent of the l)ppres.'>i''C- wicked. Tilt-
righteous and chosen will of course. be saved on that day. Part of the desc-ription of
their salvation. :u I En. 62 .14. again uses the tenn ·son l)f man'.
104 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

.X\:'7:.1 ;3;;; 1S' jVYV"l j~i jl;-,1\ p; ~:Sll\ -c Olti jl;r?:; p~h X)il,; K,1ll, 14
14. And the lord of Spirit!" will abide over them. and they will <-<tl and lie down and rise up
with lhtll son of man for C\'t'f and (":vcr.

Here. again the Ethiopic text has \valda 'i!guala 'imnw~teiiiw for 'son or mao'.
preceded by the demonstt.Hlve ;il:.u. I have accordingly reconstruc-ted once-more
p1 ~!IiJK 1.J. In both laoguages the demoostrative is again anaphoric. It looks back
to the figure already under discussion, aod this defi1~ in g pan icle is agaio needed
preci.~cly because (K}1il(K) 1J Oil i(S own is not fi t to be a Iitle or a precise tenn.
The following chapter continues with the esc.hatological theme. and returns to
the fate of the. kings and the mighty and the landowners. They attempt a somewhat
bel<lted repentance, w1lich is much too late to prevent their puuishl'uent. One verse
again uses the 1enh 'son of nl:ul' :
. j1.>.1i7 ":illllK:::r.jl ~T :c,rn ':ii~K !JiVl'l ll~i K't::s -o :S'ti C1ji I'VT<! j'ti":llKj17.'.ln' :on i.LICi .I I
I I. And :.fief Jhjs 1hdr f:.«s will be filled wi1h sllan~ bcf(I(C l.b3t son of msn. and they will
be driven from before his face. and the sword will dwell wilh them before his face.

The tenn lOr ·son orman• in the Ethiopic texl is again walda 'iguala ·emmal}iitiw.
preceded by the demonstrative ~iku . This time I have reconstructed ~:oiJ~ "'"0 Kl;i. In
both languages the. de-monstrative is again anapl101'ic. h looks back h) the mighty
figure expou1lded in the previous: chaplet as \\'ell as earlier in the book, and the
dC-IhOriSir.ttive is again needed precisely bec.au.o;e. (N)~Z~(K) ,J o n its own is not fil to
be. a title or a predse term.
This chapter ends this whole sec.tion of the Similitudes. The next section shifts
right back to the sins ofd1e angels who descended to eanh and caused people to sin.
\Vith the subsequent judgemenl of people ill the Flood. aud of the wicked angels ifl
torments which are somehow S-upposed to be related to the waters taken by the kings
and rnighty. llle names of the 1Mjor wicked angels follow, and theo an account of
an extraordinary oath by which the. universe was created and is sustained. This leads
h) praise of the Lord of Spirits by !he s1ars, winds and so on. and that shifls into jl))'
at the revelation of the name of that son of man. The text appears to have been put
h)gether by a final redactor who thought a..o;sociati\'ely about the diffe.reot kinds of
judgemenl and salvation, M l b)' St)rueone with a kee.n sense l)f logic. The end of the
third similitude, still concerned with the eschatological fates of the righteous and the
wic.ked, fOliO\\>"$ at the C-nd orCh. 69•
.~~v;x .,:: x1:o-; :ra~' n:n ,,_:..,K 'J ·~:.::w 1roc;; 1Jl::l :u, ~mn ii:17 ;;1:11 .26
.xo;1x ·~·~ v;. 1::x· K'n ')'m· )(';; xc1;:s ;.:: x;:i; :::rn~» lO"i ;;x-.· :nv· •;:.-:~ ~-.., .21
.x:.1:s ·~ l'll"fl'xi' j1;;"1~li ?:.· i!:z!':liu"T' j'li~" W"D~l il,~x.-.• ;•-.·ex~ X'l7S l"".o"i:rl\i p";x1.2.&
.:)7rr- ·:1;~;:s o;y l'.l x:-7-. 7;,~ mv• "01~ ~n-·1 •;r.n.x ltt!"JK -c Kl·:i ' j ~n.,'i x1:P :s? r~ ;Jt29
.xmo. K"l':< o;y 'lii!"l'f X'tlK -u K":i? -.:-:s•l 'i-nn
.,u.,, ·n"'n 'm.'=' K\1 ~;
26. And they had g_rca1 joy. and tho.-y blcs..;~d s1ld pr:.iscd a.nd extolled. bc~'3usc the name- of
that son of man was revealed to !Mm.
27. And he sst on his glorious throne-. and tl~ J>um ofjudg~nll::m Wai given II> th:.t son of
man. And he-will nol pass away nod he will 001 perish from lhc fucc of the eanh.
28.And 1hoscwho led the worldasLr:.yshall be bound withch:.i"~ Md 1hcysh:.Ubc imprisoned
 Tfu! ·s~m of l'lf(m' Cmrcept 105

in an asst.mbly of dC$truction. und nll1hdr deeds will \·unish from the face of the earth.
29. And from then onward~ dlefC will 001 be (lllylhing corruJ)Iiblc. fot IMI son of m.sn has
appean:d and has sat on his glorious throne-. and ull C\•il will vanish from ~fore his fuoc~ And
He will go and speak to that son of man. and he will be strons bdon: the Lord of Spitils.
This is the third p:uubk of Enoc-h.

TI1is scc.fion is lhe end Mthe third parable. This parable began a1Ch. 58. 1have noted
that additional material has been interpolated into it. and we ca nnot tell whether
anytJ1ing was lost in the process. only that the. transitions are very une.ven. The
changes of tense in t1liS seclion are due ro changes of perspective. 1ft vv. 26-27a. the-
perfecl te-nse is used to narrote \\'hat Enoch saw in his vision. Tile major event here
is t11e-re.velation of the name or 'that son M man'. This is c.!early the same rnajor
rigure as befOre. t)therwise the ·chosen Ooe'. and referred to with the tenn •so11 of
nt:Ul' since Ch. 46. The tent• tOr 'SOil of man' in mosl f>.•ISS of the Ethiopic le-xt of v.
26 is again walda ·eg uala 'imma beiaw. It is dinicuh to know \\1hat to make of the-
omission of walda in a few relati,•ely good MSS (Krtibb lists DM 49 1, Abb 35, Abb
55 and Tana 9). This may be due h) homoit)iircton atler the preceding demon~lrat i ve
wi'i!tu. I have presupposed this in recons.ll'ucting xlifJ~ ,~ ~1:1. Here again the
demonstrative is at~aphoric, reff-rring back ro the (igure of the previous chaplers.
and pre~u•hably it was originally rnuch closer to the end of Ch. 63 than il is now.
It is bO\!Jever po~ i b l e that the omiss.ion or w(llda is original, and that it was added
to c.onfom1 the expression to the one which is commonest in the Similitudes. In this
ca$e the translator wa:.;; even more inc-onsistent than we now suppose, tOr Intrinsic.
Probability favours lhe view that 'iguala 'inww~tiitiw would be a translation of
(K)l.9l (~) ,:J rather than of anything else.
The name of ' that son of man' is knov.·n to us from the end of t he-Similitudes as
' E-noch', and we have seen that this was known to the chosen already in Ch. 62. He
sits on his glorious thr011e to carry out his role as the esc.hatologic.al judge-. In v. 27a.
the •e.nu tOr 'St)ft of man' in the Ethiopic text is again 'wilda 'iguala 'i mmal!i1iaw.
This time it is preceded by the Ethiopic ltilli J. liternJiy. this me.ans that the s.um of
judge-ment wa:.~ given •h) hi1H, to the SOil of the ofT..;-pring oflhe fll()tber ofthe living'.
This is an alternative to Lhe demonstmtive. another way of making clear that the
figure referred 10 is the san-1e rigure a.'> was referred 10 previously. I have anr'ibuted
this change to the ttanslatt)l', and I have recons.trucled KtXi:JK , J ~d7. There should be-
no doubl about ( ~)ilJ(~) 1:J, but one or two olher details are necessarily uncertoin.
For e:tample. the. Aramaic might have been closer to the pre.se111 Ethiopic, reading
pethaps ~IVJX ,J7 ;,7. Sud1 possibilities do not a lfectlhe meaniog of the text.
Verl>e 27b 1Hakes an intportaot poim about '!hal son of man'. namely lhat he-
will not die. despite being human, the only possible interprelation of his. being a
(soo of) tnan. This interprehlliou results fr0111 following the reading or Tana 9. with
some varying degree of suppon from other ~·ISS which sometime$ preserve old
readings. It prepares the way lOr his identific.ation as EriOC.II himself ifl the following
account of his translation. This is contrary 10 Ethiopian Christian tradition. whic.h
interpreted walda 'iguula 'i nuna/Jiitiw as Jesus Christ, and whic.h held the atoning
death of Jesus to be imponant, as have. most stmnds of Christian tradition. Hence
106 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Lhe conuptions in later MSS, which drop the 7, •not', before botl1 verbs. change
their aspect and give them an l)bj ec.t, •sinners'. which enables v. 27b to be utkeo in h)
the picture of the destruction of the wicked in v. 28. TI1e reading M Tana 9 has a
pe-rfect Sit~ im Leben in the original text of the SimUitudes, and the above Aramaic
reconstruction from it is unproblematical. The very phrase (~)id:( ~) -u implies that
this being is human. and will therefore die. Enoch, almost uniquely among human
beings, did not die. and it was accordingly very important to the Enoch devotees
who \\' rote th is document to declare h is inun orta lity at this point. Jlis natne has j ust
been revealed to people ln the last days at v. 26, and v. 27 furtherconfinns to aoyone
in the know thm his name is indeed Enoch. as they will to varying degrees have
knowf!OI' su~pected since Ch. 46.
In v. 2 8. the imperfOCI is used with a l'i.trure sense ro predict the final punishment
of lhe wicked. In the J.ii'St sente11ce of v. 29, lhe imperfecH are used as in v. 28 I t)
pred ict future e\'eiHS, and the- h i/O pe-rfect~ both hark back to Enoch's \'ision and
relate an eveot, the appeal'ance of ' that son of man', \Vhich takes place-before the
destl'uction l) fthe wicked. Here the.tenu for 'son l) f ma.-,· is waldn be ·; Ji, as at 62.5,
preceded by the demonstrative wf! ·e1u. The demonstrati ve is unproblematic. as is
the ..econstruction ~1.9::.'\ 1~ ~l;"l . TI1e den)OIL.~ tratj ve isagain anaphoric, re-ferring back
to the central 1igure of the previous \'erses, and of the Simililude:s as a whole. The
re.asons for the traoslators· change ftom ~ ~Ydda ·egualn ·emmaJ.ri iiiw back to waldn
be'isi, however, remain pu1.zling. We c.an only i nfer that since both expressions
begio with ·son or·. and me-an one single rnan. the trartslators considered tl1e.n both
equivalent to the A ramaic ( ~)iJJ(K) 1:!, and did not mind which they used a.~ rnuch as
w~ think they should have done.
The fi nal sentence of the narrntive of v. 29 ha..,;; been found so dit1icult l11a.1 it
is customary to alter the text. We should not do this. We should rather follow the
re.adi ng of Taua 9 , with support fron1 fil)dl 4. The$e MSS read the singular ve-rb
wayihwgir._ 'and he will speak '. 1 have ac.cordingl)' rec-Onstructed ""'':l~''· I have also
taken ?r~1 with it, and I propose that the suhje<'.t is God. This kiod or unmarked
change or subject is quite normal io A ramaic •exts. The term fol' 'sorl of n'f<'u)' is
again walda bi 'isi, as in the earlier pan of this verse. and it is again pn.~ded by the
demonstrative wi•etu. The demonstrative is again anaphoric. referring back to the
eentrul figure of lhis and pr~vious verses, and of the Similitudes as a whole. We can
now see that this sentence. looks forward to I En. 71 .14. whc.re G od does speak h)
Enoc.h, \Vho is strong befOfe him. Thus when the oldest available text of these-fi nal
verse~~ of the. 1a.~t similitude. is used to reconstruct a possible Aramaic source. they
look fOrward unambiguously to the dfnoue-menl of this work in the iinal chapter.
The very Ja.o:;t semenc.e of v. 29 aono-u11ces tl1e-end of the Pal'ables a.o:; s:uch. This
d ears the way for the story of Enoch·s removal, which was alre.ady old, and of his
translation, which was pal't of the oldest tl'aditions abt.)ut him. It follows that these
chapters should not be seen as a later addition. We have seen that the very first
conunenL~ to make use of the tenu •son of mM' ( J En. 46.1-J) look fOrward very
d early to 7 1. 14. We should now see that the eoncltlding passage wa.o:; deliberately
designed to do the same.
 Tfu! ·s~m of l'lf(m' Cmrcept 107

l11e tinal awo chapters have c.aused terrible problem..l'; to scholars, who haYe
misunderstood them in a variety of ways. The problems have been bofh textual
and conceptuaL and to some de.gree these two different kinds of problems
have-been relaled. I begin \\1ith 1 En. 70. 1-4. fOI' which I propose the folh)wing
rec.on.stn tc.t ion.
.~~' 7¥ j'~'l"1 r.;:s il: 1\iiii> Xi":. n'i; ~;;i-ll(. -a ~1;i7 1\li ;;~~: 0.'Y1 i'IX ;;n it"~};~ :n;n . I
.r;;•n ;;~;; V~' xro.11 ;oJ1~~ ;imo10 .2
1\:<.'\'r.o r?~, li''ro, .:o;::..,,•.l' 101~-:o: p pnn r mn r:~. 'JJ.ml\l.Jl:i'J'~ 01~;:;;.ro.x x7 ~1:; l'> Z:l'lu; .3

. jU.i' ~1i'IK Nl:U m?;; p ; X"YC'i'l x-;:.;y IU\iJ.K l'i'iA l'~;· .4

I. And it e-amc:.lo pas.~ after this that 1he Jh·ing name-of lhat son of man wa.s c:<alted with thc:-
Lord of Spitils fllOf'( lhan those who dwe--ll on the dry pound.
2. And he was taken up in a cht.riot of the spirit. and his name we-nt out among them.
3 . And from !Mt d3y I wss oo longer coumcd amc>ng 1hcm. And he !'CUicd me between IW\l
winds. the-North and lhe \Ve!>t. where the angels tool: ropes to mc-.1sun:: for me the. plucc for
the d~"Ct and the ri~htrous.
4. And then.' I s:.w the firsr fathers and the rightool!S-. \\'Ito from of otd will dwell in that
place.

The. most serious problem occ.ur.s in the opening verse. Here the corrupt texts used
by older scholars !'C'$uhcd in Enoc.h being exahcd to ' thal St)fl of man·, \Vhich made
hopeless nonsense of his iderujfkation wilh this iigure at I £11. 7 1.14. I began to
sorllhis problem oul in 1976, when I pointed out lhatlutrinsic Probability favoured
the reading of one of the e.artiest and best manuscripts. labelled U by Charles. with
support from V and W, both of which were known to have. preserved some old and
sound readings.·18 11lis reo1oved the main problefn by haviog t11e-narne-of 'd1a1son
or mao' mised aloft to the Lord of Spirits, so this see.rncd to be the old stor)' of
the translation of Enoch, \Vhich made perfecl sense of 71.14, where he is linally
greeted by God. This work was carried much further by Olson in 1998. in the light
of further discoveries of older manuscripts:* My reconstruction is based on these.
more ancient readings. a11d owes rnuch 10 Olson's exegesis, which has cau:.o;ed rne to
change other aspects of my interpretation.
The opening phrase is unproblematical: it simply loc.ates the eve-nts about to
be described li.tter than the visions of Enoch which have been described already.
The next word. tala ·ata, may reasonably be rec.onstructed as o•::m nK Some kind
of exaltation is eYidemly referred 10. but I fOllow Olson in seeiog this Ml as t11e-
beginniog or Enoch's exaltation, bul an ir1dica1ion of his reputation. TI1e next
two words, :sim u ~~hiiw. have also been a major cause of lrouble. The proposed
reconstruction, however, \\"'ii ;ir.l!Ii, is not pn)bfe-nunical. I have followed Olson in

38. Ca!'Cy. 'U11c- of the Tc-nn "son of man" in the Similiwdc>s ', pp. 25-1. Cf. also A. C:.qu(l(,
' Rcm ~rq u..-s sur ks clutpitrcs ?0 Cl 71 du livre- Cthiopil."'' d' Htooeh '. in Ajxx·alypses et Thtolo-gil"
dc> l'£sptnma. Omgrtsde Ttmlmat' (/975) (LO 9S. P:u is: Cc•·f. t97i). t)p. 111-22 (113); KC3m~,
Ubf!rfiefenmg:~gesdrkh.tlidre rutd Re:J?pti<»rsgesclridlfliclte Srrrdie. p. 102 n. 27: Bl:tCk, £11od1.
p.25-0.
39. D. C. Olson, "Enoc-h :.nd 1he Soo of M:1n in Lhc Epilogue of Lhe P:lt:.biC'S'. JSP IS ( 1998),
pp. 27- 38.
108 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

taking the$e rwo wotds close!)' toge1her. and in supposing that Enoch's ' Jiving
name' refers to his great reputation.
Ne.'tl comes a crucial aspeCl of the readings of UVW. now found also in EMt\•IL
1768 and 7584. both fi fleerHh c.enttuy MSS, a11d the o ldest of all MSS only more
d illic.uh h) read j ust here, Er-.•lt\'I"L 2080, which is certajnJy at least as o ld as the
filleenth c.eotuty, and may be even older. l11ey are suppl)rred by EMf>.•tL 2436
and 6974, which ha"e in COI'hltn)u with VW that. while later in date, they have
pre.ser"ed some old and sound re--adings. All these MSS crucially omit lx.r~!abelui
be.tween simu IJiydw and lawi'i!tt1 walda 'iguala 'imma~tiiiiw. II follows thai
this shoner reading has massive Weight of Aue.station among the o lde~o;t and best
n1anuscripts in ig favour, as well a..:: lmrins-ic Probability. I h.ave fi>II0\1/Cd it io the
above reconstruction, where lt means that the words ~;ziJ~ 1J ~ 1;1? x.~n ;10\7 can all be
taken together, It) mean 'the living name of that s.on or man•.
Ill the light of the above recon..n ruction, I fOIIO\V the main lines or Olson's
c.ommenlS on the Ethiopic translation as my interpretmion of the. original text.
The iirs.t verse refers to Enoch's outstanding reputation befOre God. At v. 2, Enoc.h
rea lly is taken up. but this is not his translation eithe.r: it is his removaJ to the place
designated in v. 3. OJ:.on also c.orrectly saw, as Black had done., that the end of the
\ e- rse refers to his fame-. not to his disappearance. I have readily reconstructed an
1

Aramaic source whic-h also refers to his fu n~e. for in Aramaic as in Ge'ez this is the
fneaning of an idiom ac.cording to \Vhich a person's name going out relers to their
fh.ne. AI l ev.R. 619:2, fOr e-~ample, ~t)?ll"'3 p· ~ y.rd 111eans 'you ·will be farnous'.
This is in accordance with traditions about Enoc.h. At Jub. 4.23~ for example. he is
taken from anlOng the childretl M men and condue~ed ro the-garden of Eden ' 1\)r
_gre-atness aod honour '.
At v. 3. the text says in a differem way that he was removed from among people,
and this time it says where he was put There is a delibe.rate reference to I En. 61. 1.
where the angels head for the nonh with their measuring ropes. Enoc.h is therefore
in the ·gatden of rightcousoess' , the nafne tOr Eden at J En. 32.3. whe.re it is placed
it"l the north-cast ( I £11. 32.1-2, cf. 77 .3).
Chapter 71 really does gi,•e an acc.ouut of Em)Cb 's translation. In the opening M
v. I. we mu~t recon~truct np-7n.-.: lOr the Ethiopic 1i tl.:aba1. using the same word as at
Gen. 5..24. This gives us the Ji.)IJowing blunt stateme.nt right at the begioniog:
.~:~b? i-;o· \i1, r.y"'ij"'Xi ;;;; 'miO ;;;;n . I
I. And it came to pass nfic:--t this that my spirit was translated nnd ascended to the hcavcns.

A detailed ac.count of Enoch's truditjonal ttanslation fl)flows. l ie sees many aogels,

aod ~tadil i onal image-ry M 1ire, light and the like are 1huch LL<:ed. When he falls oo
his face, to.·lichael pulls him up. and shows him secret..; of the universe again. A
landmark is reached at v. 5, ~ -~~/ ~JJv/7 •nn r!V7"1. •And he ttanslated my spirit to the
heaven of heavens ..... ·. This is evidently furt her up. Jle1-e Enoc.h sees God's bouse,
th-e Se.ruphin, Cherubin and Ophatmin whl) guMd his glorious throne-, and myriads
or angels including Michael, Raphael, Gabriel and Pha1n1el. At v. I0, he-sees Glxl
himself. and this leads to the next landmark.
 Tfu! ·s~m of l'lf(m' Cmrcept 109

. .. 'ln"K ·;;;.,; 'O.'mK"1~ .,J1 ·~·:Q\ 7~ il~li .I I

II. And I fd l on nl)' fa.."'i:. a1ld all my flesh mchcd and my :tpirit '"'tiS lt:!lnsfooncd.

Now Enoch has been c<Jnlpletely lranslated, a.nd he i$etlOCtively jlL:;t like a liea\•enly
be i t~g.
I have noted the dose paralle.l to this at 2 /:.)t. 22. where Enoch is also taken
before. God himself. and is give.n clothes of glory in plac.e of hi.s earthly clothing.
The.u he declares, 'I looked at l'li)'SeH, and I had become like t)lle of his glorious
ones' (I En 22. 10). TI1is e.xplaios ' vhy d1e. tigure whom he saw in his visional I En.
46. 1 looked so much like a heavenly being.
Enoch then utters blessings which please God. who comes to him with Michael,
GabrieL Raphael. Phnnuel and myriads of les..'\oer angels. The denouement of the
whole work follows. There. is a slight textual problem at the beginning of v. 14.
where we should folh)w fOur of lhe olde~a MSS in omiuing ·angel' . TI1is will have
been a gloss. caused by God speaking of himself in the. third person. There is no
such problem with what God says to Enoc.h. the words which have c.aused so muc.h
trouble to scholars. I oner the followiog reconslructioo a1ld translmioo orthe closing
verses of this work.
~i7 1\-: !hi'1 ~,. i7;; Kt.¢ 1?1 ~tl;:h#? o?- "i KC!lK i :! l"l.t :-.ruK •7 ii'!Kl ·~J 17y: n ryS KliK' . 14
· 1lt':li.1' K'7 ~·~1·
o7l''n a,.,..., -p :m>? p1 NJ:'n:; ~'"'-o il: dr~ i?~J f'..v, ~ ~ "iiK1 :~~·,s oc.!:: u?i; -p ~"'7 ,., >~Kl. 1S
.1-::.'To~;
j1t.:.;i~:l'l"" -;l'Y iti'1ii7ll'i 1'.:<!11 j1inli::! ;;1:1'7 11!~ .;;:h:/7 1J~:,f,! ~? Kl7t'\7" 'U 1n~·:-; .,;; p "7:i' ~; . 16
.r;:'W; :a7·l ,, o'To~?
K.nli'i KO';o Ot.:.!:: K~·;;.lr-7 i......:V ln7K1 K"";··r.:J'ji7 ;>:i? 07t.:.!1 d:Q\ -o ~l;; 0!1 j'.'JT' 1iK ;;1;;? Nli~ . J7
. p~7i! 1!'7b

14. A•ld hceamc to me snd kis~d me with his voice t~nd said to me. ' You sre the s..m of man
who is born to rig,hteousocss. aDd righteousness dwells with yoo. und the righteousocss of
the Hct~d of Day:~ will 001 kavc you.'
I.S. And he said 10 me. ' He will proclaimpetux fo1•you in the nan\C of tile world to come.
for peace: ha.~ come. out from th<'rt:-sioc<' the-c.rcation of the wortd. and so shall it be for you
for c\'e.r and for <'V<r and eVC'r.
16. Alld everyone will ' 'l:.<ilk according 10 your way inasmuch a.~ ri ghl~~ouAACss will 001
forsal:e you for e.vcr. With you will be the.ir dwelling and with you their lot nnd lh<'.). will not
be sc-partucd from you for ever :.nd for cvcl' .-.nd e"cr.•
17. And thus there will be kngt11of tbys with that soo of mal\. and ahcrc will be p~'tl~~ for
the righteous. and a righteous way for the. righteous. in the name of Ihe lord of Spirits for
e\·cr and ever.

Al v. 14, lhe lC.nn for 'son of rna1f is waldu IN'isi, as al 62.5 ond 69.29 (bis). We
have already seen dlat the use ofduee diflere.nt •enns ll)r 'son of man' in this text
is puzzling, but does nol seem to be or any sig1lificanee. The underl yi t~g Ara.ruaic
cat\ again only be (K)'.ifJ(K) 1J, which makes e:<c:ellent stfl st-. h rnust be taken ciMely
with the following rt"lative clause-. which defines whic-h (son ol) man is referred to.
It h)l)k.c; back to Enoch's \•ision al 1 E,. 46.3. where he-saw 'thal (son ot; 1han who
has righleous-ness, and righteousness d"'e-lls with him·. In lhe light oflhe Similitudes
as a whole. lhis also identifies Eooch with lhe Chosen One-. and as lhe esc-hatological
judge who will vindicate the righteous aod c.oodemn the-' vicked. We-have also see.n
110 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Son of Man ' Problem

that I /:)r. 69.29 lt)l.)kS ron\•ard 10 thi.s scene. h tOII0\1/S that this d~noue.nent is
an integral pan of this work. not some kind of late addition. Finally. it should be
110ted that Kl:i, like wi'itii in the Ethiopic text, couJd be taken as a demonstrative
rather than as the copula. whic.h is not strictly speaking necessary. We could then
translate-, ' You are that (son ot) man who is bomto ri ghteoosoes.~ .. : . This \VOuld
not significaotl)' anect the n1e-.aoing, sinc.e it would sti ll be a reference back to I £11.
46.3, and with all the overtones ,vhich I have describe.d.
The final use oftl1e tenn 'son of man', at I En. 71.17. must be- interpreted as a
d osing oonunent by the author. For the exprcssil)U 'soo of man' itseu: the trunslator
has gone back to n:(llda 'i!guala ·emm(t~ti!i6w. Again this change is puzzling, but
does no! seem to be signilicant. It must again represe1U (N)liiJ(K) -a, a..~ in the above
recoos1ru<:tion. This final com1Uent is a highly inte-grati,•e use o f~:VJ~ -u ~1;,, lOr it
is the precise expressioo used for the central figure throughout the. Similitudes, and
it is used here straiglu after his explicit identification as EMch at 71.14.
It follows that._ throughout the visions which made up the bulk of the SimUitudes,
Enoc.h saw visions of himself as he would be after his translalion. Many scholars
have refused to believe th i s. ~0 The main point should however now be clear: this
is what the text dearly implies, and only this view makes sense of the ending of
this document. We musr therefMe make greater eOOrts to understand it. In 1972,
Caquo1 noted a helpful parallel in the Testament of Le,•;;'' ln a vision at llethel
(T. L('\'i 7.4-8.1 ), leYi sees in the future seven me1' telling him to put on the robe
of the priesthood and other things associated with it. They then anoint him and
effecti\•ely initiate him into the. priesthood. Finally they prophesy the future after
Levi •s earthly life. This is a:o; d ear a parallel as one could \\1ish for. It is too Je\vish to
have originated when this document was rewritten by 0 1risti:ms. We may the.refore
safely consider this phenomenon as nath·e to Second Temple Judaism. Moreover. it
should not be dillicult to see I!0\1/ it arose. There are numerous documents fro.u this
period in which people foresee the future in visions. Those who do so are always
f',l't.<'ll figures orthe past. A ll that has to happen is that the sage himself must belong It)
lhe distant past. and later perform functions of exceptional importance. This is what
led the author of the Tb·tame11t of Levi to portray Levi ha\'ing a vision of the future
in which he was inaugurated into the priesthood. a Jewish institution of exceptional
importance of which he was perceived as a founding father. The Testaments of the
Tl,•el\·e Patriarchs also have several references to the book of Enoch the righteous
as an authoritative work (e.g. T. Le1•i I0.5), so the visionary 1raditions M Eooch an-d

40. E.g. C. C. C:ll':.'lgouni~ 71re> Son ofMaJ1 (WliNT .18: TObingc-n: Mohr (Si cbcd:), 1986}.
pp. 110-12, n. 121, puts li>rw:ml all kinds of reasons ti:lr ''*~~'t ins thC" 1cx1. :.nd st p. 115 n. 126
commcn~:>.. sp~lucndy on 7 1. 1 ~ . ' lklt misctsbk blunder of E1hio pk tr.lnstt•ipcion•; J. J. Collins,
Tilt' Scepter and the Star. Tht Mt J.fiuhJ tJjlht' Dt'ad Sta Scroll.s and Other Allde>nt LitemtW\.' (New
York: Doubleday, 1995 ). pp. 177- 82 offcts a eom1>b dis.eu11sioo bc~~usc he docs llOt :.ccc-p1 this
main point
4 1. A. C:.qu\"N, ' La Double hwcstilurt de lC\·i (Bnh·c~ rcmatquc~ sur Ttstume11t dt' lAi.
Vlll)\ in C. J. Blecker el ul. (C'ds), £\· nrbt ll'ligiQIIIfltt. Srudiu Gto WidnrgJ\'.rt (2 vols: NumcnSop
21- 2. Lddcn: Brill. 1972), ' 'ol. l,pp. 156- 61.
 Tfu! ·s~m of l'lf(m' Cmrcept Ill

of the twelve patriarchs evidently emanated from Je.wish traditions of a generally

similar kind.
Moreover. there is another paraJiel in the older Enoch trnditions themselves. At
the close.of lhe massive.vision of the future generaJiy known from its imagery as the.
A"imal Aporalypse ( J En. &5- 90), Enoch comments, •And this is lhe vision '''hich I
sa \II while-I \\'as asleep' (I En. 90.40). Between the two parts of the final judgeme-nt.
howevet, \lfe find that three angels and ' that ram'('! Elijah) take Enoch up and put
hinl down 'among those sheer>' (/l:.it. 90.3 1). llere. the-ref01'e, Eooch, while aslee-p.
sa\1/ himse-lf in a vision at the last judgemeot The Ani11wl Apocalypse- was writte-n
c. 165-60 BCE. This means that. when the Similitudes were written. the idea of
Enoch seeing bim..o; elf in a vision at the la,.;;t judgement had been arouod arnl>ng
Enoc-h devotees for generations. His position in the Similiwdes. where Enoch sees
himself not merely at the last judgement, but a.:; the eschatological judge himself, is
a vigorous de.velopment of exisring Enochic traditions. We should therefore see this
as a c.reative literary and religious achievement we should not refuse to follow the
only natural interpretation of the. text
The following conclusions may therefore be drawn. The Similitudes of Enoch
were written in the form of a re.velatOI)' work. The-y belong to a very old tradition
of Enoch as a visionary. and as a scribe. who wrote down the condemnation of
wicked beings. and the salvation or the righteous. In this \\'Ork. Euoc.l1sees visions
of the eschatological judge ,.;ho will carry out the judge-ment, of the salvation of
the righteous aod the punishn'1en1 of the wicked. In the vision ofCh. 46, Em'>Ch sees
this figure and desc.ribes him io such a way that Je\\•ish devotees of Enoch \VOUid
~cogn ize him. InCh. 69, at d1e-efld of the third visioo, there are deliberate pointers
to Enoch's translation in Ch. 71 . Jo Ch. 70, after the '•isions, Enoch is taken to the
garden of Ede.o. InCh. 71, there is a narrative of his trans1ation. in accordance-with
old tradition about him. This narmtive has the further development of a recognition
scene-, in which Gl>d identifie-s Ef!OC.h in terms strongly rerninisc.ent of Ch. 46. It
follows that Enoch in a vision actually saw himself in the future. in accordance with
old tradition about him.
In the visionofCh. 46, betCwe the de.sctiption \\'hich would alert de-\'Oieesof Enoch
to the identity of the son of man JigUI-e. he is first ofall described in more 111yste-rious
terms with S.OI'lle teminiscences of Dan. 7.13. This is where the term (~)117:{~) 1J was
originally drawn from. Throughout the Similitudes, this tenn (K)1<lJ(K) 1~ was used in
accordance '"ilh nonnal Aramaic usage as an ordinary tenn for •mao'. In every case.
some.thiug makes clear a reference back tt) the original appeara11C.e of this figure
at the beginning of Ch. 46. Much the c.onuuonest device is the anaphoric use of a
demonstratjve. It fOIIow·s I hat this work do~ not provide-evidence of a Son of Man
Conce-pt. It is howeve-r the central work on \llhich the e.xistence. of this figure has
beeo based. It follows t11at, at\er finding no suc.h conce-Jlt in this Wl)rk or in Otuliel
7, I have come nu)S-t of the way towards showing that there was no such c.oncept
in Sec.ond Temple Judaism. This demonstration must be completed by discussing a
small selection of other \\•orks in which this Concept has been found.
112 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

3. 4 b ·a /J

The third work whic.h was traditionally used as e\'idence for a Son of ~<tan Concept
is a single c.hapte.r in 4 E:ra. This work must be. dated c. I00 CE. St) it require$ the
support of earlier works to be taken seriously as e\•idence of a Son of ~<hm Concept
being in existence by the time of Jesus. IL has om survi ved in its origi1lal language,
which wa.;; probably Ilebrew. Of the maj or versions. the Latin and the Sy-riac IOrrn
one. textual tr.tdition which the older scholarship took most notice o[ and these
''el'sions were ee11ainly made from a lost Greek translation. Anothe-r major texrual
traditil)l\ is fOnned by the Ge'ez aod the Ge.orgian versions...:
The chief character in this chapter is the figure ora rnan. h is unforrun.ate that there
i..'l; a
Jac.una iu rhe Larin at his 1i..st appearance, where-the Syriac 1eads x:Uil1J1Knlll11'K
This useor~-tlu wa.~ in'IJ,Othlnt in leading some traditional scholarship to the vie\1/ that
here was furthe-r evidence of a Son of Man Concept and more 1\."-C-ently Carngounis has
found it d ecisi ve.~) Thi s view shl)uld Mt be accepted. In this firsl oocwT<:11ce. the Latin
has lromo and the Ge'ez h a..~ bif'c'Jsi. In 1he subsequent de.~cripr i ons of the man-like
figure in •he visil)n ( I3.Jb,5,1 2), the Latin always has homo. the Syriac.x:tVru and the
Ge'ez be'h i (the-Georgian is not e.xtant). In the interpretative sec.tion ( 13.25.32.5 1),
the Latin always has Pir. lhe S)'Tiac ~~n, and the Gc'ez be'i \'f. h !OIIows that the Latio
and Syriac trnnslated O:vepc.:JTTOt; from the Greek version in the visionary section. and
that this, like the.Ge'ez be•esi. represents o1x: in the original l lebrc\v text. Similarly
in the interpretative section, the. Greek trnnslation used civi}p, representing W'N. in the
original •ext The use of the Syriac 1\"VYU to tnlnslate the Greek &v6pwrroc; is entirely
natural, because it was so common. Consequently. it is also found where the Latin has
honw in se\'eraJ passages of 4 Ezra, both in the singular(e.g. 6.10 (bis), 7.29, 8.6} and
in the plural (e.g. 3.36, 5.12, 6.26).
It follows that the te-rm 'soo or man· was not used in the original text of 4 E:rt1 1J.
It should not therefore be used a.:; evidence or a Son of f\<lan Concept in Judaism.

4. Other Pas:wges

Once the Son of Man Conc.ept was li.)utld in these three passages, it was re.ad into
many othe-rs. h was not however normally rounded on them. I have not round any of
them re..nmely coovinciug. I therefore discuss only two such passages. as a sample
of what h a..~ bee-n anen1pted. with a view to indicating why I have fOund all such
attempts unconvincing.
A vigt)rous auempt to use Tg. Ps. 8 as evidence t11at (K}ziJ(K} -a was a rnessianic
1erm was m:.\de by Moloney... The mMI impot1ant patt of it is v. 5.
42. for f'(lCCnl d iscu!'sion of the tc-:d und versions. sec ~'1. ~ Stone. Founh £:;-a. A
Commt'ntary em the 8iJok ofFmu1h E;,ra (Hcm)Cnci.s. Minnc:1polis: Fonrc~. t990). l)t). 1- 11.
43. Caragounis . S011 ofMan. pp. 127-&.
44. F. J. ~toloncy, 'The- Targun1 oo Ps. Sand the New icstan~m·, Soltsimmm 31 (19 75}.
pp. 326--36: ' TI)C End oftl'lc Son ofMan·.1' . f)Qwlrside Rt>riew 98 ( t980), pp. 280-90 (284-5): 'The
Ri."-lnt~·q)ret31iooof Psalm VIII :1nd the Son of Msn Debate', NTS 27 (1981 ), pp. 656-72 (66$-6J.
 Tfu! ·s~m of l'lf(m' Cmrcept 113

Tg. Ps. 8.5: MT ;;;m« and onq~.

Whal is: (th<' son o l) m:sn !.hal you rcnwmb.-r his works. tind (lh<' s.oo ol) man ll'l:u Y\"IU visil
him'!

Ooe of Moloney's rnain points is that ' the generic 1enu "mall'• (MT: iii'u~) is
individualized 10 a specific "the Son of Man'''.45 This is untrue. The delir1ite
state had lost its force. by the time that the Targum to Psalms was wrinen down.
Mt)foney's suggestion that the coruexl is more.imp011ant, and indicates an exception
to this gene.ral rule, is conrrary to the nature of exhausted features of languages.
Once aoy feature or a language has lost its li)rc:e. sornething else-has to be used
if ig function is w be re-placed. The. generic use of K"WJ 1:! is quite. common in late
Targums. Exarnples include Ps. 104.14-15 (passage I I above), where Tgaud Pesh
both use the definile ~:oil 1J three times., ooce. tcw 011\.o, where-the Jlebrew article is
generic, and twic.e li)r anatthrous !Yn~. as at Tg. Ps. 8.5.

II. T g. Ps.. 104.14·15: MT :nx:-., 'tUlC. ,;z!;;u.;:

XTo!S7 XiJJ ,::; :»::'? •;n\l'1 l'>'\'.m t> Kli,X l'.l l'>tm7 v~r1!? xi.1~ , ::; l'>m71~7 -~-rl ·,-~:h l'>::C ~ ·::~;

\VI)!) inctca>~o.'$ 1M grass fo1' lh<' caulc. and gr~.X:ns fM Lhc S\'1'\'icc of (the 900 of} man. to bting
tOnh br~o"ttd from llw ctut h :md wi ne which gladdens the h~o-sn of (the soo of) man. to make
his f:~cc ~i n.- w ith o il. :l.lld brc:~d sati.sfics the lwan of (the Sllll o l) man.

Here ?\:VJ -a is geoeric in all d1ree examples l)f the definite state. h fOih)wS from man)'
examples or this kind that 1he-defioite-state or ?\:ziJ 1~ at Tg. Ps. 8.5 does nor show
that w~ bas been individualized 10 a specific •the. Son or Man'. Moloney also sees
signilkance in the fac.t thal at Tg_. Ps. 8 .5 SliiJ 'U t)CCurs (\Vice. rendering two difre.rent
e-xpressions. Tg. Ps. 104.14-J 5 is a good example of this happening with ~~l , J in a
generic se-tlse. having three occurrences lOr (WO dilfere.nt expressions. I have shO\Ilfl
eL:;ewhere th ar(~)l.ifl , J is the normal rendering l)f'D1N P. and that il renders Wus many
tirnes in 1he major Aramaic versions of the Jlebrew Bible, including 6 or the other
II examples in the Targum to Ps.alms.~'' Tg. Ps. 104.14- 15 provides two examples l)f
the ge.nc.ric use of the definite state s:ziJ , J for the anarthrous :zlu~. Occ\uTences of the
anarthrous ;;iu~ are rendered with the definite l\~J(K) , J 4 out of7 times in Lagarde's
edition of the Targutn to Psahm. and 8 times out or 8 in the. Peshiua. TI1is illu.:;ttates
the. iiK'-Orrec.t nature or Molone.y•s argument.
Moreover, tvloloney did not consider the rendering or two tenns with ~~J u in
the light of similar re.nderings of other words. For example. Tg. Mic. 2.2. renders
both 1JJ.aod W·~ witl1 ,JJ.; Tg. Ps. 9.9 renders both c~W· and 1'1' witlll"i': Pesh Job
35.8 renders both loth~ and 011\ p with !z/:>J; LXX Prov. 2.13 rende-rs both mm!\ and
~,1 with 6¢ol, and LXX ProY. 2.20 rendc.rs both ,,i
and mn1~ with Tpi~ot. These
examples illustrate the fact that ancient translators, including Tg. Pss.. did in fact
use one term twice where the Heb1·ew tc:<t has two. This again shows Tg_. Ps. 8.5 to

45. 'Re-lnlcrswctruion of Ps:~lm V III'. p. (>62.

46. Casey, ' Usc of the Tc•·m (x)tl!(l») -a in UK: Aramaic Translations'.
114 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

be non na l, fl)r tl1is is partiClJiatly liable to happen when the traoslator 's ter:n'l is his
nonnal translation of bl)lh the tcnns in the text, as x:VJ 1J is Mrmal for both 01~ p
and WIJN..
It !OIIows that Moloney's argumeots should not he ilC·CCpted. T he A ramaic
tenn (:o:)tL;:{N) -u is used perfectly normally in Tg. Ps. 8, as an ordinary term fi)r
humankind.
A number of other passages were suggested by Horbury as evidence that the
term 'son of man• picked up ' rnes..o;ianic associations• .J 1 For example. he suggests
that pre-Christian currency fOr messianic i•Hetpteunion of the man-like figure in
Dan. 7. 13 is supported by the evidenc.e of Eze-kiel the Tragedian, E.mgoge 68-89. ~11
There are several problems \!lith this. First. the date of Ezekiel's \1/0rk is uneettain,
and may be earlier than that of the-book of Daniel. Second, the tenu fOr 'man• at line
70 is ¢<-)c;, and lhe being in question on the throne is God himself. Third, despite
the plural 9p6V(o)V at1iJle 76, only one throne is d early described in Moses' dreal'n,
Lhe throne of God himself. ~·loses mounts this when God has left it. There is the-n a
rnelaphotic.aJ use of the tem~ 'du'O ne ·in the interp1-emtive SOC-l ion catTied through by
r-.•toses' f.·uher-in-law, and this indicates Moses• future wvereignty. Finally. the 1efl'11
·son of man' is fU)l used in this pasS<~g:e. llorbuty's argunle-ots shl)uld acc.ordi1lgly
not be accepted. This passage provides imponam evidence of how high the posilion
of Mo~-s as an intennediary lig:ure-Ol)uld be presented. h is not howeve-r connected
with th-e use of the tenn ·son of ma1f .
These two passages indicate quite. how l~lr-fetched the-scholarly discussioo of
the S..)tlof Man Concept has been. Its existence is in a real sense depe-ndent on the
first two passages discus.c:ed in this c-hapter, and if tl1e.se are found wanting, other
passages like those discussed in this section cannot make up for them.

5. Coudusians

The following conclusions should therefore. be. drawn. There was no Son of Man
Conc:ept. or M ellsdumsolmbegr(O: in Second Temple. Judaism. The scholarly view
that there was such a concept has been based on inadequate study of the primary
soutce material. In lhe fourtdational source, Dan. 7.13. !IIJK 'U:I, <one like a son of
man'. is a pure synlbol or the Saints of 1he Mos1 Jligh. a description of !he people
of Israel. He is nm a separate figure. and he is mc.r-ely like11ed to a 1han. The study
of the Similiwdes of E11oclt has beeo made very ditlicuh by the fact that it has
survived only in Ge'ez, and in a very c.orrupt te.xtual iraditjon at that. Careful study
of .A.ramn.ic source material which can be recovered from the oldest manuscripts
ha.~ shown that (K}oiJ(K) -.J was used in the original text of this work in the sa!lle
way as it is used in ex taut Aramaic. texts, as a normal tenn ror •man'. The man io
questioo \\'as Enoch. fi rst d e~ ribed in Ch. 46 io a mys1erious way which would be

47. HorbUl)'. ' Mcs11ianic Associali(ltlll clf 1 hc Son ofM:m"•.

48. H(l(bury. ' Mcs~i311ic Associa1ioo11 of "'The Soo. of Man"•, pp. 42- 3.
 Tfu! ·s~m of l'lf(m' Cmrcept 115

recognizable to members of the Enoch group. and then revealed in all his glory in
the rect)gnition sce1~e a1 the end of the work. Other sources srudied either do om use-
the term •st)fl of rnan·. or use it nom1ally. Acc.ordir1gly, this sc.holarly construct is
largely ignored in subsequent chapters of this book, and chapters c.onc.emed with the.
historical Jesus use the Aramaic material studied in Ch. 2.
 Chapter Four

Stx A UTHENT IC SAYINGS

The main purpose of this chapter is to pre.sent Aramaic reconstructions of six

authentic sayings or Jesus \\thich I have presente.d in more de.tail elsewhere. and
to update these di~ul>Sions in the light M the evidence presetHed io Chs 1- 3. I
begin with the methodology presupposed in the. detailed discussions of individual
saymg.s.

I. lt1etlwd

Aramaic was the lingua jraJJC(I in Israel at the time of Je$uS.1 Con.sequemly. Jesus
will h.n·e been brought up with Aramaic. as his native tongue. ilnd he will howe. had
to use.Aramaic to teach nom1al Jews in Galilee and in Judaea. The Gospels provide
d irect and it~di rect evidenc.e of .le:;us' use of Aramaic, despite the fact that they
\VC-re wriuefl in Gree-k fo rGree-k.spe~'lki ng churches. For e.xample. rvtk 14.36 records
Jesus· prayer in the g.arde.n of Ge1hsemane. TI1e tirs1 word is ci~~a. the Arnruaic KJK,
' Father•. h is the fact that Jesus taught in Aramaic which makes it desirable that we
should study his sayings in the original Aramaic. if only we can reconstruct them.
The most outstanding fe.ature of the. indirect evidence is the idiomatic use of
the 1errn 'St)u M mM ' . The Greek 0 u'10t; ToV Ov8pc..)rrou is not known in texts
previously writlen by rnonoglo• Greeks. h can t)I\Jy be underStood as a trartslation
of the. Arnmaic (K)iJJ(K) -a, f()r the following combination of reaS()mt First, Jest1S
spoke Aramaic. Second. the Greek expression 6 uiOc; ToUO:vOp<.l rrou is not nom1al
monoglot Greek. and it makes perfect sense as a literal translation of a Semitic
expression? Third. the Greek uibt; overlaps greatly in semantic area with the
Aramaic -a and the llebrew p. It is extensively used in the LXX 10 te11der p ,
in both lite.ral and figurative senses, ir'K:Ioding e-xpressiNIS which are not nonnal
monoglot Greek. but litem! translations (e.g. uiOv cSuv0:1JEt.Y; for 7·n:· p, I Sam.
14.52).' Fourth, the-Aramaic (x)Wj(K) overlapS extensively in setnanlic an":~ with
Lhe Greek 0:\/0pc..lrrOt;. Fi fth, 1he llehrew o1x. p , the equivale-IH of l he Araruaie

I. Case-y. Aromuic Sowrt>J t>fMutf. 5 Gospel, PI)· 76- 9: and for funher bibliogra~'hy. p. 6 t.
n. tO:lb\wc.
2. On 1M usnslatioo pr<XX:ss, sec pp. 246-66 below.
3. For thorough di!>eussioo., ~c l)t>. 256-61 tk'low.
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 117

(~)IV:(x.) ,J.,is nonnally rendered ui~ CrvOpc.)rrou in the LXX, by several different
translators. Sixth, the Gospel expression 0 ui6c; Toli Ov6pc.)rrou evidently did not
cause diflkuhy in unde-rslanding at lhe litne-. II tnUS[ therefore represent a normal
Ara.naic expressit)n rather thew an unusual one. This require-ment is satisfied by
(~)W:(x.) 1~. Seve-nth. some Gospel sayings (notably Mk 13.26; 14.62) tnake 1.1.:;e.

of Dan. 7 .13. where V.:J ~ , J is c-ertainly the unde-r lying Aramaic expression. This
combination of arguments is decisive. Authentic Son of man .sayings mus:t be
reconstructed ·wilh (x.}-.!J(~) -u where the Greek te-xt M the Gospels has 0 u"u)t; ToU
O.vOpc.)rrou in order thm we-may correctly understand the-m. We have seen inCh. 2
that (~)lt'J(K) 1~ is well enough attested fOr 1his purpose-. so lhe pre.sent chapter can
be de.voted to discussing the reconstructed sayings in the. light of earlier discussion
of the idiomatic uses of this phrase.
Other sigos M interfe-rence ioclude the use of ce11ain "'ords. For example. a1
Mk 14 .2 1 Urr6:yEt is 1.1.o;OO with refen"'tlce to Jesos' fOrthcoming death. TI1e Greek
word Urrc'xyc.l was not a nonnaltc.nn for dying, whereas the equivalent Aramaic ?rx.
was used with this reffre-nce. The-re are. plenty of examples of this in later Jewish
Aramaic and in Syriac. and the word itself occurs in e.arlier sources with the mundane
meaning ·go·. We must inle-t that this word was already used as a metaphor fOr death
in first-century Galilee-. and interpret this as a piece or evideoce that Mk 14.21 is
indeed a translation of an Aramaic source . ~
Sometimes the different forms of a saying should be explained as a result of
transmission in Ar.~maic. or translation from Aramaic into Greek. For example. at
Mk 3.28 the ooly occm~nc.e orO u"16t; ToV Ov6pc.)rrou in the plural in the Gospels
is evidently due to the translator. He did not like the sense of a genuine saying of
Jesus, which can be reCO\'ered with the help of f>.·h. 12.32//Lk. 12.10.s
The son of Aramaic th.at may rea.sonab1y be used for reconstructing sayin£,S of
Jesus has been controversial. We must suppose. that Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic,
but hardly any Galilean Aramaic l)f the right period survives. This ditllcult situation
has been quite transformed by the discovery of the Dead Se.a scrolls. which provide
us ''~th a large slice of Aramaic voc-.abulary. and standard synta.'\:. fro m shortJy
before. the time of Jesus. These words and constructions are virtually all found in
other dialects too. We have seen inCh. 2 that we now know what a stable language.
Aramaic was ove-r a period of centuries. Consequently, we. c.an use material fro m
other dialec.ts \\~ th caution. The probability of words extant in old sources still being
extant is high. even when they do not survive in later mate.ria1. Similarly, we should
not hesitate to use later sources with c.are.. The mo.st imponant single source is the
Palestinian Talmud. This is the right language and culture. only somewhat later
in date. It C-OtHains 1nany \\·ords which are also exta111 in the Dead Sea scrolls aod
earlie-r sources. and many sayin_g.:; which are auributed w rabbis long before the final
dme of ilS composition. Finally we may tum to other later sources. including the
Syriac versions of the.Gospels.

4. Sec further Cascy.Ammaic Srmra.HifMark's GosJWI. pp. 2.33-().

S. Fot dclaitc:-d di~cusJ>ion, ~c pp. 1 4~43, 254-S below.
118 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

I ba\'C floted the imporla nce o r later Anun aic in d i ~.l.ISSir\g the i diornati~ use of
(~)1.92( ~) -u thn)u_ghout Cit 2. We s.aw· that the tent• (K}1il(K) 1~ itself is suJlicienlly

well omel>ted in the (sti ll) 10eag.re sourtes from before the •ime or Jesus for us to
be conn dent that it was io nom~ al usage. I ooted one example of its idiomatic use
as early a..~ 750 13CE.~'> For more details of this idiomatic usage, however. we need
later sources bec.ause Lhey are comparatively extensive. The Yemshalmi alone has
more than 280 examples of l11e-simple ( N)liiJ(N) 1~. ~u1 d the careful ust-or this aod
othe-r later sources h a..~ enabled fne to find sorne 30 examples of its idiomatic use
with particular re.ference to the speaker or to whoever else is especially in mind.
Accordingly. I make c.a~fu l use of lin er sources whe.never d1is is nece:;sory.'
IIHirnatdy interwove.n with this pn)cess of reconstnlcting: :>a}'ings of Jesus is that
of uncovering the work of the people who translated them into Greek. One major
result of the variety of problems which fac.e a normal translator is important at this
point: they may adopt su<ttegies. To translate freely. or literally. can be adopted as
a strategy. A !arategy may be unde11aken at a \ Crbal level, a.~; fOr exarnple Aquila's
1

decision h) render the-Hebrew ilK with t11e Greek oUv + Ace.• when n K means •hat
the next word will be the object ofthe previous verb. The result of this is not nonnal
Greek at aiL We may feel that it illustrates a general observation made by modern
students of translation: 'Strategies do not solve ltanslation problems - they are
!herely plaos that c-an be implemented in an attempt to solve proble-ms . ·~
The only clear .strategy in the synoptic Gospels cone-ems the tmn.slation of
(~)::IJ(~) -u itself. The positive-halfof this strategy was to use 6 v'u)t; ToU OvOpc..)rrou
for (K)W~ ~ ) u when il refe.J'S to Jesus. TI1is li.)Jiows from d1e-abo\'e-comments t)n
its appropriateness, from the fa<.~t that all the Son of man sayings in the Gospels
are clearly intended to refer to Jesus. and from the absence of other terms for him
which might reasonably represent (~)JOIJ(~) -u. The negative half of the !tansla!or's
st:rate.g_y follows from the. absence of the te.nn fro m most of the. synoptic Gospels.
in whic.h it is ne\'er used of aoyone e~"cept Je-$US, a~~d only onc-e iu the plural Oo
general g.ronnds, i f the tradition contai ned (~)t.?:(x} "'IJ as a reference to Jesus.. it will
have contained it when it was not a reference to him as we.U. and it will have had
it in the plural 100 . lo attempting to avoid confusion, mhel' \!JOrds have been used
instead, surely including_ O:v8pc..)rroc; both in the singular and the plural. The fe.w
exceptions (Mk 3.28; 9 . 12; Mt. 10.32-33) are responses to partic.ular pl'o blems:>
This is very important for understanding the whole of the synoptic tradition, for a
translation strategy can onl)' be e.mployOO \Vhen extensive portions of the literature
in which it is found are. in fact translated. This strategy alone enables us to infer
.substantial translated .sources used by Matthew. ~·lark and Luke, whelher translated
by them persooaJly. or by their sources, or by assistants. 1t pr<wides the geoeral
c.onte:u i n which we must view ge-nuine.Son of man sayings.
6. ~c t)tlllsagl." 20, pp. 67-& above.
1. Sec funhcr. pp. $6-9 above; CsJ~cy, Ammaic Smm:ts of MarkS Gospd. pp. 89- 93;
Aramaic ApfJJ'(}(Itil to Q. pp. 56-60: 'Aramaic Idiom and the Soo of Man Pmbkm•.
8. H&lig. 'f-lohnc~· ..Mapping Theory"''. p. 85. For detailed d is.:.-ssioo. !\1CC pp. 2$3--66
below.
9. Sec Pt,· 130- 1. 140-l. 254-5 bd o"'·
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 11 9

We are now in a position to outline the principles and procedures to be followed

when reconstructing genui1le sayings of Je~us. Jo two previous books, I have :>Ought
to lay down methodological principles for uncovering some written Aramaic sources
or f>.·lark •s Gospel. and for approaching the Aramaic dimension of Q.1fl The Son of
man sayings diseussed in this c.hapter were iocluded in these two bt)()k..1). I have
offered reconstructions of other Son of man sayings in earlie-r publications, before
the most fruitful methodology for reconstructing Aramaic versions of sayings of
Jesus had bee.n c-ompletely worked out. I now om:r a modified version of the basic.
principles of reconstn1cting sayings of Jesus with a \'iew to the discussion of Son of
man sayings in the rest of this book.
I . An artempt should be made to reconstruct all Son of man sayings in the four
Gospels. This is because the very pre$ence of 0 v'u)t; ToG CtvOpc.)rrou is evidence
or literal translation or an Aramaic expression, (K)iiJ(K) u . We.shall find that all the
sayings discus.o;ed io Ch~ 4-8 c.an be sati~filcto ri ly reconstructed. This is because-
in each case a genuine auempt has been made to translate the saying litemlly. in
accordance-\Vith the- ~trategy discus..o;ed abtwe. In Ch. 9, I make a more comple-:<
anempt h) roc.overone or more genuine predictions of .leSlL<i' death and resurrectil)ll.
This is because one. or more genuine sayings have not only been literafly translated.
bul also subjected to hea ..·y editing in accordance with the early church•s need
It) understand Jesu;; atooing death and to hold an increasingly literal IOnn of
belief in his 1'esurrec:tion. In Cbs 10- 1 2~ I disc-LL-:;s sayings most of which cannot
be satisfactorily reconstructed. and none of which should be regarded as genuine
sayings of the historical Jesus. By this stage. 0 uiO:; ToU CtvOp<.lnou was an
important Christological title in Greek, and the evangelists produced sayings whic.h
c-Onspicuously satisried the c::urreot needo; of the c::hurc::h.
2. For the-1oajority of \VOrds in the pn)pOsed reconstruc1ions. we must use. in
the first instanc::e, theArarnaic or1he Dead Sea ~oils. We have seen that it is dl)lle-
lt) the right date and cultural eovironme-nt, which is of central importance. 11 is the-
wroog dialect for JeslLo;• speech, but this i~ much les~ important than has generall>'
been thought.
Whe-re words are not found in the. scrolls. we. must use other Aramaic with care.
This is most obviously the c.ase with the idiomatic use of the ce.ntral expression
(~)Vl(K) -a. ooly one e.xarnple or \\'hid1 oc-Curs in earlier Aramaic. The judicious u.o;e

of Aramaic of e--arlier and later date enables us to recover a good approximation to

the language of the.historical Jesus, despite the fragmental)' nature of earl)• remains.
It is only at this Slage that we should use the S)"riac versioo~. We should never begin
with them. because they are translations ima the wrong dialect. This is especially
obvious with the. secondary rendering." of 0 u'uX- ToUOv9pc.lrrou.11 At a late stage,
however, they may alert us to possibilities for other words, because they are in the
rig:Ju language-aud derive rrorn a Sif;Jlificanlly similar c-uhure.

10. Ca\t.cy, Aramaic 5(Jflt7:t>J of.l<.lorJ.'s Grupt-1. pp. 107- tO; Aramaic ApJIIvttch to Q. pp.
(,0-63.
I I. SCi! Pt). 7- 10 above.
120 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

3. As we proce~ we must c.ontinually check that the draft reconstruc.tions: are

sulliciently idiomatic. Some l>pecitically Ararnaic locutions arc bound to have beeo
removed during the process of translatjon into Greek. and we have to recre.ate them.
For example. confronted with the-quile Greek ~x~• rroU at Ml. 8.20//Lk 9.58,1 have
suggested ;;J ... 1 lK:-~7 'n'K 1\.7.•: We c.annot normally infer that suc.h suggestions
are accurnte verbatim. What we should c.laim is that Jesus must have spoken. and
o ur S\)urces must ha\·C written, idiomatic Aramaic. Ir the-re lOre th is is whm \ Ve
reconstruct we will obtain an accurate impression of the-source even where derails
are uncertain. My fi fth pnx:edure is a particularly irnportanl check aod balance
against too muc.h crealivity.
4. We must interpret the resuhing reconstructions from a fir:-.t-century .Jewish
perspective. We must pay panicular attention to any respect in which they differ
ffol'n their Greek lraoslatioos. TI1is is mol>t striking ' "ilh (K)i?J(K} , J itsell: a Ot)nnal
tenn fo r 'tnao' \\'ith a geoeral leve.l M n\eaoing:, signifkamly ditlerent frol'n 6 u'1~
ToU O.v8p(.)rrou. a Christological title of Jesus alone. Again and again we. will
see unexpected leve-ls of meaning appearing from strnightfonvard reconstruc.tions.
Sometimes it is later exe.g erical tradition which has to be removed. For example, at
Mt. 8.20//l k. 9.58, I have l>uggesred rJJ~ lOr Q•s KO TOOKfl V(.)ow ; . and discussed
the alternative possibilities r77oo and j"11?l. u This permits consideration of the
natuml provision of roosts for birds. instead of being hidebound by the traditional
translation ' nests': in Aramaic this "'ould he f l?, which would have g:i\ren rise
to the pi\."Cise Greek equivalent vooo 1C(I; . •~ The erroneous nature of traditional
exegesis should howeve•· already h:;w e been c.Jear fron'l Q's KO TaOKI)vc.>o Et.:;.
5. We must go thrOllgh all the- •-econstruct i o•t.~ from the pe-rspec.tiveofan ancie.nt
translator. lfs.'he was raced with the propl)Sed rec.OI\$truction, 111ight s/he reasonably
have pUl what we have gO(? We must pay careful attention both to the overall sweep
of the translation. and to all the small de-tails. In doing this, l,),·e must make use-both
of research into the known habits of ancient translators. and modern insights into
the nature of the.translation process itself. We shall feel happiest when our o-anslator
could only have done what we posit. bm we must not impose this as a general
sta1ldard ofjudgcrnellt, because the-re are 10any situations in whic.h tmnslators have
a genuine choice. We u)USt be on the look-out both for c.onsistent habits aud 1\)r
-strategies. but we must be c.areful not to invent either of them. We.have already seen
that the-central strategy i1l translating Son M n1an sayings was to render (K)liiJ(K) 1~
wiiJt O ui~ TOU a vep(.)rrou when it refers to Je-sus. and to use something diffe-rent
in both the singular and the plural whenever the reference was to other people.
6. We 1t1ust isolate as far as possible delibentte editing by the. Gospel writerS
tiiCJ"selves. II is fortunme that this is not of great ir"portanc.e in dealing wit11 the
majority of genuine sayings discussed in Chs 4- 8, because the Gospel \1/f'ite.rs did
not feel a need to alte-r these sayings to any considerable degree. We sha.ll see that

t2. Cascy. •Jack:Jis'.p. ? : pp. t68. 11& bdaw.

13. Casey, •Jacb ls'. pp. S. 20-t: pp. t?J-4 bdo\~.
t4. Sec.further. Olsl'y. Ammak Sowr.·es nfMmf's G(1spel, pp. 21. 50. 61. 69-71.
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 121

it does matter for a minority of s.ayings, which however suf\•ive in enough different
fonns fOr us to be able to distinguish the. original sayi og..~ from the evangeli:,.ts'
edjting. Detec.ting their editing is quite crucial to sorting out the predictions of
Jesus• death and resurrection inCh. 9. We must also uncover the creativity of the-
evangelists in 1he-produc-tion or secondary sayings. This is crucial to Cbs 10- 12.
7. Finally. the- re.s:uhs must be w·riuen up in a way that is as reader-ffietldly
a.~ possible. h should be obvious that this does not entail li.)IJowing the order of
events in which the investigation wa.~ conducted. In this chapter, I have presented
the recon.sm1ction of Son of man sayings at or near the beginning of eac.h section,
n.-e.alliog the c.ontexl from previous disetlsSil)nS. I have folh)wed d1e-same basic
order in Cbs 5-9, bur with 1he presentation of the \!/hole Clonte:<l in the ca.~e M Mk
2. 1o. which is til'mly embedded in r"'tk 2.1-12. I have discussed any Aran1aic. words
which might be eonsidenxl diffic.uh or controversial, the proposed behaviour of1he
traoshttorS in dillicull or comroversial circllllblanees, not le-ast in their treatment
of (N)iiiJ(K) 1:J, and significant editorial behavio-ur by tv1atthew and Luke. I have
not however given the a«estation of every Aramaic word, nor every detail of the.
beha\•iour of the translators, as this would make-this book eve-n more lengthy and
\'Cry tedious. In Chs 10-12, I have discussed significaot points which slu)w that
Aramaic originals should not be posited lOr secondary sayings. I ha\•e.de\ 0ted IUt)St 1

of these chapters to detailed consideration of the creativity and editing of each of the.
evangelists.
I tum ttext to the six genuine sayings which I have rooOf\.>;tructed in rwo
re.Jat:ively recent books. Each of these sayings is pan of a larger passage, for which
I have reconstructed the whole of the context. u I do not repeat here either the
reconstructions or the discussions of these larger contexts, but simply refer to my
previous discussions. sometime.s adding responses to Clitical discussions or my
earlier proposals. II is of fundamental importance that thesesayiog.s are all embedded
in c.ontexlo; where there is good reason to infer that our evangelists are reproduC-ing
liternl cranslations of Aramaic sources which gave abbreviated accounts of genuine
incidents. This adds cumulative weight to Lhe arguments for the genuineness of the
reconsm1cted Son of man sayings.

2. Mark 2. 27-28

These two verses IOnn Jesu;.' second argume-nt iu respor1se- to c.riticis:m of his
disciples' behaviour by some Pharisees. 16 The disciples had been going along a
path through other people's c-ornfield.~ pluditlg e.ars of coro or1 d1e sabbath. TI1e
Pharisees criticized them for doing so on the. sabbath. but not for stealing other
people's c.l)rn. h follows that the disciples \\'·ere taking Pl'ah, the grain left for the.

15. Se-e Ca!Oey. ..\ramai< Sowus Qj.41ark's Gosp·tl: Arumaic Approach 10 Q.

t6. FM detailed djsC"US.'lion o.lfdl~ whole pC'fico.lpC", Casey, Aramaic Smm:eJ afMarkS Gospel.
pp. US- 13.
122 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

pOOr on the borders of people's fields, accessible from the path..:; through the tieids.
This is the-only legitimate reason for the.rn to be able to pluck e-ars of other pe.ople's
corn.
l\.•lark's account of this incident sht)w·s clear indications of literal ttanslatioo
fi'om a wriuen Arrunaic source. a..:; does Jesus' liN:t argumem. So also does the
following incident in which Jesus heals a man on the sabbath, as :.t resuh of which
the Pharisees take c.ounsel \\'ith the llerodians to put hil'n to death. f\•lark's accounts
of both incidents also take for granted several Jewish as..~u m ptions, so they must be
of early date."
Jesus· ltOC'·Ond argument may be reconstructed as !Oilo\\'S:
.l":l~i5' 7
n t<.:ff::r:<. 16; nn snx M!'JK 'n~ Nn::~·
.M:~ 'JX ~h u Kt-;~ ~ o·?zi'~
The- subbath was mude for man. and n01 mt~n ror the sabbuth.
u.surdy, •hen. alrh..-. (soo of) n'l3n i ~ IM MCI' even of the ~abbath.

The general background is that of conventional Jewish thought about the crearion.
es.pecinJly the.view that man was intended 10 dominate the created world. The C-lassic
tex•s are Gen. 1.26,28 and Ps. 8.6-9, and 1wo ps.eudepigraphical expre-ssions l)f this
belief are especially retevant. The orthodox author of 4 E:ra concludes his account
of creation, 'Aod lWer these- (sc. CJ-e-ated bei ngs) Adam. whom )'Ou appointed as
ruler (duc.em, N.n:nn) over all the works whic.h you had created' (4 E=ra 6.54).
The author of 2 Banrclt similarly looked back. to the divine intemion at creation:
'And you said that you would make lOr your " 'orld (a/the son ol) tnan (t<r:iJiJ) as
the rnanager ( KJ0)1:>.':l) of your wotks, to rnake it clear that he was not made for the
world, but the wol'ld was made fOr him' (2 Bar: 14. 18). Tilcse pa~ages show how
observant Jews c.ould declare mao's lordship over creation.
A second factor is the ide.a of the. sabbath as a great gift of God. This is biblical.
•for YIIWJI has giver\ you the sabbath' (Exod. 16.29). and of the massive later
evidence it is sufficient to quote JubUees: 'A nd he gave us a great sign, the sabbath
day. thm we. should work si ~ days. but keep sabbath on the. seve.nlh day from all
work ' (Jub. 2. 17). This is the sense in which the sabbath was rnade-fOr humanki nd.
That it was give1\ at the time of the- creation is straightfo1watd OT belief, and
c.onti Jlued to be lt h so strongly that the rabbis could call the week ly sabbath 'the
sabbath or creation· l O distinguish i t fn)IH the sabbath ;'ear (e-.g. MekhY Kaspa nl,
Exod. 23.12).
Jewish sources usc word ') for ··nan' in many gene-ral statements about sabbath
observance. This is well illustrated in Greek by Philo, D l'<.'. 99. Here Philo ded ares
that God ooce for all 1nade a tinal use of six days lOr the (.Otnpletion of the-\1/0I'Id
and had no funher need of periods of time. Contmst avepc.lTT'-l\1 O~KaOToc;:

t7. Sec f111Lhcr in gcn..-.ral, J. (i. Crossley, Tilt' Date nf Mm* :\· GosJWI. ftuigh.t from 1f1e LAw
ill Ettrliesl Chri:>tionity (JSNTSup 2M•. Londoo: T&T Clark l ntcrn~ui OMI. 2004).
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 123

Ovtlpc.)nwv S'fKo:o-t~ Cin elfllTi"); ¢.00ft:.ll; ~HiX<o>V KO:l lJVpiWV f:v6uio; c:lv npOt; nlr,
Ovoyxo:io:~ ,.oo (3,!ov xpo.lo:t; ¢<t:£iAu f.l~ ICO:T'OI(\Iti\1 f:tcnopi~t\1 nl im11)6na ufXPt
TU.wri}t; ,.a:; Piou s .avo:no:uOIJHIOt; Tcir; hpck i:P6o~ci&:t:-.
Bul roch man. since he.shares in morull nature and needs mas~s of things for the nc-ccssitks
of lifo: mus.t not slacken in pro,·iding for his n«ds to lhc end of hisliiC. but sh01.tld rc:st on
the sacn:d se.venlh days.

II ere Ihe use of ' eac.l• man• wilh refere-••.ce Lt) d~e- specifically Je\ltish s.abbatl1arises
naturally from the context of the cre.cuion ofhunta.nkind. Only t)b.t;e.rvanl Jews are in
mind, a fact which must be inferred from the c.uhuraJ conte:u as a whole. The Jewish
c-Ontext or M k 2.27-28 should be take.n full acrounl of in a sirnilat way.
tv1any llebrew examples are fOund in legal judgement'; in l)rLhodt):< Jewish
sources.
Clothe~ vc.ndot~ who go 001 0111hc ssbb:uh with dook~ folded (and) lying_ oo thd:r shoulders
arc liable to a sin-off~ring. A.nd Lhcy [J<·. the sagest said this not orclothes ,·cndors ak>nc: but
of cvcty m:~n (OiK ·,~). bu1 llm it i ~ in the na1urc o.1f IUCI\"'h:Jm~ 10 go om like th:u (b. Shah
J47a).

Here the cultural c.ontext of Talmudic l aw makes it so obvious that observan1

Jews are referred to that the descriptioo o1x 7~ can safely be used M •hel'n without
c-Onfusion. A more-extreme example is fouod at rn. Shah 6,6:
Arabian womc-.ngooul w·.iled and Median women withdoaks looped up o\·ertheirshouldcrs.
And SO C\'Ct')'Oile {Oil\ ~~). bullhC sages !>pol:-'" SbOUI nO( lll31 C'USlOOl~.

Here the c.uhuml assumptions of the document are so strong that observant Jewish
women in Arabia and Media can be referred to as Arabian women and Median
women, and observant Jewish womeo as a whole as .O'R\ 7~.
These example-S illustrate the basic fac.t that the le-vel of generality intended in
gene.ral smteme.nts is limited by the cultural as \\'ell as the literary context It is this
which restricts the refereoce.ofl\<lk 2.27-28 to observar.t Jews. The passage makes
perfect sense against the bac.kground of a standard Jewish theology of creation, and
the u~ of word.:: for ' man' is all the more-natural in the context of a dispute which
hinges partly on the imponance of lxxlily needs whic.h are c.ommon to all people.
An additional reason for Jesus to use these words is. that it enabled him to utilize the
Ararnaic idiom of Mk 2.28 and lhus declare his authol'ity to ward t)flhoslile-sabbath
/utlakhah by associating himself with the mastery of humankind in the created world
in general.
At 2.28, the •enn 6 u'tOe; ToGO.vOpWnou represent~ (x)vfl(x) !J.. used idiomatic.all>'
in a general statement which refers particularly to lh-e speaker and a larger group
of people-. h does nol, however, tell us whe-ther (x)iJJ(K) \1/<JS in the absolute Ol'
emphatic state. for two reasons. First examples of the idiom in Aramaic texts show
no difference in meaning ac-cording to the use of the absolute or emphatic state.111

IS. Sec PI). 67- 81 abov-'".

124 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Second. the behaviour of the translator c.ontinues to follow the strategy of using 0
v'•Q.; ToiJ O:v9pc.)nou whenever s/he thought that C-X<iu1ple.~ or this idiom referred
to Jesus. ft follow-s 1hat we can never infenhe state of(N.)i!J(K) from the translator's
use of 0 u'u); ToU CxvO,:X::.rrou.
The next problem is KUpu)t; . 1-\ u obvious pl).flSibility is NiO. which was na(urally
used by the Syriac ve-rsions to translate Klip101;. and by Meyer in his :mempt at a
rec.onstruction.'"' Wellh.ausen's c-~7;.? is however greatly to be pn~fcrred,!11 because
it tits so well bmh with the general level of rneaning and with the earlier part of
the dispute-. h is the same \\'Ord a.r; in the Pharisees' que:-.tion, and it had already
boet1 used in Jesus' lirst argument. h is likely that it had already been used or\ au
earlier occasion, as we shall see in a detailed di~.ussion of r-.•tk 2. 10.:1 ri7:;i takes J
to give the sense or mastery over, so we c.an write MJ1.9J fOr ToO oa~~ciTou. 9K is
straightforward fon,ai. 1t follows fronl v. 27, which slated the purpose ofthecreatioo
of the sabbath as being for 1\lan's benefit, lhatman is master on lhe-sabbath, as well
as in respect of the shewbread and the forgive.ness of sins. and therefore entitled to
e-at or the fi'uit:s of God's c.reation. }'<nJVJ rneat1S 'on the sabbath• as well as ·over
the sabbath'. so that the sernenc.e dedares 1he autho•ity of humankind, ffom \\'hich
the authority of Jesus and the defe.nce of the disciples are derived. in an indirect
way. For EoTiv we. may reasonably write Kl:l, bearin_g io mind chat iL;; semantic area
normally and conventionally includes a copulath·e usage approximately equivalent
to the Greek EiiJt.
We may tlt)W c.ousider the narure of the idio1natic use or (K)\71(K) 1J in the
Aramaic sentence undel'lying Mk 2.28. This semenc.e run.;; smoothly as an example
of the idiom whereby a speaker used a general statement to refer to himself. or
himself and a group of associates. Moreowr, the geneml level of me.aning follows
necessarily from the general ,.taternent of 2.27. Consequently. these two verses
form an excellent example. of the absolute chaos that would be involved in any
auert\pt •o use (K)Vl(K) 1~ as a title while it was still a nonnal tenn fOr 'mao'. Jesus
thus claimed for himself only what is potentially the c-.ase for othe.r people too.
The reference to the speaker however. combined with the vigour of his comments.
fneans that at the same time Jesus cook respcut.'libility for his di.sciples' acliOI'l!:, as
the Pharisees assumed that he would by dire.cting their question to him io the first
place. Al this le\•e.l, his final se-1Hence says that he, as a (son of) man, is master on/
O\'er the sabbath. The ambiguity ofJ il'l KnJVJ furtherensui'C$ the indirectoess l)fthe
expres..o;ion. but there is no doubt about its thrust. Jesus C-laimed the authority to ward
off Pharisaic criticism and allow his poor and hungry disciples to pluck grain on the
sabbath. The ground which he gave for this authority is the theologic.al statement
of 2.27. in accordanc-e with whic.h anyone who is obedient to God has the mastery
over the sabbath which God made for him at the creation. The genernl nature of
the stateme.nt also irnplies that Jesus· disciples i1l some-se1lSe have mastery on/over
the sabbath. and the sense in whic.h this is true may be deduced from the context.

19. Mcy('r, J t Jif M111tenpraclte. ,,. 93.

20. Wcll.hsu~cn. Ski~1t tmd 1t1rar/Jt'itetl VI. t>. 203.
2 1. Sec pf). 162-6 ~low.
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r I' -_,
First, in a lheologic.al sense, they have the mastery giwn to them by God m creation
because they are.obedient to their heavenly Father. Second, in a practicaJ se.nse. the.y
are entitled to feed themselves on the sabbath. taking advantage of the provisions
deliber.uely laid down by God for the poor aod hungry in the l aw of Moses.
Finally, this is a perfect example of the. idiomatic use o f (K}oiJ(~) , J io a genuine
statement by Jesus himself. As we work through ge.nuine sayings of Jesus. we shall
see. that sayings wilh an excellent Sit~ im t_eben in his life and teac.hing ca n be
properly ~Cl)n.S tructed in their origioal Aramaic. In subsequent chapterS, we shall
see that most sayings which have their Sit: im Lt!ben in the early c.hurch rather than
in lhe teaching of Jesus cannot be so reconstructed. This is sttrely not c.oincidentaJ.
bul rather a significant indic.ation or which sayings are genuine and which are not.

3. Mnrk 9.11-13

The-SOil of rnan saying at r-.·nc 9.12 has caused gre-at dilliculty to inte-rpre-ters. 11le
reconstruction of all three verses in the original Aramaic is essential to the task of
seeing whm Je.sus originally meant.
1Tl!1;?? Klil0? OiiS :i-.lrl\t !'>'~~ j'1l!1K :i.'l7 .j'1<lKl :i.7 r7l'>c.! I I
-c 7;; Yi'i:O ;;::r•:n .K71:o ~·;nn l';jiV? ;r 7 K :"uiK .ii·: i'i- i.':{'(l t2
. 10::.~· K':.Z: ~10., \!h!'>
.•;;;'n1 ~'ro.., :~;,;; :i7 :.u :.- :~:~ :i~ ').Xi 1'0'; ~~ ;.:,,..; t3
And (they were-) ssking him :md sayiflg. ' Why do (1he) !lCI'ibcs say thai Elijah is going 10
~omc tib1 1' •:And hesaid to them. 'Elijah oom~s fi rst and tums b:tcl: all, artd how il is wri u~'fl
o f (a/the soo o l) msn th:n he sullCrs mu~·h snd is rejected ! ' ~And f 1cll you th:u. mor~>Ovcr.
Elijnh Ms rome. and tfleydid ln 1h~ca~ o f him whom llt..-.y dcsil'\:d acoordiilg :ts it is wriuen
~.o~lC~m ing himtit.•J'.!

The disciples' q·uestioo pre$upposes JewiS-h expectation that Elijah would corne-.
Both knO\Vn exarnples of this expectation (Sir. 48. 10; 4Q558) take-up the text of
Mal. 3.23-24, according 10 which Elijah will c.ome before dle day of dle- Lord.
Jesus was well known for preaching lhe imminem coming of the kingdom of God.
We must infer that sc.ribes hostile. to the movement had resonOO to the scriptures.
and had argued that God could not be aboul to establish his kin~.dom, bec~use. the.
scriptures said thai Elijah \\.'Ould conte first.
I have again reconstructed 1'Il:.i as 1he Aramaic w·ord \!Jhich caused a translatt)r to
use .SEl io v. II. The word 1~nv means •ready, prepared', and it is exUuH in Ant1haic.
before the time of Jesus at Dan. 3.15, where Shadrach, Me.~:hac h and Abednego will
be le• off if they are-' re-ady', 'prepared' to worship Kebuc.hadllezzar's image (LXX
and Theod. i XETE ETolpo; tOr l'1'Illi 11:-~n~). In its take--up of r...1alachi. the Ge11iza
text of Sir. 48 .10 has rm. the SC!!Oantic area or which includes ' ready'. Jo later
Aramaic, 911'1 is ·used idiOI\Iatically to io-dica1e the fut u~ . eve.rl the remote furure-.
It was lhe~ fOre ve-•y suitable to indicate the future-eve-11t or Elijah's coming. aod
its use in the Peshiua or Sir. 48. 10 illustrates what a suitable \\fOrd it is to lake up in

22. For dc~ailcd d iscussion. SC'e C11sey.Aramaic Sources ofMark's GtJspd. pp. 12 t- 37.
126 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

Aramaic the prophecy of l\<tal. 3.23-24. This range of meaning made it dit1icult ror
the translator to proceed without making a conscious decision. He took the same
kiod or optjon as the translator or Dan. 2.28-29 LXX and Tileod., where &I is
pan of an explicitative translation of an Aramaic imperfect He thus indicated the
eenaioty M the scribes that the. scripfural predic.tjon will be fulfilled, and thereby
correctly represented them.
This proposal has been n::jecled by J-\itke11/ ' pa11ly on the ground that the idea of
necessity is not c.o.weyed with T'ffi' in my reconstructioo. T1liS argument is faulty
in method: it ptes-upposes that I should have. trans hned Mt lx1ck imo Aramaic-. so
as to produce a sentence identical in meaning to l\•lark's Greek se.•uence-. This is
1101 howe.ver possible, because the.re is no sullicie.ntly lileml equivalent of 6~1 in
Aramaic.. and in any case we should not be translating anything back iuto Aramaic.
We should be recon~tructingAramaic \Vhich could have given rise to rvtatk's Gree-k.
This is e-specially clear in this passage. 1x~.ause taken as a whole it does nm make
proper sense. in Greek. This is why we have to look for something which Aramaic
speakers might use which would c-ause a translator lo put t5e1.
Aitkcn•s second argument is •hat lhel'e \\'as a real Aramaic equivalent to lit'i. ' In
Aramaic there do exist, ho,,•eve.r, the noun X~!t, which can be found in clauses
meaning "it is necessary" (e.g. b.Ber lOa. 21a),aod(in the Talmud) thecorrespooding
verb ii1¥ "to need'".::.~ Aitken was not however able 10 make the case for this. There
is no early evidence or it. and late Tabnodic e-vidence shows that T"'i:i began It)
approximate ro &I in the context of detailed legal discussions. none of which is
quite parallel to '"hat we find in r"tat k. Aitken's criticisms, and his auernpt to argue
that the Aramaic equivaJent for &I was ,.,s •-nust the-rel'ore be-rejected. 111ere was
no such equivalent m the time of Jesus., and developments in that direction were
spec.ific to Je,vish legal di.scussioo at a later time.:$
I tum to Jesus' reply. the Son of mao saying \Vhich has traditionally been the
111ain cause of difficulty. Jesus' opening comment accepts that the prophecy in the
book of Malachi is to be. tUltilled. lie naturally used the Aphel M ~1Tl It) f(!(:aJI the
lliphil of :nil. l11e-Aran1aic N7)J J'Ili'l camlOt however be accurately and complete-ly
translated, for any translation into Greek or English loses the. culruraJ resonances
present in Jesus' deliberate refe~ nc.e to the text of Mal. 3.23-24, probably to Sir.
48.10, aod ce11ainly to the tradition which Sir. 48.10 represents. The role or Elijah
is do.<eribed at Mal. 3.24:
.arr:!K 'r..: tr!:! J71 cr;~ 7!: noK J'? J't1;n
And he will tum back the heun of Lhe rotbcrs to the children and the heun of the childttn to
the fathers.

'23. J. K. Ai1kcn, 'The prOJ»..ed Ammsic b:~ckground 10 ~fark 9: II'. flS NS 53 (2002), pp.
75- 80.
24. Ailkcr., ' Prop\'l~Cd Aramaic OOc-kgtomld to Mart 9: II'. pp. 7fr7.
25. For dc1ailcd di~u~ioo. So."i' P. M. C:1.-.cy, 'The At:~mak B:.ckground of r..<~art 9: I 1: A
Rcs.poosc to J.K. Aitl:c-n\JTS NS 55 ('2004), ~lp. 92- 102.
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 127

The original texl of Sir. 48.10 has not s.urYived. It is none-theless d ear ffom the
surviving versions that the hope of rvtalachi was repeated. and interpreted with
something about preparitlg/restoring the tribes of Jsra.ei/Jac.ob.
Jesus believed that these-prophecies were fulfilled in d1e l'llinistr)' of John the-
Baptist. Ile used ~·no becalL'le Mal 3.24 used ~~1#;-l, and he ulied K7lJ as a suounaryof
both tC:<l'l and/or or the tradition \\'hich Sir 48. 10 represents. Aramaic-l!peaklngJews
who knC\V their scriprurel! \VOuld have no ditliculty in interpretiog his comrnent as
a reference to the comprehensively successful popular minjstry of John the Baptist.
John the Baptisl. however. had been arrested and executed by Herod Antipas, and
the prophecies or Elijah said f)l)thillg abt.Yut that. Jesus lhe.refore C<unbined general
staterne1HS i11 the scriptul'e.~ w·ith specific. re lerences to John the Baptist.
Mal. 3.1 says of the messenger whom Jesus inte.rpreted as John the Baptist

·~? , , ; ~l ":l:->7<: fb;j "ll ;"'

look ! I ~m sending my mcs..>~e.ng~r :md he will t)r~re the way bcfotu me ...

The same exegesis of t\•lnl. 3. I as a prediction of John the Baptist is found in the Q
passage l\•h. I I. I 0//lk. 7.27.24 Sooner or later. lhis was bound to make Jesus think
or Isa. 40.3, which he would interpre-t likewise of John the Bapt i ~ t.
;"1\i~ 1" u~ -.:.or.·~ ~'>,'\? 'np
A voice Cl)'ing in 1hc wild..-mcs.i. ' Prcpart 1hc wsy of the lord ... '

The-n""rtlains or this e:<egesis is found in the c-OmpOsite quotation of Mal. 3. 1and Isa.
40.3 al Mk 1.2·3. Once Jesus had got to lsa. 40.3, he could hatdly fail to read 1he
~St Of the pa..'lsage. going past the.prophecy or JOhll'S S:uccessful ministry preparing
the way of the Lord 10 a metaphorical presemation of the transitory nature of human
life:

... ;;,w.; ;:·:.J ;•1on 'n~; -.-r:m +u-2, 7o

All flesh (is) grass and aiiLIIciraels ofld odn..-ss like the ftowet o r the cOtmltyside.

lsa. 40.6-8 1nust thetll!ure.ty remiod him of the classic presentation or the sutfe.riug
of man in Job 14.
Job 14 begins with a blunt general statement about man:
.;;., ;;~;;;1 U"<l:• .,:Oji ;;~ i1;• C:OK
Mon who is born of woman is shortlh·cd Md full of turmoil

The-rabbinical Targum ha..o; :xlJ 1~ for 01~ . This Targum is 100 late in date to have
inllue11Ced Jes·us, but the l'endel'ing is a common one bec-aulle of a genuine overlap
in semantic area.:' and this is ~ i g11i ficaot bec.ause it metuls that Jesus might have
used(~);.?:(~) -a ill a general statement based on thi~ text. eve1 1 \\1ithoul the forther
reasons which he had for doing so.

26. Casey. Ammaic ApprtJ(ICII lo Q. pp. tl8-21.

27. Ca~y. ' (x)..:.:,(K) -o in the Arsm:•ic-Tmnsl:uions of the Hebrc·w Ribl!.'\ pp. 9J-5.
128 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

The ne.xt verse is equally important

Ul:c s ll11w..-:r he con~s out and -A•ilhc•-s. and he flees like a shadow and will ll(IC stay.

The word Y':i is tllC- lkl.llle as at lS.'L 40.6,7,8, a nd the whole c.onte.xt is sim ilar. T his
is the link whkh a faithful Jew, learned in the scriptures. could not fail to make.
In the midd le M the chapter, we read at some le-ogth o f rna.n's death, essential
for understanding lhe. death of John the Baptist The. fast verse is also especially
sig.nifica1\l:

.'?:.x., r'ro~ 1:;;rn, ::.'0' l-7;; nln 1X

IOO..."i:'d his. tlcsh sullCrs upon him, a.nd his soul moums over him.

I Iere the word 1!V:! Ji.)rms another ve.rbal link with l.sa. 40.6, and JKJ is the word
which Jesus used fot ·suner'. The nouo J!'Jll is now extant at 4Q541 4 ii +6, lines
2 aod 4, with . .. jJNJO at 2 ii 3, s.o th-ere should be no doubt that J:\J c.ould be used
in the.Aramaic of our period. and meditation on this Hebrew scripture is precisely
what would make Jesus choose it.
f\•lal 3 would also remind Jesmo of Jer. 6.271[ tvlal. 3.2 -3 says of the messenge-r,
ideruitied m 3.23 a~ Elij ah:

i".i1 ')OJ Y ~,0 :lnK yVn '1?-·n-n K ,:r:: l ')O:i Toil::Ol '"(1-i::O :!._.... :o,::J~ :l'~> 'l,Vl t !K:> 1\l:;-·:.
·d·).>J ;;w?
.;;y;;;:! :+ru>J
For he is like :t refiner's fire :tnd like fuUers' lye. and he will silrcfini.ng :lild 1>urifying :~ilver,
s nd he will purify the sons of Le\'i and he will reline them like g_old and like ~il vcr sod the~·
will bring an olltt•ing 10 the l ORD in righ1cousnClis.

At Jer. 6 .27-30 thi ~ process see-ms to have begun but not fioished. The piece. may be
perceived as addressed to John the D.aptjst/Elij ah. and it ends w·ith the wicked sti ll
unre.n1oved, and lhe \1/0rd oxo is used. and could be interpreted eit11er oft he wicked
or the people:
.Ci.i:! ;;w .:.,-q: ':1 c;;? ~,i' ox::a 900 :1yru :':? o·tt,l :;n :s: 'l;;; ~1:..!?
Refining he refines in v:.in. and 11tc wicked :ti'C n01 dt:l.\VU off: they ~hti ll be csllcd ~jc.:tcd
s il\'et, tOr the LORD has r~jC'Cled them.

This leads into Jer. 7, of whic.h Jesus made vigorous use when he c.Jeaosed the
Temple (rvtk 1 1 .1 7) .~._ II c.ontains a conditil)nal threat to the whole. Jewish people,
and h) the Tetnpte. Jel'. 7 .29 uses C.'\0 agai1l :

.m"ln' ,n-f'Q(. ViTi:;~;;' om ':1

For lite LORD tlas. 1~jce1ed and alxuuloncd the gcnemis>n of his ful)'.

The rejection of the people io Jer. 6-7 is quite sulli eie-m lO j ustjfy the gene-ral
statemeot '10Jn!\ ... (x)vll(~) 1J:. 10ade as an ioterpretation o r sctipture. It was this

2&. P. ~t. Casey, ·culture s nd 1-lis.oridty: the Clc:liiS.ing of the ic-mptc•. CBQ 59 ( 1997}. pp.
3()()-32.
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 129

rejection which required John the Baptjsfs death, and '''oold require Jesus' death
also. with whoever would die with him. I have suggested 10Jil.'\ a.;; the word which
Jesus -used to pic.k up O£, and which the translator reodered i~ou0wl)eij. It has
the right semantic area. It oc.curs befOre- the time of Jesmo at 4Q542 I i 6, aod
subsequently in several dialects. including Jewish Aramaic.
We have-now rec.o ,1ered some of Jesus· biblical exegesis. Jle interpreted Mal
3 aod lsa. 40 of the successful ministry of Joh11 the Baptist; lsa. 40 aJld Job 14
or the death of mao; Job 14 M the sunering of man; and Jer. 6-7 of the n-jeclion
of the Jewish people. We now have a second reason wh~· he should use the term
(x)i7l(X) 'U io a ge11eral stateme-nt which had pa11icularrefhence to Jolul the Baptjst/
Elijah: his sullt ring aJld rejection is written in the scriptures in general statements.
not in speciiic references. The idiomatic use of (x)~f:J(X) 1~ is the third reason. I lis
Aramaic-speaking disciples Wt)ufd krtO\V as the)' listened that John the Baptisl was
being paJ1icularly referred to, because he was the main ligure under discussion.
At the same time, Jesus predicted his own dea th during the ministry.l'' Since the
disciples' question retlectc; a scribal reaction 10 the position of Jesus at the-c.e ntre
of a popular and successful Jesus movement, we should infer that he had already
done so, as in the t'.•larc-an narmtive. He will therefore have included himself in this
g.e1\eral state..ncnr, and his disciplel> could hardly fail to realize this. If the Marean
narrative is in the righr order. this will have been especially obvious aner Pete-r 's
objection (f\.fk 8.32·33). It would become eve1\ more.so after the djscussit)n or Jacob
and John's request to sit on his riglu and len in his glory (Mk I0.35--45):)0 This
passage is permeated by the perception thm some of the disciples would die. with
him, and Jacob and John's imfnediate acc.eptance of their fine (Mk 10.39) shows that
they had learnt nruch fmm something. surely including Jesus' re-buke of Pe-ter and
the present incident.
Jesus saw his own fate in the sc.ripwres in the same kind of way, in passages
such as Pss 4 1: 118.22-23 referring to him individually (Mk 12.10· 11; 14. 18,20)
and in general statemeots suc.h as Ps. 116.1 5 (d. Mk 14.2 1)." Verbal links with the
passages just discus.o;ed iJlclude OIQ.l again at Ps. 118.22, moat Job 14.10,14 and Ps.
4 1.6: 116.3,15: 118.17·18, and OlP at Job 14.12 and Ps. 41.9,1 1. We must add Ps.
I 16.15 to the gene-ral statements which helped Jes-us to understand the de.atb of Jt)bn
the Baptist.
Why then does Mk 9.12 not actually me-otion death? Be<-.ause John the Baptist's
death wa.o; rk)t the main problem. All people die, and if John the Baptist's successful
ministry had prepared the way for Jesus, and John had died a natural de-ath when
his ministry had been c.omplete. his death c.ould ha,•e. been seen unproblematically
at lsa. 40.6; Ps. 116. 15; Job 14.10, 14 and elsewhere. The problem was the rejection
of .fohn by rnany or Jsruer s leadefs, and his sutTering at their hands. That is why
~"~ and 10:1 were-used to reflecl sc.r iptura1 te-xts in the source M Mk 9. I 2. John

29. Se-e 0.. 9.

30. Fot demilcd discussioo of 1llc-Atnmaic sout\."i.' of this whok psssngc-. So."'t Cascy,Aranwic
Soon.·ts ofMarkJ GoJfN:i. 0.. 5:on Matk t0.45, sec PI)· 131--4 ~low.
31. S~ l,t,· I34--6 bd ow.
130 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

the Daptisf s death wa.:; a.ccordi•lgly ditlerent fro m the deatll of Jesus, mentil)lled
lite.rally by him. at Mk 8.31: 10.34.45. and metapho•ic.all>' at Mk 10.38-39; I2. 7-8;
14.8,2 1.24; lk. 13.32-33. Jesus' death was ::cerl by him as an importa.ru everu which
would enable God to redeem Israel. Positive a.:;sessm.eot of his de-ath was always
nec.essary to the early church. doubly so when Gentiles entered the.churches without
becoming Jews. and this explains both the preservation of his predictions and the
extension <'Uld editing of one of the.•n through the c.ernre of Mark's Gospel.' : The
source of Mk 9.12 wa.:; primarily about the fiue of John the Baptisl. attd John·s death
had no such function.
What Jesus meant is now clear. II faced the craoslator with a very dinicuh
problem. He had a strategy. to use 0 u·,~ Toll O.vepc.lrrou as a translation of
( ~)1<iJ(~) 1 J whe-n it referred to le$uS, and not oth erwise.l-"~ That str:uegy is however
dillicult h) appl>' to this passage, because the ptirnary rel'trence-wa.s io John the
Baptist, but there wa~ a genuine reference to the fate of Jesus too. together with
anyone who might die with him. As a committed Christian, the. translator be.lieved
that Jesus• death wa..:; (1\0~ important dl<"U) that or John the Dapti:o.t, so he decided
that reference to it must be retained. He did this as he had previously agreed to
do. by translatiog (~)W:(K) 1J \Vith 0 uiOc; ToU O:vOpc.lrrov. If the first article-is
taken as generic. as the sec.ond must be. bilinguals could see the original idiom.
and the refe1-ence-Lt) Jesus' aroning de-ath is also petl'tctJy d ear. In his O\Vll viC\11,
therefore, the- translator had done as we11 as possible. From the perspective of
monoglot Greeks. however. the. resuh is quite confusing, as the history of e:tegesis
bears witness. This is a perfect illustration of the fact that strategies are.devices to
enable rranslators to continue. They are not necessarily successful in tmnsmiuing
the original meaning of a te.xt in the. target language. This is esped ally so in a case
like this, where the source language has an idiom not found in the target language,
and the target culture has significantly dilTerent beliefs from the Sl)urce culrure.
The final verse is aiSl) more lucid in Aran1aic than it can have been for nu)lll)glot
Greeks. TI1e Aramaic 1J.:£, which gave rise to ~6nAov, will have. been a deliberate
refereoce to MaL 3. I. llere John 1he Baptisu·Eiijah c-Ould be seen p~d ict ed as
o~:i~lii onK-"11.91'\ iP,J..11K7o, •the messeng:e.r of the covenant in whom you delight'.
This takes us on to the scriptures referred to in this ve1·se-- they are lhe-sarne as
the ones in the previous verse. People delighted in John the Baptist. who carried
through the successful popu1ar ministry prophesied in Mal. 3, and referred to
more briefly at Jsa. 40.3 and Sir. 48 .10. TI1e generalized plural also relhs to the
other scriptures discussed above. He suffered and died like all men in Job 14.
Since the people were not suflkiently refine.d as in Jer. 6- 7, they were rejected,
and some.of them shed the. innocent blood of John the Baptist
f\•lark•s source was ac.oording:ly a pe-.rfectly lucid passage of Aramaic, \\'hich
c.onc.ems primarily the-death of Joho the Baptisl. Jesus saw John as the fulfilment of
f\•lalachi•s prophecy that Elijah '''ould c.ome before the day of the Lord. When John
was pUl to deatJ1 by Herod Amipas, Jesus meditated on the scriptures, and app1ied
32. Sec Ch. I I below.
33. Sec PI). 44-5. I I&above~ Pfl. 253- M bek>w.
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 131

to John a number of genernl statements about the f:ue of humankind. to which John
was n01 an exception. This is what the c-rucial v. 12 refers 10. In Aratllaic. it makes
perfect sense as a general statement which applies primarily to John the Baptist,
but with a general level of meaning which applies to Jesus and 10 other people as
well. The d illicuhies of lrnns lating this idiom account for the c.onfusion which has
descended upon people who have read il o tdy in Gre.ek. It is <tccordingly a class ic.
c.ase.of a passage which has to be reconstructed in Aramaic to make proper sense at
all. It is there li.)re a very strong argument for this p<'tl't of my solutjon I t) the Son of
man problem.

4. Mtirk /0.45

The. next Son of man saying concludes another passage which traditional exegesis
has fOund dinicult. I have sorted out these diniculties in a detailed d iscu ssion wh ich
includes a rec.onstntction of the Aramaic source. l)f the. who le of Mk I0. 35-45:'~
I summarize. the tn aio pt)irus, because they are essetuial for unde.rstandiog the
resonance.s of the.Son of man saying.
The passage begins with a request of Jacob and John. sons of Zebedee. to sit
on Jesus' right atld left in his glory. This would enectively put them in charge.
o r the (welve in the last days, '"'heo they would sit o n twelve throne~') judgiog
the twelve tribes M Israel ("-•II. 19.28//L k. 22.30). Jesus' respon.':.)e \\'as to ask, in
a vel)' metaphorical way, whe.ther they would share in his death. Jacob and John
inu nediately gave. an affinn ative answer to Jesus' question. 11)e.y must the-r efore
have understood the me.taphoric.al refcre.nces to Jesus' d~th . h follows thal Mark
is right to place this incident after some of the. passion predictions. Jacob and John
must also ha\•e unde-rstood thal h) sit oo Jesus' right and left ir1 his glory would C1ltail
suffering and death for them.
Jesus responded by declaring that Jacob and John would indeed shore his fate.
His aflirn)al'ion of this is as straightlbrward a.., possible, aod shows that. at this Shlge.
o f his tn inistry. he expec.ted mhecs h) d ie with him. It Ji.)IJows that his understanding
of his fonhcoming death mus.t have been romed in the funcrion of the deaths of
righteous Jews. as well as in his personal uniqueness. Nonetheless. Jesus did not
gram Jacob and John place-S on his right and left. not even if the.y died with him. He
believed th.at the.se places \vere for those whom God had chosen to be there.
When Jesus had fin is hed th is speech. the other ten M the twelve \\'ere annO)'ed
with Jacob and John. Jesus respooded by calling the. twelve to h im. lie d efined
service rather than lordship as c.h.amcteristic of leadership in the Je!ms community,
oontras.ting this with the unsatisfac-tory behaviour of Ge.ntile rule.rs. This led to a
more prec.ise comment on sen·ice in the Son of man saying. which draws the who1e
incident together.

34. Casey. Aramaic Sourres ofMarH Gospel, Ch. 5.

132 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

.pc.'z:' •f;n ii'i'~ ;;;;;~,:: p-u>i?1 ;;;;!<:lv? !OK ~;;h:nd;i; ~ 16 :o;;t.;:-; -a "jX1
Wh:u is 100/C-, :JJi hc $t>lt of m:.n docs n\lC come w be scrv.:d but to l!CI'\'C, a.ld to gi\'1.' his
lifcJ!OOulfsclf as a r-ansont fo•· many.

The first part of dtc say ing C-01Hinues the the-me of service, already stated as a
requirement fOr leaders of the Jesus communily. The te.nn (~)iV:( ~) 1:l caonot lose
its genemJ level of meaning, and it is the.general level of meaning which continues
the instructioo of the immediately prece.ding part of the pa.;;sage. II fo llows that ~nK
doe.s not refer to the inc-.arnation alone. but more generally to the purpose of all their
lives. Jesus• asl>ertion thai the purpose oflifC is se-rvice is not ao empirical stateme1H,
bot a declaratioo M God's purpose which the disciples are the.reby ordered to carry
001.
The second pan of the saying carries the nature of service. in the Je.sus community
10 the pOint of death. There should be linle doubt that 1P1'rJ was the original Aramaic
unde-rlying AUTpov. The ve.rb p-i~ is extant at IJQTgJob XXVI1.9, where it ~nderS
y?n, apparently rneaoing 'set free, rescue, deliver• .II should be resto~d at I IQTgJob
XXIII,6. which h.as )1:>: this renders ;IT:) (LXX oc:.5oov) or God's redce.rning/res.cuing
a mar-'s soul from the Pit At Dan. 4.24, it is usedofNebuchadnezzardoing somelhing
to his sins by righteousness: LXX and Theodotion both translate it as AUTpc.JOcu
{Dan. 4.27), so an inte.rpre.tation close to 'redeem' and analogous to AUTpov at Mk
10.45 \~tas established long belbre the-tirne of JC$uS. p i~ also occurs i1l Nabmeao
Aramaic at pap 5/6~1 evA nab 1,10 in the firSt century CE, and later in both Je-wish
Atarnaic and in Syriac. We should infer that li'1~ was already ifl existence for Jesus
to use., in an appropriate sense. The overlap in semantic area is so ob\~ous that it is
used to translate AUTpov by palsyrlec., sin. pesh. hark.
The correct cuhural bac-kground for understanding the death of Jestts. together
with disciples who should ha\'e been pre.pared to die with him. must be existing
thought about the. atoning deaths of people.l.s This underlines the unity of the
passage. for the connection bet,~,o·een the question of Jacob and John and the son
of man saying is the general level of meaning in the son of man saying. The main
group of people invo1Yed are the. ~~taccabe.an manyrs. When faithful Jews we.re put
to death during the Maccabe-.an period, other faithful Jews needed t·o u.nderst.and
their deaths within the c.ontext of the purposes of God. We c.an see this being done
already in the book or Daniel. In Dan. 7- 9. this goes only so tar as re.as..'>urance
that God will bring triumph after persecution. Towards the.end of the vision which
c.ondudes du~- book, (WO additional developmeots are fOund. The first {Dan. 11.35)
re-Jers again to these manyrs:

35. C. K. B:ttr...-u, 'Th" Bsckg,fomk! .:tfMartc 10.45 ·.inA. J. R. H iggin~ (cd.). Nelf Teswmrnt
Essays: Stculies in Memmy of T.ll~ .11/onSOir. (Manch..-st\'r: M:mchcs•cr Univcrsi1y Pre~. 1959).
pp. l - IS: M. 0 . 1--lookcr. Je.ms ami lht' SriYOIII (london: SPCK. 1959); J. Downing_. 'Jesus and
Manyrdoof . JTS NS 14 (1963). pp. 279-93: C. K. B~rrctt. ' Matk 10.45: a Ran11om fo1' Many·.
Nt'w Te.\·tament E.u.uys (lMdon: SPCK. 1972J. pp. 20- 6: M. D~ Jongc. 'J('Sil.~· death for oth\'f!l and
th(' dcadl of !he r..·Jsccab\'an n\3nyrs'. in T. &at<b cl ttl. (cds), Text cmd TestillltHl}'. E.Huys tHJ Ntw
T~slamenJ and .-\p<XI)p/Jul LittrutJtte in Hommr nfA.F.J. Klij11 (K:llllt>en: Kok. 1988). pp. 142- 5 I.
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 133

Thi ~ text e... idently s uppose~ 1hat the death~ or the righ teous \\1ill have. a beneficial
enect. The second developmetll is lheir reward at Dan. 12.2-3, whe•~ they must be-
among those who rise from the dead and shine like the stars of heaven.
This was elabornted in subsequent literature. There is some material in I
lafaccabees. where. ~<hltlathias urges his sons, OOn T<ic; ~Xci:t;: VJ,Jc.lv Urrfp
ti•a9~KI'}C; rra ti p(A)V ~)Jc.lv (1 Ma<.·c. 2.50). and again civ6pi~to0E Kal ioxUoaTE
iv T~ v<iiJ":), On ~v aUt~ Oo~o:o9r}oto6s (I Mace. 2.64). This has the central
notions of giving 01~e'~ life tOI' the will of Gtxl, and being glorified as a resuh. Tile
accounts of martyrdoms in 2 Mac<:. 6- 7 have several refere1lC.e~ to re:surreclion.
For example. the fourth brother at the point of death declare-.s it right ni:c; UrrO ToU
9to\i rrpooOoK<iv E:Arrl&cxc; rrciAw Ovo:onioto8at Urr' aUtoU (7. 14): 1-\ntiochus
however will have no resurrection to life. The la~t brother prays that in him and his
brothers the-wrath of God, justl)' brought upon the whole oation, may cease:
iyc..> Si, w:a8cimp oC ci&~¢ol. Ko:i ~IJO: Ko:i IJ!uxilv npoOilit:.:~IJI rnp'• TWv no-rpic.>v
v4t(o)V t lftKo:hOO~vo; T6v 8t¢v i.X.<..Y; TQ)(U T~ f:&vu y<'Vio6o:t Ko:i oi jJt,.O ho:~v
KO:i jJO:o-Tiyt:.:~v i~oJ,tO).oy.)oaoEia! o.o-
n jJ0\.01": oUTOt; 6.<0; toT IV, iv hlo'z OE w:a'• TOi~
O&~¢oi~ ~ov o--rijo-o1 niv Toii no:VTo~<p&TopOt: Opyrlv -nlv inl -rOoV~no:v Jipciv yivoc;
Our:::a ic,.y; £ltllYI.IiVI\V ( 7•.1.7·S ).

This also has the expression ¥Jxtlv rrpOOi&.:l!..u, used of what the manyr does.
Following a similar prayer. Judas and his army are successful, because the-wralh
of Gcxl had turned to mercy. The prayer is said to have included a plea to God tc.3v
KO:Ta~e<.5vtc:..w rrpOc; aUTO;- ah.tci-TC.JV EloaKo\ioal (8.3). Thu.~ the martyrs were
bearing the wrath of God.
The fourth book of Maccabees comes from faithful Jews in the tradition of these
earlier works. and it provides dynamic parallels to the situation of Jesus and those.
who might have died with hint. At 6.28-29. one of the maJ1yrs; pray~ lO God h) be
merciful to the whole people. and says. Ko:Ocipotov aVTc.3v rroil)oov TO E~-tOv ai)Ja
Kat civti'-Jiuxov o:Un.3v }!.a~£ nlv [pl)v ~xr)v. At 17.20-22, 1he authol' even more
clearly auributes the delive.ra.nc.e or Israel to the sacrificial de.ath of the martyrs. He
describes them as ilorrep civtl'lluxov y~:yovcito:c; tfic; ToV 'EOvout; ci:IJO:ptlac;, and
writes of toV 't}l.aonlPiou Toli Oavcitou aVTc.3v. Til is type of developmel)t \\'asju:.~l
t w take plac.e irl Ararnaic-speakingJudaism, give.n the view of these manyrs
a..~ likel>

already noted from earlier sources.

What ahoui the refere.nce of 1'~ ';/ii? Th i ~ must be deliberately generalized. If
Jesu~ had \1/ilnted h) say ?:i""'\7'. he could have said it: and if he had \ Varued to
de-clare that their deaths would atone. for the sins of the-world. he c.outd readily
have said :n:mv :i' or x:.:hx ~JJ ;~ or the like. To inte-rpret l'~')t', we must 1herefore
consider the parameters of the ministry as a whole. His death would atone for
Israel. &ribes and Pharisees \Vho had counted the•nselvcs out or the kingdom
of God were out. and Gentiles who would worship in the cleansed court of the
Genliles were-in. llasically, however, the covenant was between Gt'>d and Israel.
and that is the conte:\:t in which Jesus himself saw his atoning death.
We can now see how· ellf.ctively tvlk 10.45 draws the whole pa..~sage together.
h follows directly on rrom the im•nediately preceding teaching on servic.e, lOr il
134 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

c.arries the service required of leade.rs of the Jesus moveme-nt to the very point of
de.ath. This links up wilh Jesus' debate with Jac.ob and .lt)hn. TI~e. ge.ne-ral level of
meaning of the tcnn (x.):oiJ(K) 1:2 furthe1· reinforces Jesus' asl!e11ion that they will
share his fate, and it is dear that de.ath is included. The. general leve1 of meaning
is also suHkienlly loose 10 include the od1er membe-rs of the (Welve. At the same
time-, it idiomatically refers primarily to the speaker. whose leadership in the whole
incidem was decisive. This ge-neral lewl of meaning is not only unavoidable in
Aramaic. it is available only in Ammaic. This saying also takes for granted thai
Jesus will be in glory. and the TWelve knew when they heard him give this teaching
that the.y would rise from the dead and be with him in glory, whether or not they
already expected h) judge the twelve tribes of IsraeL
Finally, we must c.onsider the work of the translator of this saying. He had a
fhl'niliar proble!U, the translation or (~}t.:7:( N) 'U. l-Ie roii0\\'00 his strategy. Ile knew
that it refe.rred w Jesus, so he used 6 u·uk ToU Crvepc.lnou. The referenc.e to Jacob
and John. and tess directly to the othe.rs. would be lost on uninstructed monoglot
Greeks. but that could not be helped. From a literal point of view. the. translator
could not have done better with an impossible problem. Prom a religious point of
view, he ulted a 1hajor Christo logical title which highlighted the ceottally impor1a1H
role of Jesus himself. What about !\Il~? II can be re.ad as a perfec.t, ot as a participle
with present force. and either could he. used in a genera1 statement The translator
c.arried on with the reference to Jesus. whose death was a past event. and rende.red
the possible perfect with an aorist as translators from Aramaic into Greek must be
in the habit of doi1lg. I lis behaviour was entirely reasonable. It is unfOrtunate that
New Tes:tame.nt scholars read this tmnslation as if it were the creation of a monoglot
speaker of Greek. This e nsures a me.aning referring to Jesus alone in accordance
with later Christian tradition, but the n.--sonances with JeslL;;' own Jewish traditions
and the connection with the rest of lhe pnss.age have been los1.
Once again, therefOre. the !"eCOnStl'uCtion or the Aran1aic le\'el or the Lraditioo
has proved essential in \1/0rking out the origioal Leaching of Jc:.us. lis Sit~ im L('ben
is in the ministry of Jesus. nm in the early e-hurc.h. Wilh the original meaning of
(~):;/J(~) u clearly in view, the passage makes perfect sense as a '"hole. This is
another strong argument for the correctness of the so1urion to the Son of man
problem proposed in this book.

5. Mark 14.2 1

The nest Son of man saying belongs to Mark's account ofJesus'lil)a) Passover \\'ith
his disciples. I have oiTered else\1/here a complete reconstructiOil of the Aramaic
source of Mk 14.12-26.36 1 pres-uppose this, Md om:-r discussion only of the pt)iflts
nec.essat)' for unde.rstanding the e-ruciaJ verse.
The intn)(Juctory verSes (Mk 14. 12- 16) show chat this was a Pass<wer meal. and
this is supponed by several details in the re-st of the account. beginning with the
36. CsJ>cy. Aromuic S<mrc:es of Murk's Gospel. Ch. 6.
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 135

arrival of Jesus and the-Twelve after dark. We do not know how big the company
was. blll it was cenainly much bi~ger than the traditional I3, and ir will have
induded wome-n who were important fOr the mioistry, not just men. The fi rst ,,erse
c-erural for our tutder-standi•lg or this Son of man saying is Mk I4.1S. This is a
prediction of Jesus' berraya.l in tenn.s which retail Ps. 41 . When we consider Ps. 41,
from this pe-rSpective, we can recover Jesus' exegesis of it. The bc:-trayal or Jt-$uS by
Judah of Kerioth could be seen iU Ps. 4 1.7: •And if he c-omes to see me, his heart
speaks fillsehood, he gathers \IJicked.nt-~liS. he goes outside, he speaks of it ' This gets
Judah to the chief priests and scribes, who may be seen at v. 8, •All those wlh) hate
me whisper together against me. they de-vise evil against me.' Their inteotion is
giverl in v. 9. together with their deniaiM Jesus· resurrec.tion: •A thing of llelial will
c-Onstrain hi1u, and whe-n lte lie-s d0\\111, he will not rise again. 'Then Judah of Kerioth
at v. I0, •ves. a n\an of my peace. in whl)m I trusted who eats my bread, has made
great his heel against me! There f'OIIows a plea for resurrection in v. II, •And you.
LORD, be gracious and rai.se me up.·
All this is too simple. and (OO extensive. to be unintentional. We. mus1 infer that
everyone knew Ps. 41, and that the betmyaJ of Jesus was written in scripture. This
must the-refore. be one of the scriptures referred to at Mk 14.21. No one suggested
that they could prevent him from being handed over. At the same time, the prediction
saddened the disciple-s. and e.ach of tht'nl alfinned that s1he personally \\'Ould not
betray him. Jesus responded by narrowing down the group from whom the traitor
came tt) the ioner circle of tweh·e. It is at this point that Jesus used the Son or man
saying to refer indil\.~tly but clearly to his fonhcoming beLrayaJ and death:
.:.;;:. x-c;r. ,.;. :-;>;. iX ;;; ~., ... .~ 10.'ll'\'.l t ;l -c1 ~., $.\t.!:s? ·~1 .·:>7:~ ~ ·ro~ ;;;J 1:! ?nt
/vThc (soo ot) ma.n goes as i1is wriucn conccming him., a1ld woe lo th31ll\llll by w~ h:ltld
:11'1hc (son of} man is bctr.tycdlh:ltldcd over. ( It would b.:-) g01>d for him if lh31 ma.n had 001
been bom.

The fit st part of this saying can·ies JUnher lhe reference to .scripture. 11le Aramaic.
word ; TN wa.;:; in nonnal use as a •neutphor for death. a.._, the Greek Urrciyc.l was
not.. Like the usc:- M (~)1.9~ ~) '\J ito;e-lf, this is part of the evidence that it is right to
recons truct ao Atarnaic sourc.e . The Aralllaic (K)WJ(~) "U cannot lose its level of
generality. though this is not the main point of the saying. Jesus expected ro suffer
a humi liating death, but this was to have a fundamental redemptive function. He
tJ1erefore llad good reason to state the prediction of his death in scripture. and the.
doom awaiting the.traitor. by me-ans of a gene-ral statement. At the same rime, no one.
will have been le-H io doubt that Jes-us' t)wn death was primarily refern:d lO. Ps. 4 1 is
one sc.ripture clc:-arly in mind. Other:s l'nu.:;t have-included the second group on lallel
psalrn.s. TI1ese include the clear general statement of Ps. I 16.15, •Glorious in 1he
eye-s of the:- Lord is the death of his pious ones•. Surely none of them could sing that
ven:e \1/ithout thinkin_g or the irnJ>Or1aoce of Jesus' death. They could also include
themselves. in so far as they formed any intention to die with him. Jesus himself
will h.ii.'fC seen the gene-ral level of meaning in passages such as Job 14. 1 2 and Isa. 4

40.6-8, s ince he had already applic:-d these passagc:-s to John the Dapti.st. himself
136 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

aod others (Mk 9. 12-IJ).n Creath·e exegesis could lead to more precise referenc.es.
Part of the final l lallel psalm. Ps. 118. 14-17, c.oufd easily be read like- this: 'T he
LORD is In)' strength and song, and he is lOr me. for Jesus ... Th..:- risht ha11d of the
LORD raise-s up ... I shall not d ie because I shall live.' The d oom pmnouuced oo
the traitor was: also rnade by me-ans of general statefnents. Tile first is at one feye.t
a condemnation of traitors, and hence universally acceptable. This made it feasible
for Jesus to proc-eed with the condemnation of the traitor. This is in accordanc-e with
scriptural pa.~Jsages such as Ps. 40. 15-16; 41 .11 ; I 18.7f.
We must therefore conclude that this is another genuine saying of Jesus, wilh
a double use of (N):zf:J(K) 1~. TI1e c i rcUinstance-~~ of Je="us• !Orthcoming betrayal and
dea th explain why he should use this idiom. The general level of meaning is essential
h) the idiom. but it was not the point of the saying, whic.h \ 1/<lS to predict Jesus' death
and condemn the man who brought it about

6. Mt. 11. 19/!Luke 7.34

This Qsaying come.s from n collection of sayings nboUl John the Baptist and Jesus.
I have reconstructed an Aramaic Sl)Ure.e of these saying;.;; elsewhere, distinguishing
them from editorial comments by rvtnuhew and Luke.311 The Son of man saying
is pari of J e~us ' fi nal conunents io this passage (rvlt. 11. 16-19// Lk. 7.31-35). He
be.gan with a me.taphorical comparison of his generation ro awkward children. and
ended with a sente-nce which is vety diflicuh to uuderstand.l>' I leave 1hese-mane-IS
aside here-. and disc.uss the substantive comparison, which include.s the Son of man
saying. I number the verses as is C-Oil \1 entiOJ~al lOr Matthew. I present the proposed
Aramaic source of this piece. an English translation of it and the single Greek
translation of the Aramaic sourc.e which both evangelists used:
.:'h ·n~ ;·;; :l'1i:Xl xm;! ~'?1 box x'7 i! rii' :UiK . I&
·l"'ilr.7l ro~'7 i~i .l\~:<' ;711 'tJK11::;. :i'.,'.ll\', ;;m:h ?:..-.;. VlX "'l:l :;.;1( . 19
••Jotul ha~ coml.' ll(l( ct~ti.n_g and not drinki.ng and they say. ..He ha~ :. dcmoo~" "'A/thl.' (!000
of) ma.n com·cs e111in_g :tOO drinking and they say, " took, a m:.n ' _gluuon and drunbrd'. :tn
associate of lax-collcct(lf'S and sinners."
t8. tM>.v6tv ycip 'lc..>Ovv'lr, p~n (o6ic.lv ll~lt nilf<I)V, Ko:l Aiyouotv, a atjJOVtOV 'ixw
19. £ArjXv6w 0 vi~ ToV 0:u(lpd)lfoo io6ic.lv Kal rrivt..)v. Kal XiyoooiV, '100\r O:vep(.)tror.
~ Kal oivorr0TT}t;. ~l}.o; nM..lvWv .:a·aOpapTU)).t.lv.

The firSt c.o mmt-tH de$Cribes one feature ofJohn the Baptist 's lifestyle and quotes
a criticisrn l)f hi1U b)' opponents of John and Jesus. l11e use l)f :mK in .... 18 refers
to John arriving oo the scene, and does not imply his pre-existence. The word :1l1K
is abundantly auested in e.arly sources with a very broad semantic are.a. so that this

37. &C !)t). l27-303bOYC.

3-8. Casey. Aramaic :\ppmudr tu Q. Ch. 4.
39. Cf. now S. Gathcn-olc, 'The JuslifiCfl tio•l of Wisdom (M:.u ll. t9b:'Lukc 7.35)'. NTS 49
(2003). pp. "76- 88.
 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 137

usage should not be regarded as problematical. Later sources with a similar use of
~i"';'i ioclud~ b. San. I07b.

n~rnn 'llm ~G:n :;·t-~ X.1KT ~m~; d-7n 't-:'x :n:. i:7 ;;"Wt'n; ;;;
Utujt Elij:th, the-re was 1)1)1s m:m 11ict who n.•covcred. And Elish:. csmc a1ld ~ugh! mercy
and reCO\'Cred.

I have-supposed that Mauhew's ~rln Eo91'*lv ~rln nlv'*lv reproduces his Greek
source, which was a literal translation of ~n1.!7 x71 7Js. ~7. This brief phrase is a
p~tfect l y good p i c.t ur~ of John's ascelic. liti::style. In thai setlSe-it is confinned by
Mark, '"ho reports him eating a die1 of h)(:usts and wild honey (Mk 1.6). John '"as
wry unconventional. He li\'ed in the wilderness. away fro m cities> as demoniacs
sometimes did too. He dressed and me unconwmionally. The accusation that he
had a demon will have come. as naturally to his opponents as it did ro scribes and
Pharisees who accused Jesus of casting out demons by the prince of demons.-11)
l11e SlatemetH about Jesus is put indirec.tl)'· usiog the kc)' t~ nn (x}oiJ(x) -u. 11le-
idit)mlllic USe Of (~)iil:(~) 1~ t i/3S due tO Jesus beittg in the humiliating :> ituation
of being falsely accused of a serious offence. The use of this idiom in a general
stateme-nt does not imply tJ1at the-statement was thought to be true of evei)'One. The
first p<"tl't or it is however tl'ue of everyooe:

Everyone does come eating and drink in.g. othe-rwise they die! It should be cle-ar that
i1i'IK has chis ''ery ge-neral level t)f meaning, a.l) in the previous sente-nce about Jt)ltn
the Baptist: it does not refer to J e~us' pre-exiS-tence.• a piece of Christian doc-trine
which had not yet bee-n invented. This \'ery genera) stateme.nt pro\•ides the cover
for the more precise-commerus which follow. These reflect the-critic.istn.S- of Jesus
made by his opponents. Jesus has used the (enn (N)i/J(K) iJ becmL'>e it was: a normal
Aramaic way of saying something indirectly in humiliating circumstances. For the
idiom to be.effective, it is necessary for the rest of the statement to be. true of more.
people than of Jesus. but not of e.veryone.
The subje<"-t of tlle next ''erb is len t)pefl. This is c.onunoner in Ar:unaic than in
(ireek, German, E-n.glish and the like. We-tUuS-1 therefore rec.ou:. : tl'uct l' ""lt+~ behind
Matthew's }..iyouo•v, atld Luke's }..iyn~ must be re.garded as an editorial alteration.
The- e1Tec1 is to include anyone who t'nakes this kind of criticism, not just the
opponents of Jesus, so a general level of meaning is maintained. The reconstruction
of 4>ciyo; Kal o1vorr0Tr)C; is at tirst sight very diOicuh. sine~- the nearest expression
in Aramaic is :-ITI!Vl ?Js.. which '''e must reconst••uct behind ioSiwv Ko:'• rrlvwv. We
cannot posit this expression twice. since it would not make. very good sense either
or the sentence or of the translator. I therelbre suggest that ~ciyoc; Ko:l oi von0Tr)C;
lt'aoslates a quota! ion o f th~- l lebrew ~JOl ;;,r lil.)m Deut. 2 I.20.
Tile I lebrew words l00177u c.oncltlde the description or the rebelliolL.:: son. Jesus'
opponents were scribes and Pharisee..s, who will have. read the scripture..s in Hebrew,

40. Casey. .-\ramak Appmacll Jo Q, pp. 158- (t I.

138 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

as Jesus did himself. They could therefore use these. Hebrew words, and Jesus could
reproduce them. Jesmo' relatiooshit> with his far11ily was evidently dillicuh a t times:
on one occasion. they came out to seize him, an incident which rvtark associates
with his being ac.c.used of exorcising by the-power l)fthe d evil (Mk 3.20-30), a very
similar accusation to that thrown at John the Baptist and recorded in the previous
verse.41 This is the-cuhural background lOr Jesus' opponents to have reso11ed to this
passage of scripture. There is also criticism of Jesus for feasting with the wrong
p."()ple, and Mark re-pre~nB Jesus' opponenB describing these people as T<.lv
n~wvc3v Ko.l ci:~apt(.)Ac3v (Mk 2.16). This h){) is the same criticism as we have
here. The critic.ism of people-for similar beh<wiour is also auested d se.\vhere. h is
fOund in scripture at Prov. 23.20-21 . Some passages of literature ffo.n about the time
of Jes:us take up this theme too (cf. T. Jud. 14 : Philo. Spe<.·. Lt>g. 4.97-104; Ebr. 206-
24; .los. Apion 11. 195). 11 follows that people wlll) feasted will have been accustomed
to criticism lfol'n stricter Jew·s . It is that critic.iSft'l which rnakes the general level of
meaning of the son of 1t1an statement pta·usible. h is a ge.neralization from his own
experience of being called a ~JOl ;;n, whi~h will have struck a ~hord with people
-sympathetic to him panly because stricr Jews were liable to say it of some of the
people with whom he associated as: well.
For q,iAOt; I have su,gge$ted ,~•• which is ren-dered with 4liA01; three. times by
Theodotion (Dan. 2. 13, 17 , I8). The w•ord is very well auested in earlier and Qumran
Aramaic. h means any ~rt of associate or companioo. In rabbioical literature, ill
both Aramaic and Hebrew. it is the word used for groups of onhodox Jews who kept
purity laws more. strictly than most people did. Since the ha/(1/.:h(lh of the orthodox
was stricter in the Second Temple period than it was Inter. it is probable thm Lhis
.sense of the term was already in LL;;e.• h makes a very sharp piece M polemic. II
presupposes that. as a signilicant Je\1/ish teache-r, Jesus should have been a -un
to rvi'""Dl f1~D. lie is accused of being a ""'il to quite 1he \Vrong sort M people.
rom f"VJ,':l. From 1he perspe~ tive M his OpJ)Oneots. this \\•as also a ver)' serious
accusation.
For ciiJO:PT(.)A<.lv I have suggested r-un, a son~.\Vhat llebraizing word used
in Aramaic. properly corresponding to <i-1Japn.lAc.3v in its semantic area and
<:·Orrespondiu_g also to the English te:rm 'sinne-r s'. It is pos.o;ible that Jesus• opplnleuts
used the nali,•e Aramaic n·n, and that it \\'as traoslatOO ftucntly \\'ith cipo:pT(.)AWv
(rather than literally with 041uAhwv. c( ML 6.12//Lk. 11.4). This make~~ no
.significant diOCre.nc.e. The reference of all these words is to people wl10 committed
sins. It is at Lhis point that 1nore than one perception or rll<l ll)' people is possible.
We must infer thm this term is a hostile desc.ription of people who were. not fully
observant. The word ro:~o is our next d ue. TI1ere is nothiog to indicate that the tax-
c.olle<::tors stopped oolle<;.ting taxes. The.only approach to an exception is Zacchaeus,
who wa~ at least ric.h enough to m;.tke reparations. so the story from unsupponed
luke (Lk. 19. 1- I0) is untypkal even if perc.hance it be.true-. and even it does not say
that ZacchaelL~ would stop being an cipxtnAc.lTJr;. We should infer that, in general,

41. Cascy. Aromuic:\ppmudltuQ.pp. t 50-6t .

 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 139

tax-collectors who fOllowed Jesus did not stop c.ollec.ting taxes. If they had, Jesus
would have become famous overnight for this too. and scribes and Pharisees would
have had reason to honour his achie.\•ement, rathe.r than criticize him. Anothe.r clue.
c.omes frofn Jesus' saying at f>.·lt. 2 1.31-2. lfere tax-colleclors a.re as...~oc i ated with
prostitutes. We are first told that they will bmh precede 'you' into the. kingd..)IU of
(iod. 1l rollo'''s that prostitutes '"ill emcr the kingdom of God. What happens in
the meantime? Dl) they cease to be prostitutes? Surely not! The te.aching. of Jesus
does not 1\.~uire that oppressed people shall starve bec-ause they abandon their
only means of making a living. Moreover. the saying does not eve-n make. sense if
applied to people who used 1o be tax-collectors and prostitutes. Whereas 'you' did
not believe Joho the Baptist. ' the t<l:<-collectors aod prostitutes· did believe him.
Eve-n more striking is the accusation that 'you' did not repent when they saw this,
and believe him. The whole situation dOC$ not fnake sense if the tax-collectors aod
prostinues had c.ea~ed to be so.
It follows that la:<-c.oll('('.tOts and prostitutes re-perued in 1he manner repre.sen1ed
by the Aramaic word J lrl and the Hebrew J l:;/. TI1ey returned to the Lord. Like ll\()St
faithful Jews, they will then have proceeded to keep the Law as best they could. That
would not be t flO'ugh for Jesus' oppone-1HS. From an orthodox perspective, other
followers of Jesus will have committed other sins too. For example. they are not
likel)' h) have-gone to Jen.salem for 111ajor fes tivals three times a year. Coosecrue-rnJy.
they are not like!)' to have onered the pl'e-$Cribed sacrifices e.vel)' time they siMe.d.
We now have enough to understand these accusations against Je$US. At Mk
2.16 Pharisaic sc-ribes mere!)' a.)k why Jesus eat:: and drinks with ta:<--CJ.)IIectots
and J:inners. Tile del>(ription 'sinners' means d1at they did not keep the whole Law.
Pharisee-s regarded themselves ::t..ll guardians of the Law, and 1here is sufficient
evidence that they did not eat with other people if that could be. achieved. The.y
therefOre mere-ly a.~ked the disciples why Jesus did so. Tile accusalion at tvh. I 1. 19//
Lk. 7.34 is a more serious development of the sa1ne 1hi1lg. Jesus bas been described
a.o; a ,311 of such people b('(:ause he associated with (he1u, and eve.n ate with them.
This is conden'ulation, not a que~t ion. II rellec.ts the s:ucc.ess of his mioistry among
Jews wtu) were not fully observant, in circumslanc-es where it wa.o; ver)' diOkult lOr
them to be so.
We must the.refore conclude that, fac-ed with condemnation by his opponents,
JesliS defended himself by associating himself with John the Baptist as he was to
do wheo he had cleansed the Ternple (Mk 11.27-33). Ill this case-. he portrayed their
opponents with an unfavourable image. and re4ailed their :.tccusations as if to show
that they \Vere obviously foolil>h. In his own c.ase, he also resorted to 1he idiomatic.
use of a general Slatetnent with (K)£fJ(K) 1~. One of the major situations in "'hich this
idiom was used was in humiliating situations, of which this is obviously one. The
reality of the ge-neralleve.l of meaning in no way detrncts from the genuine and clear
reference to Jesus himself.
140 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

7. Mt~Uhew 12.3211/.•uke 12.10, with Murk 3.28 29 4

The nexl saying il< one of the most remarkable in the whole :-.ynoptic ~md it ion. In
general. where. the.re are alternative versions of a saying in ~·lark and in Q, they
c:anom be regarde-d as ahen1ative lranslations of a single Aramaic underlay. In this
c.ase, ho\veve-r, there are good reasons for such a vie.w. Moreover. the Matthean
ve.rsion is pan of a cominuous series of sayings. as though Q had the. saying in
the sarne positjon in a c.olfection l)f say ings in t11e- sarn e order a.~ Mark. I have
accordingly reconstructed the whole of both series elsewhere. ~~the Lukan version
of this saying. however, is in a different plac.e. quite.out of common order, and may
re.asonably be treated as a third translation or the same AraJnaic sayiog. II belongs
in a collection of sayings. preceded by two genuine sayings both of which originally
used the tenn (~)id:(N) u .
I begin \\1ilh the-c.ofrunon Ararnaic undel'lay to ML 12.32 and lk. 12.10.

. rl:l;!h ;;., ~~m:.'- :->., K."it-;y Km, ';;; -:t?:o'n.o:;, llll .ih ~~:v.tr ~J!!:K -o7 :-hTJ 'nTJ•., ~l
Aod everyone who spcab a wotd :Jg;li1lS1 a/thc (scm ot) ma.n.. i1 shall be fot·givcn him, and
whoever spc:.kslh:.s !ip\..t:cn :1. \\'Otxl :.gains' the Spirit of Holiness, i1 r;h:.ll not be forgh,en
him forever.

This saying has an excellent Sit:. im Leben in the c.onte.xt in which it now occ.urs in
r-.·tauhe\V, C·Oilduding Je-sus· response to the ac.cusalion lhat he cast out demoos by
Deelzebul. The first paJ1 of it is a geoeral stmerne.•u decreeing fOrgiveness w people
who t)ppOse Ol' even slander other people. The use of (x.}-oiJ(K) u is the pa11icular
idiom where.by the statement refers especially to Jesus himself. The sayins. therefore
appears at first :c.iglu to granl forgiveness lO Jesus' opponents. Tile stiog is in the
second half. The Holy Spirit is a mewphor for God in ac.tion. Nowhere is the action
of God h) be sce.n more \1igorolL-.;ly and obviously thao in Je$uS' exorc.il\ms. The
accusation that he cast out demons by Beelze.bul is aCC'.ordingly an unforgh'able sin.
Whal Jesus seems lO concede io the first part of the saying is thus quite re-nuwed
in the second pan. This polemic, like the content of the saying. accordingly has
an excellent Sit-;, im Leben where the ~·la nhean and Markan sayings are. now to he
fOund, in the-dispute lWer Jesus' exorcisms. The idionl is also spec.i tic.ally Aramaic..
Once again. \1/e certain!)• have a genuine word of Jesus.
The Matthean translation of this saying is reasonably d ear and straightfonvard.
0; icXv lOr '1 7:~ \Vill have. beeo done with Ot; [:/ Ov 1\)r 1 y.n alread)' in mind: il gives
an excellent balance to both language and meaning in the resulting piece. and it is
not beyond the parameters of what an ancient translator might do. The words t'"1ltl)
A6yov, \!lith Luke"s altero.atjve-ipsl XOyov, establish the original \\'Ording 7 ~D 77D',
which we-shall see lies behind Mark's highly explicitative re-1lderiug, and which is
also essential for establishing the original wording of the. opening of the second
half of the saying. The poterujally ambiguous r1l7ll-7 at the e-nd has been mnslated
explicitatively with oUn Sv ToUT~ T~ a ic3vt oUn Ev T~ IJEllovn.

42. Casey. Aromuic :\ppmud1 tu Q. Ch. 5~

 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 141

Lk. 12.10 ill equall)' c.omprehel'l.l:;ible as an ahemative translation. Luke's rrcic;

Oc; is more-litera.! than rvtauhe\v's Cx;- EO:v, with EpGt as literal as: possible for?~\
The preposition Eit;- is an obvious: pOSSible alternative to rvtauhew's KaTCi with
the genitjve-. In the second half of the saying, Luke.'s T~ ~Aao$ru.nloavn is a
particularly interesting difference from fvtaUhew's 0c; f:J' Civ Ei TTfl, which presupposes
AOyov from the first half. It must surely be-an alteroati"e re.nderiog of 7Sl ;l??l 77;::..
This is the same ba.o:;ic: clarification a.:; used by Mark•s translator, and an e-ntirely
appropriate one when it is the. Holy Spirit which is being .spoken against. since this
is a 1netaphor fOr God himself in ac.tion. The potemially alnbigUl)uS r.o7SJ? at 1he
end has been omiued rather than expanded. The Lukan context is however one of
oollec.ted sayings which are not in common order and which provide.other e\•idence.
of more than one translation of an Aramaic original. We must conclude that Lk.
12.10 was collected with the sayings which surround it on the catcb\IJOrd principle-.
This c.aused the original context of Jesus• saying to be-lost. and without its C·OrHe:<t
its ori£,inal meaning oould never survive intact.
It is remarkable- that Mk 3.28-29 cat! be understood as an ahemative trartslation
of exactly the same Aramaic words, except that it began with the additionaJ
introd(ICtory llJ? ;n~ -w~ 10.". This is likely robe authentic. Jesus had good reason to
use an emphatic expression characteristic of his idiolect. bec.ause of the imponance.
of the .sentiments expressed in this saying, and the. b;.tc.kground of an extremely
threatening situation. Matthew had Mark. in front of him. but preferred Ou:X Tolho
Ai yw UIJIV as he c-0r1Rated his Markan and Q material His Q rnay therefore ba\'e
read 1lJ7 ;u~ 1i'l~ 10x. Luke has many rewer examples M ci:IJ~V than Matthew and
Mark. and it might well get lost in a co11ection of sayings made on the <:atchword
principle. We should conclude. that Mark has probably preserved the originaJ
opening l)f Je:rus• saying.
Apan from the opening. the translator was worried about the sense of the saying.
Thjs is shown by the use of role;: uiotc; Tc3v G-vepc.5nwv, the only use of the plural
of 6 u'u)c; ToG avepWnou in the whole of the Gospels. This diverges from the.
detectable strategy or translating (~)1.9:.(~) , J with 0 u'lck TOG avepWnou when
it refers to Jesus. and with something else when it does not, including when it is
plural..., TI1e-translator's c.oncem ab<:.-ut the-sen.:.r;e also provid~ a good explaoation
of his explicitative additions. We must infer that he did not believe that speaking
against Jesus was forgivable. This is entirely reasonable for someone who lived
in the e~clrl y thurch. who knew Jesus' polemic ag_ain.')t his opponents aod who
periodically sutl'ered damage from the outside world which included vilificatit)n
or Jes-us. h is also an entirely reast)nable interpretation of the immediate ooutext.
Speaking against the Holy Spirit is said 10 be. unforgivable. and Mark locates this
correctly in its originaJ context by interpreting it with referenc-e to lhe accusation
that Je.sus had an unclean spirit. The ttanslatt)r was therefore cercain that 1\~J~ 1J7
could not IOI!o\1/ immediately afte-r :i?ll 101\". Ac.oordingly, he tt>t)k ~r.iJK 1:1? d osely
with 7:-i i''Yitt", and regarded 01? as simply pie-king up K~JX 1:17 before the verb. He

43. SCi! ,,. liS :.hovo!: and fM moro! de-wile-d d i~et1ssion, p(l. 253- 66 below.
142 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

also took ~WJK u as a collective term ror people in gcnerul, and, like ;-.7, it told
him who would be fOrgiven - everyone in get)eral, which fits the te-achill.£. of Jesus
perfectly well.
The trans lator now ll>Ok 7J to 1\\ean e.verything, and the obj~c t rather than the
subje<:t of the veib of saying. The term ;,71l, no longe1' controlled by its context, is
altogether too general a term - itrne.ans any thi•l£. not only a \VOrd. TI1e Greek tenn
A6y01; must surely have occurred to the translator. but he must surely have fell that
it was 001 specific enough. Taki ng :i?.o ... 7:~ to mean eve-rything exc.ept blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit. he has therefore translated explicitatively. His addition. TCi:
ci~apTrhw:ta Kai ai ~Aao<Pnllia. Ooa £ci:v f)Ao:oq,rnn)oColOIV, is phrased in such
a \vay as to make clear that what vet)' sinful people usually do is forgivable. a
semimen! in accordance with the teaching of JeslL~ and the needs of fomlerly sinful
converts in the-e-arly church.
hl the second halforthesaying, Ol; {!) Ov ~Aao<PriiJrion tit; is a perfectly reasonable
re.nde.ring M7~ ;,?o 77r.n i7.1\ with dte verb ~Ao:oqrruJiCol being a particularly nmural
choice in view of llle \VOtding which tlle- lranslator had just thought of for his
e.'l:plicitatjve addilion h) 1he ficsr half of the saying. Mark ends with a very de1em-1ifled
piece of explicitation. Verse 30 declares the connection bei\IJeen the accusation and
the incident, which Mark evidently feh might get lost if it were not e:\:plicitly stated.
Equally, he ha.~ clarilied the ,~fusal or fOrgiveness ror ever by adding ci>..Aci 'Evo_x&;
i:OTIVaiwviou 0:~-tapT~IJO:Toc;. This ens-ures that rll1~7 cannot be regarded <l$ just
a metaphor. ~·larK may also have. used ~it; T0v aic3va as a relatively conventional
re.nde.ring of r;;.7.:h, or it may have-been added by a scribe. for it is abserH lfom D
We 565 569 and mher manusc-ripts. Fortunately this does not affecl the exegesis
of the original saying nor appreciation of the behaviour of the translator. who was
de.temlinedly explicitative. whethe.r or not he added Eit; T6v ai<.lva.
The Markan versiorl or this sayiog is at (lrsl sight seriolL-.; Iy divergetH from the
ve.rsion.s which we 00\1/ lind in r"'tanhew and Luke-. The way in whic-h it can be
understood as an ahe.mati\'e Lranslation of Lhe same Aramaic original is a ver}'
strong argument for the accuracy of the Aroma.ic original reconstn1cted above.
That original Ammaic saying fit~ perfectly into 1he c.oute:<l in which h\'0 or the
ditferiog traoslations are now JO·und in Mauhew and Mark. I have e.xpounded this
controversy in detail elsewhere. and summarize only the main points n ow.~• The
Marean version provides a coherent argument After a question formulating his
basic premise that Satan c-annot c.ast out Satan. Jesus proceeded wilh two analogical
argume-nts from a kiugdl)f'l\ and a house-. I fe infe.rred lhat Satan would be tioished if
he. rose up against himself. from whic.h it follows that Satan cannot have done any
such thing. His next argument was another analogy, referring to the real experience
of conflict with the devil before an exorcism. Having thus made absolutely d ear that
his exorcisms were dooe by the pl)\\'e.r M God. Jesus fitlally accused his oppln'lents
of the unforgivable sin of opposing the power of God. That completes a logical
progression of argur11ents. provided 1hat the final argument is re.ad in Aratnaic and

44. Casey. Aramaic Appmudr tu Q. Ch. 5 .

 Six Authemic Sayi11g:r 143

all the arguments are seen in their original cultural context Those sayings which are
fo und in Q only tit pe.rfeclly well into •his COI)text. though Jesus may have said them
on a separate occasion.
11nt$ this Son of ma•l saying: fits its original context perfectly. The c.oruext
provided a natural situation for using this idiom. Jesus was in the. humiliating
situation of being accused of c-asting out demons by the.power of the devil himself.
The saying accordingly has a ge.nemllevel of meaning. Anyone who speaks against
another person will be forgiven, a sentiment wholly in accordance with the teaching
of Jesus. At t:he. same time. this part of the. sa)~ng refers espedaJiy to Jesus himself.
The.second part of the sa)~ng is equally indirect Spe.aking against the Holy Spirit is
unforgivable. ~<lark found this so indirect that he carefully added in the reference to
this c.ontroversy. a reference which will have been blindingly obvious to anyone in
lhe middle of it.
Once. again, therefOre, a Son of man saying make-s even better ~nse \\'hen
IX.'Ct)n.Struc.ted in the original Aramaic than it does otherwise. It also fits pe-rfectly
into the context in which it is n0\1/ found in both f\<lark and Mauhe\\'. h has a perfect
Sitz im Leben in the teaching of Jesus in general, atld in this c.ontexl in particular. ft
has no reasonable Sit:, im Lelx!ll in the. early church. The arguments for this being
an a-uthentic saying M Jesus \Vhich should be tllldc-.rstood all 1 have. suggested are
accordingly over.vhelming.

8. CoJtdusions

Every one of the Son of man sayings discussed in this chapter belongs to an overall
context. the whole of which I have. beeo able 10 rte.onsti'UCt in Aramaic in two
previous books.H E\'ery one of them has an excellent Sit~ im Leben in the life and
teaching of Jesus in general. and in the context in which they are now found (except
Lk. 12. 10, \llhich has been removed from the cootexi koown to us from tvlark and
Manhe\\•). When the Ararnaic t)riginal of each saying is c-onsidered. none. of them
has a satisfactory Sit:, im Leben in the.early c.hureh. One saying. Mk 9.12, belongs to
a context in which it make.s sense only when the original Aramaic of the passage has
beeo re.coostructed. Ooe saying. Mk I0.45, fully bel01lgs 10 its context only when it
has been reconstructed in Ara111aic. One sayir)g, Mk 2.28, follows properly from tlle-
immediately preceding verse only when it is reconstructed in Aramaic, so much so
that rvlatthew and luke independently omitted the piX.'viotL't veTse. One saying. Mt.
12.321/lk. 12.10 and tvlk 3.2&-29, is intelligible as three diffe re.JH translations of an
original Son of m.an saying.
This is a quite rerna.rkable set of results. It font)S ao overwhelmiog argument
of cumulative weight for this part of my solution to lhe Son of man problem. So
far. however. we have only six authentic sayings, containing seven uses of the
term (N)r.f:J(K) ""U. I have brictly proposed further examples. whic.h I discus.c; in tlle-
following chapters.
45. Casey; Aramaic Somws o_fl'tf(lrk SGuspel: Aramaic AppnxKh u' Q.
 Chapter Five

TH E H EALING OF A P ARA LYTIC ( M ARK 2.1 - 12)

The Son of man l\ayiog at Mk 2. 10 is embedded i1l a cornple.te oarrative abo\tl the
he,.ling of a paralytic. This story has suffered very badly at the hands of scholarly
d issection. In his classic work, llu ltn1ann d ivided it into two, classifyi•lf; vv. 5b-1 0
as •a secoru1ary inte•polation'. aod for this he could already call upon rredecessors.•
Some recent scholars continue to follow this view, and commentators who do not
follow it still feel obliged to discuss it.! We shaJI see thm there is good reason to
find some sec.oodary glos..'>ing, mostly cemred on the words which the-scribes are
explicitly reported 11ot to have.spoken. Nonetheless. one purpose of this chapter is to
recoostru<:t f'.·fark 's A!'a.naic. s.ource lOr a single iocident In p<ll1icular, I argue that,
when the narralive is seen li"om a first-cen(ury Je,vish perspet:live,Jesl)s' forgiveness
of lhe l\1an's sins '"as an essential parl of lhe he-a ling proc.ess. 00 1 a separate iss-ue.
Acc.ordjogly.l suggeS-1thallhe mos1ex1ensive inserlion is much shorler than critical
scholars have generally supposed.

I. 111e Original Story

I begin wilh a rec.on.struclion and a literal traoslation of Marie's proposed Aramaic

source. I keep the conventional verse munbers for convenience.

.:.;1:; ;n~, ;~-r.s.~IO .r.•y,• ;;,:: ;:m -c;? 01:> ~l. l

.~-.7;) 11:P 'n.'l'); f~'>''t· ui":nnx1.1
..o? r?y!7 :1:.~,"' ....,_..;: i'n'l) :1"i rnx1 .J
."':n'n' >'~, l\.',i;<:!1 l\.O"t!i u-.oN1 . "'."il,~iil Nl;i. l'.mi" N'r?: ~-,K' Mi:o'D 7•-.: "':117!1 ::,y;":o? "i;y K'rl.-4
. T: lli l~J.o~K'?: .:->•t'tr.l7 ,~XllTilllliJ"'."i ,_.,._,, :.;;m .5
.JW p:;· ~·,~o "iO Jl:i":"T'Xl.6
?JU'::!';~ j"";X l'X'n j1:1:N .iiJ"? . jl:i? 'WXl.ll.
?17:1110,s "7pd1 cry ;~:xiJ7 '~'> ,-~m v::m?x ""''.:<..'<1:? ,'i?y IJ;;. .9
,r::·n p::VU11G,X ~ N'.:hN i "i7 r:?T. j"l:.'ill"l"il. IO

I. Buhmann. S.mopli< Tradition, pp. 14- 15, -citi11g inter alia the I'C'greuably se--minal stud)'
of W. \Vrcd~. •Zul' Hcilung <ks ('.cl:\hmtcn p.tc 2,1ff)', ZN\V :S (1904), pp. 354-S.
2. E.g. J. Gnilku. DtJs Emnsrdium 11ach Markus <EKKNT. 2 voL.;.• DOsscldOt'UNcul: irchcn~
Vluyn: Bcn;!igcr/Ncuki•~hcncr. 4th cdn, 199-4), p. 96, cxpiM:itly fallowing Buhmann a.nd others: R.
H. Gundry. Mark. A Commcntury m1 His Apolos.v for lht' Cross (Gra.nd Rapids: Ecrdman!i, 1993),
pp. 12 1- 2. f1>rcl'itM:a.l discus~i on.
 The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.' 145

.1ii'~? 'xK11:01¥ 7¥\!t .1? ;-Ill\''""" ,01¥ .II

.~nn :->7 ii~1 f'\\.11\ x;;?l61· r;:n Kij i.7:.i1 p:i;:l' 01j? j::! V~J1 KOtl' ~ 1".'l1 017 . 12
'And he entered Capt"maum agtUn after some days. And it was hc:ud th.:1t he was at home.
:And m:~ny((>eopiC") g31.hcrOO to~ther, atld hC" was giving lhem a S(>ee<:h. ' And the)· came to
him bringing a pnralytk. and fmu v.xorc carrying him. ..,And they werr nol nbk to uppm.;1ch
him b...c:.usc ofthe y uhcl'ing.And they took off the roofing where hC" was a.nd dug i1 001. And
they lowered the mnurcss on which the paralytic was lying 'And Jesus -St~W their f:Uth and
s3id ta thC" psml}1ic, •child, your sin11 have bN:n f(l(gi vcw'undooclrclc:.J~cd. ·"'And some of
the J~crilx'll wc.rc siuing there. ' And he said to Lhcm. •why are you oonsidcring the~ thing.i
in your hearts'? "Which ill l ight, to s:~y "Your sinll h:.ve l>e~ forgi\'cn/und.:tne/rcka!:ed", or
(0 say "G.r~ up and t:U:~~ up your m3nrcss :uld \VStk'".• " And .so 1h:u you m:~y ki)Ov.• th:u llfthC"
soo of nlan em earth has powcrf3uthority to f\'lt'givc/u..tulolrckas.:: sins. 11 "Gct up, 1 lcll you,
Eakc up yow• manrcss :~nd go to yout' house."' l:And he got up. and 31once he took up his
manrcss and wcm 0111 in from of 311 of them. And everyone wa.'l :~m:12cd a.nd glorified \,00.
And (they were) sayi.ng. ·we htwc tll>t sccn (anything) likC" this.'

2. The Setting

The-SIOl') ' begins with the seuing in Capemaum, the smalltowo in which Mk 1.21-
34 ,va,:; set. l11e precise fOnn :.rom7K is fou nd alre--ady at Ahiqar 10, and this explains
why the translator put ~Ko009TJ. its very precise equivalent. He will not have noticed
that the result is quite awkward Greek. That this news should spread in a small
town iS UtlprobJern<HiC-, CSpCCiaJiy jf JeSUS iS (he SUbject Of rvtk 1.45, and if this
was genuinely a rece-tH event. Mot-e specifically, the incident is se1 in a house. II is
difTicult to koow whether h) read iv OtK~ or ~;ir;: olKov. Either expression would be.
a translation of Tl'J.J, ' in a house>. TI1e c.otnmon c.otUecture that this would be 1he
house of Simeon and Andrew' is pos.'>ible, but catulot be verified.
I cannot find any reasooable Arantaic !hat '"·o-uld cause a reasooable ll'anslator h)
put c.lon ~TJKiTI X(.)pelv IJfl~( Tci rrp0r;- niv &Upav. llherefore sugge$1 that this
has been added in Greek, with a view to explaining the extraordinary behaviour
of the men who c.arried the. pamlytic. Whether or not one of the houses excavate.d
in Capernaum is re'-311}' the house of Simeon and Andrew. il is clear that a norma.!
house was not all that big. It is accordingly quite- rea.-:;onable to suppose that there
was a c.rowd round tJ1e omside of the door as well as in the house. and that Jesus
was able to te-ach from his position inside the. house. The selling is compleled by
~n?n li:1? 77t~ol. which situply means 1hat Jesus spoke to the crowd, (e.aching !hem
in his customary manner.
With the setting complete. the healing inc-ident begins with the. arrivaJ of four
people carrying a man described as 'paral)'tic'. It is evide-nt that he-could not or
would not walk. What was wrong with him'?

3. E.g. V. Taylor. Th~ GtJsp~I.A.mmli11g ltJSt. M(lrk(London: M3Cmillan. 1959), p. 193.

146 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

3. Paraly:ris a11d Hi<a/i,g

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)· 207-
34(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 single-
affection 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 the-
classificalion 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
1

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 llle-
il~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

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 Pri11<ip/es and Pnmice of Mediciue (New York: Appleton, I &92), p.
974.
II. E. R. ~iid:km. MirO<'Icsand tire Ntw Psyclwlos;• (lot)(foo: OUP. t922). c~. pp. SS- 91.
12. Shoner. From Pmulysi.s In Fatigtlt'. t). 7.
13. J. H. l};l):cr and J. R. Silwr. ' 1-l y~>l.,..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<HI (l:uth:lm:
Univcrsi1y Press of Anmic:.. 200 t). pp. 75- 80.
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 S<tid to have been pamlys..>d 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) :

t6. 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.
 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 rnnn.. and Pesh 171Ihml. TI1eJ'e is a 1\U)J'e. perSonal example at Jer. 50.43, where-
t11e 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<H.Jsed by a ghastly
wife (LXX xeip~.:; rrapuiJEva. Ka'• yciva-Ta rrapaAtAu~vo:), Mt t11e-sinfUlness of
the afllicted rnan. At lsa. 35.3. the prayer fOr eschatologic<ll dcliveranoe of the nation
includes an order 10 Slrengthen hands and knees (LXX lo)(Uoan x~ip~.:; ci:vu~vcu
Kal yOvaTa rrapo:A~Avp(va): this is ln parallel with an illStruction not 10 be afraid. For
m~1 used of the haods, the Targum ha.' 171.9"\ Pesh 1'~"\':l. AI 1 Mat'<' . 9.54--55. Akimus
begins the obviously sinful action of tearing down the wall of the inner court of the
sanctuary. Consequently. ci:m$pciYT) TO aT<)IJO: rohoV Ko:t no:p~AV9r}. a condition
so seril)US that he died. In the opening c.hapter of 3 Macc<ziJee:r. Antiochus is on the
\'erge M the l)bviously sinful act of enleriug the sanc1u.a•y. In l'esponse to prayers led
by Simon the high priest. he is struck down by God. with the re-.sult that he ends up on
the. ground. 1TI kal Toic; JJiAto•v no:po:A~AuJ,Jivov IJC16E <Jx.:ivi)ao:l (J M ace. 2.22).
Hewas taken away by friends and bodyguards= and in due coorse reoo\'ered. being no
l011ger in daoger of committing t11is particular sinful ac.t. At Wsd. 17.18, the Egyptians
at the time of the Exodus. having already been labelled as sinful. are paralysed with
fear (rrapiAv~v aUTOOt; iK4lo~Uvta).
None of this is the same as Mk 2.1-12. It is bO\\'ever sullicie.nt h) indicate that
paralysis might be included among the illnesses which might result from sin. and
that it might be thought of as temporary or terminal. ~<loreover. at least four of these
passages were part of the text held sacred by all the-c.ha.racte•·s in r-.<Jark's sto1y.
This is ac.cordingly the first part of the-Explanall)ry rvh)del acc.ording to which the
paralysis or the 1han in Mark's story nlight be thought of as caused by sin, and as
something from which he could rec.over. provided that his sins were. forgiven.
The absence of early Aramaic stories about paralysis means that there is some.
uncertainty about the exact word used by Mark's soutce. For rrapahunKOv I have
used ..,i.ft:. as do pesh hatk. There-is no dl)ubt th.at this is the right word in Syriac.
The underl)'ing root ~,:;i is well anested in Aramaic from before lhe time M JeslL,. Ill.
wide semantic area includes ' lmdo ·, ·unh)OSe'. and 1here is a particularly re-levant
example a1 Dan. 5.6. I Jere Belshazzar is terrified by the writing on the wall, with
the result that his hip joints 1..,ntVi'l. Theod ¢•~AUovTo. This is accordingly Lhe right
general area fOr the paral)'Sis of limbs through fear. The root ..,q.~ also continued in
general use in Jewish Aramaic.as in Syriac. This is muc.h more probable than 7tV!o,
which is used fl)r •paralysed' in Christian Palestinian Aran'l aic. We have seen the
J\)Ot ?o..-"1 used io retevaottcxt-:o of the.TargU1'1'1$ and •he Peshitta. but there is no early
attestation of it at all.
150 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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(;Ordingly d aritied the situation, om tendering with the si.-nple and obvious
equivaJent OpUooc:.l. but with the clearer compound. He has thereby achieved an
excellent explidtati\'e. translation. within the parameters nonnal among \'e.ry good
translators.
This hypothesis accounts fOr all our evide-nce. It is M methodological importance
that we do not make either of two mistakes. each of them tempting enough to require
discussion. We might argue that there was no original Aramaic source. bec.ause
no re<:-onstruction can quite represent O:m:oTiyaoav and i~opU~o:vnc;. This
would remove from the. historic-al record everything whic-h has not been translated
absolutely literally, including c.ases where an absolutely literal crnnslation would not
be sensible.20 Til iS is the _general1~a..o;on why we should not do th i~. In this p<"trticolar

19. J. L Rttd, Archaeology (fJid the W.olilttall Je-sus. A Rt'·e:mmiJwtiOtl of the Eridenn'
(Barri~burg:Trinity Ptcl!s hll~l'tl31i OMI . 2000). p. 159.
20. For rut impo11s m cxsmt>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.
 The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.' 15 1

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 unlike-
ours. 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.
1

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

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$S
has been anributed to his sins. Jesus therefore began the healing process by
reas.o;uring him that his sins had been tOrgiveo. The passive \YJnWK, like-Matk's
Greek, presupposes that his sins have been forgiwn by God. as always. There are
some-detailed problem-l> over the exact word lOr this. I have resisted the tenlptation
to posit '"VliVX, \Vhich is the same root as the word for paralytic. N"'11Il1l, because \Ve
should not •nuhiply wordplays on principle. It is not howeve-r impossible. and we
shall have to c-Ons ider its implications runher when we reach Mk 2.10. hl either
c.ase, we should read the well-auested perfect ci<Pic.lvTcu io the text orMk 2.5, \\'ith
~A C 0, as \\'ell as the 1najority or manuscripK h is the most uamral tnlllSiation
or any rea.o;iblc Aramaic. We should auribl.lte the-111uch lcs.r.o well-auc:aed present
ci:$itvta.t (B 33 565 al) to a e-opyist who wanted to make it deal' that Jesus was
performing the ac.t of forgiwne.ss at that moment. The copyist may also have been
a~im ilating 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
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<UL<;es the widow to say that she now knows that he is a
' mao of God'. In 2 Kgs 4, the Shuo.amnlite womatl sends lOr Elisha whe-n her sou
dies. and he comes and heals him. lo 2 Kgs 5, Naa.-nan is cured or his ski11disease
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 cure-
people 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•-e-
exilic 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 Dupont-
Sommer.!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:<plaoatory rvtodel lOr
him. An exorcist drives out a demon. As an approach to someone who is beha\•ing
strangely, drh•ing oul a demon is quite different from the forgiwness of sins.
There have been numerous auempts to argue lhat the text c-annot mean that this
pei'SOn forgave Nabonidus' sins, the most basic ground lOr this being that only
God can forgive sins.MThis is U11e, but \Ve should not ovenurn the mosl naturaJ

24. ~!<)'• .-\nrmttic .-\pplvttr-11 10 Q. pp. 164-1.

25. A. Dupo.m1-Sommcr, ' Exorcismcs ct g..CriSO«ls d:10s ks 1\.\:i iS de Qoumdn', iJt G. \V.
Anderson eta/. (00~), Omgr~ss V(J/Itlllt' Oxfim:l/959 (VTSup 7. Lcidcn: Atilt 1960). pp. 246- 61.
26. Cf. L P. 1-tog:.n, Htalill$ i11 1lte SN'<>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
~<lark says of one woman who is said to have been sick for twelve.years, Ked noAAO:
rraOoUoa UrrO noAAClV laTpi.)v Kai &.-rraVTioaoo: ni: nap· a\m)c; rrcivra Kat
~~6ov ,.;q,,~~e.loa cii.Aa pa~~ov 'i.; TOx•l pov iMoooa (Mk 5.26).

2 7. 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 the-
Niphal 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<ll1icular cas;e, the man's inability
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. Hooker. Mark, ~). g6.

.30. For dc-lail,..d discus11ion. sc,.. C:.11cy,Aramaic Approoch w Q, Ch. 5.
31. 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- the-
traoslators were raced with ~'1ll'lil. The l\<lauhean l!'anslator Weill fOr TO: rxxpUnpal
adding the explicitmive Toil vO~-tou to try to make his meaning clear. l uke, writing
for Gentiles. left it out:" This shows how difiicuh the translation \\•a.r;, a11d how 1he
pennanent w mparison behveen ' light• and •heavy• might le-ad a translator to use
a Gree.k c.ornparati\ C. Morelwer, ' light' commandtnentr; are by their nature easier
1

to observe than heavier ones. Hence our translator has gone for ~lnr::orr<.lnpov. He
will have agreed with Jesus thm neither maue.r was a light one. We.might render his
translation very explic.itativel>' 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. We-
have Ill)\\' however seen good !'e.ilSOil tO indudCthe fotgiVCIIC'$S Of SinS ill V. 5, and
the presence-of the scribes in v. 6a, a,'f; part ofthe original inciderll. We have-al.,.;o seen
good reason 10 keep v. 9, and we. shall see reason 10 interpret v. 10 in this lighl as
pan of the original incidem too. The unspoken words of the scribes are secondary,
for the Markan narrative tells us that they were unspoken, and that me.ans they
mlL.::t be sec.ondar>'· Secondly, we have seen that the words of v. 7 are intelligible
a,'f; a reaction to v. I0 in Greek, but not a,'f; a reaction ro the pro110unce.nent orCi(>d's
rorgivene-sf. ofthe. man's sins at the end or v. 5. If v. 7 is second<ll')', the end or v. 6 is
almost cenainly secondar)' too.
What about v. 8? This is \1ery difficult to dete-rmine. On the one hand, it looks
like a tOIIow-thn)ugh from the secondary v. 7: on the other, something must have
sparked 1he-ag.gressive-nature of Je~r;us' c.onunents in \ ' V. 9· 10. Ill the above draft.
I have omitted v. Sa, attributing it to the same redactor as v. 7. I have howe\·er
kept Jesus• \\'Otds in v. 8b. The chaJlge or subject, witho-ut any repetition of Jesus'
name, is characteristic of Aramaic narratives. The resulting piec.e gives an excellem
rationale ll)r the-editor \Vho made the additions. Jt!$uS' openi11g c.onunen1s h) tl1e-

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 the-
relatively 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\<ly f'OOI.)Its truction i1~1Jn1l uses the ubiquitous 1 and 1, and
would lead a normal translator to put 'iva: &E. The Aranlaic. nlmrm is Slill stroog
eoough to imply that the healiog \\'ill demon:o>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. Gnilk:.,McJrk11s. p. 101.

39. M:.tculi:, Mark. pp. 2t6. 222.
40. 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:<plan ati o1~ of
the meaning of this sentenc.e .~: We have however seen that it c-annot be gainsaid.
so we must work out what the general level of meaning can have been. Two poims
are crucial. Ooe is 1he general leYel of me.auing, which may be bmh secOJldal)' and
limited. The other is the semarnjcareas of t>:&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. Se-e 1,· 152: above.
46 Casey; Aramaic Approodero Q. pp. t64- 13.
166 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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«<I)Sltu<:ted my preterred reading as
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<lding ofB 0 pc
.as aS!'illlilation to Mauhew, though this makes il dillicult to see \1/hy Mauhe\\' altered
Lhe order of words.

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.
197t). l). 78.
48. E.g. Maf"C'll:i. Marl:., p. 2t9.
 The Heali11g ofa Paralyti<.' 167

Ye-1)'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
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-.<lodel. ac-Cording 10 which a person's Slnlllge be-haviour
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<o:A£. which is
fO und only in Mauhew, the man's: ded aration is also verbally identical in f>.·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 where-
it 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.
I have howeve-r reconstruc-ted i~O 1n from Manhew's t ,1c; ypaiJIJO TEVc;.
• M:mhew
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 be-
we11 moth•<ned to alter it to litOcim::o:AE. which he otherwise has both red:.tctionally
(MI. 12.38), from Mark (MI. 19.16: 22.16.24). and probably fmm Q ( MI. 22.36).
Luke. never uses Paf!~t. When he c.opies a Markan passage containing Po:~~~ or
Par>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<ht'. p. 96: C. F. Bumcy, 111e Poelr.v ofOw· Uml (Oltford: Clarendon,
t925). J)f). 132. 169: J. kr~~mj:lS.. l•lt•w Ttstatllt'Jit 711t'olog)· \'01. I. Tht' Pro<lomation of lt:JifS
(lt:ms. J. Bowden: l.ondon: SCM, 1971 ). p-. 2J: V. f-l:unpd, Mt(l.fchensohn wrd lli-1-tori.fchu l t'SM.
Ein Riitselwm1 uls Sc·hlii.ud :.m11 mes.ficllli.Jrhm Selbsn·crstiimlnis iC:Sil (Ncukirchcn·Vluyn:
Ncukircl~nc-r. 1990), p. 227: Schwan. Me11sdrenwlm. p. 191 .
2. Csscy. •Jack;~.! ~' . pp. 8. 20 n. 19. ci1i.ng li. B. Tristrrun. Tht' Natural History of tire Bible
(lo•)don: ChriSli3Jl Knuw!OO_gc Sodc-~y. 1867: tOih cdn 19 11}. W · 85- 8. 109-1 1: R. Burrows. Wild
Fo.t (Lo•ldon: David and Ch:ulcs, 1968): Elt<ydq.><Tedio Judoka. s. \: 'Anin\$lS of lhc Bible and
Talmud\ 'Jackal': F. S. Cansdal;.-, A11imals (if Biblt' LAnrh (Ex~'"! cr: PstcrOOSlN. 1970). pp. 12-l-6:
B. Grzimd:. Gr:.imek"J Aniuldl Lrjt! EII(\Tinpat•dia. vol. 11. .ltlamma/.1- JJJ (Loodo.niNcw York: Van
Nos.trsnd, 1972), t)t>. 195-9 (lntl\lduclioo 10 canids, by t-1. W.:-ndt). 23{1- 43 (Jackal ~. by D. MOUcr-
lJsing.. 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<lckals' were included
in the I lebre\V 7Y1til and the A ramaic 7:m.l did nm blur aoy behavitlural distinctions,
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$sun1ption that it~ sen1antic area was c.onfined to j ackals ar1d did not include
wolves. nor does he give reason to believe that il was in use in Ammaic, which it
was not Whether there \\•as already a precise Aramaic wotd tOr j ackals is \Jnc.ertain.
The llebrew o•m is Mrrnally rer1dei'Od with some fOn1'1 of 111~ in both P~hiua aod
Targum (IS>. 13.22; 34. I3; 43.20: l<r. 9. I0; I0.22; 49.33; 51.37: Mic. 1.8; alw Tg.
Ps. 44.2 0; pesh Lam. 4.3). This means that the traoslators knew what they were
doing. which is more than c.an be s.aid for the LXX, whose translators had the.
dinicuh UL~k of translating into a language which had no M n'tlal word for 'j ackal',
presurnably bec.ause there were no jackals in Greece.: so .SpciKovn~ Jer. 9. 10; lam.
4.3; Mic. I .8: ixlvoo lsa. 13.22; KOKWO<c.><; Ps. 43.20 (MT 44.20); oEtpijw; IS>.
34. I3; 43.20; Jo)b 30.29; o rpov6ol Jer. I0.22; 30.28 (MT 49.33). II may thereli>re be
that 1'""11"1' was the tenn for jackal$ 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."<<dish in hue-.•s A similar situation is likely to have obtained in the ancienr period.
The rna in poinl essential lOr identifying the biblical o•?vlid, the I lc-brew
equivalent of the Anllflaic K'7:m, is the major behavioural diflere nc.e be.tweeo
these two a1limals: j ac.kals hunt in packs, and lOxes do not. T he biblical 7!71101 is
always plural except at Neh. 3.35. aod so•uetimes in considemblc munbers. For

4. M. 1-1. Smith. •No Pl:1cc fM :1 Son ofM:m', Forum 4 (19&8). pp. 8J- t07 (89).
5. Tti.>lrnm. Narmul Hislory•. pp. &5, t10.
172 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

example, Sam son is said to h<h 1t \1sed three hundred of them (fg. pesh r'nm,
L XX ciAc.l nn::ac;} to set fire w •he Phil isti nes' crops (Judg. 15.4-5). The story is
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 <iX(I)n£KQV). It is also probable-that jackals
\\'Cre commone-r than foxes in the ancient Near East in general, and i n l ::rael in
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 <P~~toUc;. Je$us· i mage ce11ainly relhred h)
the holes provided by narure tOr 1\)xes and j ackals h) use as a pennanenl part of their
dai ly lives.
Whi le ""'~n included j ackals a..:; well as J\) xes, the traoslation with ci~c.lnn:Et;
was almost i ne\•itable. Foxes we.re well known in Greece. and the OAWITTl~ was
the J:ubject of many provelbs a1ld f~lb l es . When viewed fron-t a Gred perspective,
Jesus' saying fits into this very general category. l11e- Gr~k ci.M.)nf1~ is also the
only rendering of the l ie-brew 7:ot"t~ in the LXX. Furthermore, there was no pOpUlar
Greek te-n n fl)r 'jackal ', fOr the-re we-re no j ackals in Greece. The most c.anvassed
suggestion is 9c.)t;. orl the ground that St)rne commeurs on this animal fit the
jackaL Sonte comments, bO\Itever, do not: for e-xample. Aristotle desc.ribes thefn as
4t~o:v0pc:.:>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
~'lliV, 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
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&lt; 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
Ill)'
interpretation.t(
r D:oh:l is exactly the. c.orrt."'(:t \VOrd to rec·OI'IStruct is subject to slight
Wh edu~r

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
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 ~<IT only at Dan. 2. 11, where. it has the
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. Cowl~y.AI'amdit' Pap:ori 30. linc 11/f Jl,linc 10.

I I. 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 choice-
because 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: 1<ai ~wMOv i:xt• 1<ol .:orraiOv f:OT•v aUTi>v
iKcloT~ Koi .:aTo&iow; , TOi.; 5! Vnip Tfr; 'I Ta).i C~~; ~axo~ivo1r; Ko:t cinoEiv!]m::ouaw

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 yuvatt<i>v (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-<unrast to foxes and
birds. has fK) home; which is pJajn uOil.Sense. u The possibility that this saying m i~)lt
be.a proverb led Manson to contemplate an interpretation of it which is as general as
possible and quite remote from its context. This is such a natural way for speakers of
English to treat gene-raJ statements that Manson djd not even consider the possibility
that the saying of Jesus migtu be a general statement in any other sense. nor did
he. consider the tradition in Aramaic form. He then suggested what is \'irtually an
allegorical interpretation of the saying with the Roman overlords as the. birds of
the air. and the roxes as Edomite intetlopets (noting Lk. 13.32). both making their
positioo secure. TI1e :;aying might then l'nean that ·everylxxl>' 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. (o.bnson. Saying.f. p. 12.

14. Munson. SayingJ. pp. ?2- J .
15. 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 ~<IIJK, and in particular makes a beautifUl contrast with 10/J~ t~
in t11e next line. At firSt sight, it rnight seern unduly c-Oincidental that two ditTere.nt
translators might render it with the simple TWv ci:v6pc.lrr(o)V. neither of them going
for the more literal ri.)v ulC:.v rC>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 <iv6pc.lrrou wher\ it refers to Jesu.t;. and of renderi11g both (K):z~(K} iJ,
when it does not refer It) Jesus. ond it.t; plural ~1!7:(~) ' D , with some-thing e.Jse. ~ While
we caooot be quite c.ertain that Jesus u.t;ed ~lLf.J(K) ··JJ rather tl1an the simple ~:zil~,
this passage \Vhe.Jl rec.onstruc.ted io this way illustrates pe.rfi!ctly how the traoslators'
strategy worked. On general grounds. the plural ~'Zil(~) 'JJ must have been used
by Jesus and in the transmission of the Gospel tr.tditions. This passage, with the
proposed reconstruction. illustrates how the translators nonnally handled this.
Near the beginning of the second line is the most imponam variant in this saying.
where Luke has 0 ulO:; Toli Ouepc.lrrou. and Matthew ha.t; the first pe.rson pronoun
instead. I disc.uss other det·ails first, so as to discuss the meaning of (~)liiJ(K) iJ io
Jesus' origioal saying in the context M a c.omplete reconstruction. This diO'erenoe is

2. R. Pesch. ·O~r di.- Aulorilt'il Jcsu. Ein.- Rilckfr:.g.- :tnkmd d.-s Bckcnncr und
crkugncrspn1chs Ll: 12.8f par.'. in R. Schll.'lo:-kcnburg tl <tl. (cds). Die Kirdtt' dts Anfangr. Fiir
Hdn:. SchiirmaJm (Lci~lzig: St Bc-noo. t97&). t)p. 25---55 (3()-5).
J. Casey, Aromuic S(mn.·tJ of Mark's Gospel, PI)· 2 19. 220: Ammuic Approach 1t1 Q. p.
t4&.
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 be-
considered 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>.<ticaiah soo or hnlah sees
(iod sitting oo his throne. \Vith all the host of heaven (o·.o~;'l K~J;-7J) standing
beside hiru. T hete-is a discussion with several participants. At Jt)b 1.6 -12 and 2 .1-
6 the sons of God (o•;1?~:1 'JJ) collle befOre God and there is a debate between
Gl'XI himself and Satall. At Dan. 7.9-10,26 thfOoes are place-d, aod irl addiliOil to
God takiog his seat with tnyria<lll of Shlndir)g attendan!S. we fiod the c.oun (Kl<>"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<l on his extraordi1l ary c.onviction that Je\1/ish people il\10ided the term N:i7K
bec.aus.e they avoided the divine. name. Dalman carried this so far thai he auributed
h) Jesus dte use ofK'l)Wi AAlJ?o rather than K:i?t\1 Mt:l77.! on the ground that he was
avoiding the divine name.ll But l\7:iK is not the divine. natne! II was the ordinary
Aramaic tenn for 'God'. h was nm the onl)' term for 'God', and some texts do use
other expressions (e.g. K'~Lii Tm. Dan. 4.34), but it eontjnuOO in use. wherea.~ the
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 <i:yy(A(.)\1 o:UtoU.11 His
argumem is of methodological interest. and should not be accepted. He suggests
that it is rather unlikely Lhat John produced this ending by bringing togethe-r
individual elements from the Matthean and Lucan accounts of the saying. and that

1. Dalman, 1\brtq'lp. 161, 172; WordHifleslts. Pt). 197,2:10.

g. Dalman., m.mr-. pp. 75-7~ ll~nls of Jes1rs, PI)· 91--4; and 1hc S3mc miSlakc Sl \lbrlc. pp.
75- 9, 159-fil, 22.l; mmls (ifJr-sru, pp. 91-4, t 94- 7. 272.
9. TOd1. S<m "/Man. p. 56 n.. 4, from Mr-nschenM1hn, t). 52, n. 60.
10. H. T. Flc.:ld..-nn:-.nn. 'Th..- QS:-.yingon Conf~ssi nga1)1) Oi.'nying'. SBLScminur Papt•rs 26
(AII.amo; Scholars. 19&7). pp. 606-16 (611); Murk artd Q. A Slud.r (iftht' OlY'rlap Te:ds (BETI~ 122.
l..cu\'c-n: lcuwnlJni v~rsily Press, 1995}. p. 147. with n. 56.
I I. L A. Yos.. Th~ Synoplic Trodilions j(J the Aptx·of.vpsr- (Kampen: Kok. 1965). t)p. 91- 2.
 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 he-
might 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 K<iyc.l
is typic--ally Mauhe.an. 1 : This does not however explain the behaviour of Matthew,
who USeS the term 0 ul<);- To\J clv6pc.)rrou no less thao 30 limes, and, as we shall see
in detailed discussion, shows every appearance of loving it and using it creatively in
eschatologic.al contexts. u TMt did auempl a prope-r explanation. Ile suggested that
the problefn fto m Mauhew ':; 1>0iot 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 ch<lJ'gC. 11le second is th.a.t Mauhcw•s picrul'e or the Son of
man as the C$c.ltonological judge would be just as much atTected by the image of
Jcslt.:; as witness using the first person pronoun as by his usiog the. title 0 u·,Qt; Toil
Ovepc.lrrou. It fOllows that T6dt's explanation is spurious.

12. E.g,. W. G. Kiimmd. Plv"H11itlfimtl Fulfilmel'l: The Etdmm/()f/./t'(J/ Me.ttt(JJ:eC!f.le.~"~~(truns.

D. M. Banon: SBT23: l.oodoo: SCM. 2nd cdn. t961),pp. 44- 5: Ds\•ics aJ)!JAJJisol). M(ltlfrew. \'Ol
2.p. t6.
13. Se-e 1>1). 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
Manhean 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<iy<.l underlines
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 tlle-
tweh•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<fMdrhGosJWI. PI,· 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<l
It fo lh)ws that whe-n this 1\lajor variant is treated as a resuh of the behaYiour M
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<t•g Jessr. Eine Erl.:liinmg dts Marlws·E•'angtlilm•J und der
kommiJchm Purallelen (lkl'lin: de Gruy1cr. 2nd C'dn. 1968), pp. 298-300.
 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
(:.:F-;(~} i :!
acknowk·dg~ before lhe :tngd 11 MGod; cwtyollc who i11 a!JI::tmed of me bcfOf'C me-n (sons of
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 "'<latthean versions of the
saying cannot go back to Jesus himself: 'proof or this is 10 be fOund both in tlle-
content, '"here the confession of Christ is estimated to be the standard Mjudgement
at the Last Day, and also in the form of the senteoce.'·., K5semann attributed the.
24. F. !ol. Borsch, ' Funher Reft.xtioos on "The Son of M:tn": Tile Otigin11 :.nd O~o•vd opmem
of tM: Tide'. in J. f-1. Ch:ufe~wotlh (cd.). THE MESS!:\ H. Dewlopmc-ms in Earliesl Judaism a11d
Citril·tiuni(v, (~finnc-ttt>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.$Cfllann's cornmeuts in auributing h) him the view that this
fom1 had its Si1~ im Leben in the celebration of the Eucharist. He funher proposed
that in Lk. 12.8, 'we have an example o f the Son of Man theology leaving the
eschatological correlatjve fOrm to fu nction in a sim ilar way io ruwther judgn•erual
Gmt uns. ' ' 1 Rejectjng the authenticif>t of Lk. 12.8f. with particular refe-re-nce to the
work of T&dt. Gaston C-01nmented: 'The-li.)nn of the saying agrees so well with the
S5tze heiligen Rechtes which Kasemann has established as a form of prophetic
sayings in the gospels, 1hat it can hardly be denied tll<H Lk 12:8C has be.en given its
presellt !Onn by early Christian prophers. •;t:
None of this should be accepted,_,, In the-first place, it is not d ear that the S1nall
number of sayings c-ollected by Ktisemann form a genuinely separate Gattung with
a specific Si1~ im Lebe11. Edwards auempted a description of the supposed Gatttmg,
largely followiog Perrin: 'The Siit~ hciligen l?echtes or"eschatological-judgement-
pronouncement saying is composed of two parts in which the s.ame verb is used
in each part, in the tirst part referring to man's activity and the second referring
to God's activity", us-ually by puuiog tl1e vetb in the passive voice:~ But some
or the sayings used by Kiisemann dl) nm l'it this detinilion. For example he uses
Lev. 18.5 at Gal. 3.12, 'lie who does them shall Jive by the-m',to show that ' holy
Scripture provided the primitive Christian prophets with the stylistic fom1 in which
to clotl1e-their sentenc.es of holy Ia'"·•Js The more prec.ise the proposed definition of
this Gtlltmrg. the fewer the number of examples. and Kasemann knew that examples
\Ve-re not ' widespread'. Gal. 3.12 also takes us to the se~ond point: this is ffom a
letter by Paul, not from a pronounc.eme1lt by au early Christian prophet Ooly one
of K!ise..-uann's e·xample-s is really frorn an early Christian prophe-t, Re.\•. 22.18- 19,
and e\•eu that close$ a literary \\'Ork. h follows that the propose.d Sit-; im Leben is
quite unsupported. and its assenion for this small group of Gospel sayings is quite
arbitrary.
We must therefore conclude lhat none of these widespread arguments is vaJid.
All of them illustnue the perils of working witholll the use of the original language
spoken by Jesus to he.lp to loc-ate his teaching in his originaJ Jewish culture. We
tnlL~I re-turn to the saying reconstructed above. for a reasonable view of what Jesus
said and me-ant. He declared that people who confessed him on earth in the here and

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 tlle-
here 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
1<o:t 0 ulO:;- t oG O:v6pc..)rrou at this point. This presents a very complex problem.
so 1 deal brie-fly with other details first. In each Gospel. this \'erse end...;; in a very
similar way to the previous one. ~~tatthew has {1-J rrpoolhv Toti rro:tp&; I.JO\I ToU iv
oUpo:voi~. exactly as before. We must regard il as secondary. for Lhe same reasons
as in the pre-vious verse. Luke has iv~rr1ov ti:.v <iyyeA~c.lV ToU OtoU. no more.
than a Greek stylistic variation on lhe previous (1Jnpoo0Ev ti.)v ciyy~Mc..:>v 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 the-
argume-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. Jcl\"'mia.~.
Nt>h' Tt>stam~nl T11eo/ogy. ,,. 7, n. 2~ C:.11cy, Son of Man, pp. 161- 3.
40. Jct\'mias. Nt>w Testamn11 71eeology. t,· 1, n. 2.
192 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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<i TWv <iyynAwv Ti:lv ci:yi(..)V. is a piece.of expansive. midrash
taking oiT frol'n the original ~;17~ "1 ~·~-..;71l 0 1p.
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
a~ is ceo[ral to Dan. 7 . I 3; and the ange-ls must be presupplx~OO as the
K"?..l' P' Tlll
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:

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\<h. I 0.32-33//

41. 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<l.nc.e in uode-rstanding: the significance which Jesus saw in his
ministry. l le regarded il as the fina l event of ,.alvation history which \VOuld condition
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<cxp•WTTJI; (ML 10.4; 26.14; Lk. 22.3: Jn 6.71; 12.4; 13.2,26; 14.22)
are traosliteralions into Greek, first I>'' "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. 1O-
Il ). 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)'<d of Jesus was a p~rtOctly evil ac1, bringing about the-
work of the de,,il by betraying him to perfectly e''il people: we get an overnight
transition from goodness to e.,'il whic.h is indeed impossible to explain. We. cannot
get funher than the most inaccurate and hostile of the Gospel writers: TOn EiaiiAinv
rt~ iKrivov 0 ocxtav<i.; (Jn 13.27, ct: Lk. 22.3).
To understand Judah's 1)10tives, \Ve- must leave Christia1l lt<l.dition behind ar.d
underst<llld him ail a faithful Jew. lie joined the Jesus l)u)vCnle-nt because he saw in

I. This continues to be di.sputod. but it is not rckvanl enough for de-tailed discussion here.
Sec e.g. R. E. Brown. Tlti' Death of lhi' Messialr. A Crmwu:ntory mt the Passim1 l\'arratires ill
lhi' Four GoJpe(s (ABRL 2 \'Ois.. londoi'IINC\v Yotk: ChapmalliDoubl.::day, t994), vot. 2: P~'·
t4 t0-JS. with bibl io~mphy.
196 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

ila 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
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. Sec 1>1). t.l+-6 3bovc: C3S(:y. Aramaic Sm11r:f!S ofMark's Gospt'l. 1)1). 229- 32.
3. 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, ''<hose account diners considerably
from Mark and who has the inc.idents in a different order. adds the words Tic; E-otiV
0 rraloo:c; oE; (lk. 22.64). Manhe,v, whose acco·unt follows Mark 1t10re closely but
by no means slavishly. adds iu.llv, xp•ati aod then the sarne-fiyewords, tic; ionv
0 rro:iao:c; at ; (Mt 26.68). This is very strong evidence that Manhew aod Luke had
ac.cess to a common source.for this pan of the narrative, that it was written in Greek,
and that it related the same incident as '"e find irl t-.'lark.
Similar n""rtlarks apply to Mt. 26.751/Lk. 22.62. He~. where Mk 14.72 has Ko.l
~ rrt~o:A~v ~KA0:1Ev. t>.•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!<led Lhal we should use Qumran Aramsk, in which ' he began (0 weep' would have been
:->:·~'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.s-
l 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<PEiAEv ... TO ... civTou. This strongly S-U££e5l~ that Luke. knew
~·lark. but eYe-!)' word is also titeraJly true. so this is consistent with Luke. having
acc~s h) a non-Marc:ul source \\'hich overlapped \1/ith Mark at .-u)(:ient and accurate
mate-rial. On the other hand, Lk. 22.49 h)l.)ks like .see.o ndary slory-tclling. So is the
p..:.,c.uliarly L:ukan notion that Je..~us healed the-slave's car (lk. 22.51}, a oormally
impossible eYent which produced no favourable reaction among the arresting pru-ry
and was not thought worthy of mentiOil in the Marean tradition. Outside v. 48, there
is no sign of Luke haYing any speciaJ Aramaic source.
Jesus' sa)'ing at Lk. 22.48 itse-lf is oon ethe l es.~J a pc-rfoctJy good exanlple of an
Aramaic idiom. I reconS-tructed it some ye.ars ago,~ and I see no reason to alter that
1\.~onslructi on now:

.:ll"I:O..';Ji V.lX ,:h i?dl .:11i:i"

Judtth, kissing nfthc ~ of man 11nd you betrny him!

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-xtrenle-
c.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 1-
33. 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)!<iJ(K) 1:l, associatir1g
his de-ath with that of othe-r prophets.' The-re is another prediction of his death at
Lk. 12.50. albeit io such metaphorical tenns that it is diflitult h) squeeze. addi ti01~al
in10nllation out M it. As the final e\·ents approached. Jesu-' also used the l)CCa.,ion of
his tinal Passover \!lith his disciples to t)llCr furthe-r interpremtion of his forthcoming
de.ath as ao atoning s.ac1ifice (Mk 14.22-24):' All these predictions hold together
very well. There-should be no doubt that Jesus pre.dicted his forthcoming death
ifl Jerusalem, and ime1preted it as an mooing sacrifice which \\'Ould enable Glxl
to redeem Israel. I lis death \1/0uld ttu.t$ be of fundamental importance in salvation
history.

I. Sec t)f). 131-1 abcwe: Casey. Arumaic Suwr:es ofMar/(s GcstJt'l. pp. 193-218.
2. Sec pp. 134-6 above: Casey. Aramaic Soo1us ofMark'J Gtmlot'l. t>t). 233-- 6.
J. Ct~sey. Aramaic Sollrt't'S of Murh Gmprl. pp. JSS-9 .
4. Sec.further Ca!O:}'. Anwuric StHJIUS ofMark J GostJt'l, t>f). 238-42.
 !Jealh and l?e:mrrectimr 201

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~<piwv Ka'l TWv ypo:utJariGolV
Kat anOICTO:I••hivat KO:I 1Jn0 Tpti~ J}p[pat; 0\IOOTijVO:I.

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 like-
Mk 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~H<lh l e
that we do not have-a full c-Ontext for nm? x nn at 4Q536 I ii 12. In general, human

6. Ca:>cy. 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 ;;~ m· on>
~fan who is born 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
.~Xi!··';~ lc'~·:r ~'(j'

Indeed his ftcsh sutfers upoo him, and his soul mootns O\'N him.

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 tlle-

present 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
<Ht)lte. TI1is is related to how he felt when he was crutified (Mk 15.34). r...h)reover.the
Aramaic fom1 of the prediction was likely to be so interpreted, because the passive
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:
 !Jealh and l?e:mrrectimr 205

~~'71 ;;;oz.;'T X~\:I ~XJ<l7 ld'3X U ~·;;

..~he son of m:tn i~: li:tble 10 suOCr much and b:: rejcc1cd and di~~.

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 !><lid to have c.ootcmplaled
wha1 might happpen (0 him. conunentiog ~-~·u ~J~J n•oy ~. ' If I rise arno1~g the
1ighteou~', or oo the l)ther hand l'\'!01~171 'J'J n·ny r~. 'lfl rise among d1e. wicked'. (y.

Kil 9.4/6(32b)). The word uwitself does not tell us the relationship or his body or
soul. or whatever was left of him. to the re-surrection process.
We must accordingly turn next to oolllemporal)' Jewish beliefs in sur\rival after
death. 11 Jewish documents of our period put fo1ward more than one view of survival
after death. and their commenl~ appear to be related to the sin1ation whic.h they
consider. rather titan lo concepts held by them. They tend to pUl forward something
like a view of resurrection when they conside-r the ge-neral resurrection at whkh
Israel or the righteous will tinally be vindicated. When they c.onside.r the flue of
individuals at death, however. they generally make comments which are more akin
to our concept of immonality.
For example. Oao. 12.1-3 portrays the end of all things, and eovisages the
resurrection of many people at a single moment of time. The reference to their
sleeping in the dusty ground implies that their graves will be empty. though this
is not explicitly stated. This event is placed in the future. Lhough in apocalyptic.
literature this means in the very near future. Contrast J osephlL~' account of the belief
of the. Pharisees. when he considers the fate of people at de-ath.
d&dw.1'0v T£ io>;Vv Tetit; ~~etic;: nlcn·,c;: aUroic;: liVO:I KO.l UtrO xeovOc;:
&tKO.tc..Jot u; TG K(U TtiJdr; o\r; O:ptt"ij:; ·~ KO:K\ ett; i:rnn)&tuOtt; iv Tc;, j:!.(~ y£
"(ovtv, Ka·, roic;: 1.1~v t tpyJJOv dlcS•ov rrporle~oecu, ralc; eX P,o.orWvnv Toli
a v<tf!,toliv. ·

II. 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, 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
work.
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 <l fioal judgement I £u. 22
classifi es the dead in 1enns of rigtueousoes.s and wic-kedoes.o:;, including one group
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<n K?~t .p:om•.l x'71 a:#! r :::o:; ~t'; x·n'.'.:lll! il'.l\"' -,:-
For when !hey rise From the deud they neither lak< wives nor are tnkcn. but lhey are like
angds in the:. heavens.

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-<unu u~nts on Gen. 22.4, beginlliog with a quotation of I los. 6.2, and havir\g the
following among the examples:
.. . oo th~ lhird day <lf Joooh. •and Jonah \lo'S~ i1l 1h~ belly of 1hc fis-h thr~e days' (JOt'L. 2. 1)!
on the lhird .:lay of 1hose retuming fmm !he cxilc, 'and we dwell 1herc fot 1hre~ days' (E:ua
8.32)! oo the-third d:ly of 1hc rcl!urtcclion of the dead, •A ller IWO days he will revive UJI, on
the third dsy he will rajse us up and we ~hall li\·e before him' (Uos. 6.2).

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).
t3. 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<Nrllnd Gla11bt. Da:r fdihe Chrisll"ll/11111 in seiner Urmre/1. Fwgabt> 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.
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
~And 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 <by ttfter day. for il is not fining fru a pmph\'t 10
pclish outiidc krusakm. •

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. Ct~scy. Aramaic Soltrt:t'S of Marh Gmprl. pp-. 188-9.

15. See-funh"rpp. l29-36 abovc.
 !Jealh and l?e:mrrectimr 209

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 <l11d resurrectioo. and il was vel)' important
both at the time and later.
Tile next major pre.diction is at Mk 9.31:
trapo:Si6oTO:I ~it; Xtipo:~ civ&pc.}trGlV, 1(0:•1 c( tiOICT£Vt':lli<HV 0':1T<)V.
'Q uiCJc. -roli 0:v6p<.lnoo
Kai cinono:u6£ic; ~mi tptir, ftiJ{pac; ci:vo:on)onoe.

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 . ~<loreo\'er.
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<ht'llSiJIIII. pp.
288- 300.
17. Lindars, Son of Man, p. 68.
18. Fo••<kf.ailcd d i~u1>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.
210 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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 f<lirly close to ;rr>J ... 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 10.35-
40, 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
1

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 :
'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 1<al Tilv cipxlepi'*lv Kat TC>v 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<oloouolv
a\m)v, all this is vatid nium ex ewmtu based on the actual e.vents of the. passion.
IJET0 Tp~lt;: JiJ.tEpac; 0-vaon)ona•. is identical h) lhe ~lld of rvlk 9.31. Ouc.e again,
the•efOre, we ltllL~I conclude that ,..,latk wanted to present anolher prediction ofJeS't.L<;'
death and resurrec.tjon, but thai he did not have a satisfactory alternatiYe 10 Mk 8.3 1
to present.
 !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&<iKo~ou8oUvnc;
E¢>o~livTo (r\<lk I0.32). While then~- may be some truth in this, E¢of!o\ivto is the
same. a~ at Mk 9.32, and it does OOl make historical sense of the behaviour of Jacob
and John in the. ve.ry next pericope, where they are obviously neither amazed nor
frighte-ned. Again. however. it makes excellent sense. of the rvtarcan theme of the
disciples' lack of understanding .
Tile fOllowing conc.lusiOI\S may therefOre be drawn. Mk 8.31 is a some.what
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
4

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.
.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:"'OT<rv o'&v t6nn TO ~~vy~a n1c; ipn!Jc.lOH.ll; TOPl"let.v OtO: 6av1M ToU
rrpo¢~Tou Eor6c; Ev TOn~ O:yl~. 0 civo:ywc..)oK(.;)I.' ~i T(.) . .. . The abomination of
desolation is mentioned at OaJl. 9 .27; 11.31; 12. I I. It has obviously been updated and
interpreted esc.hatoh)gically. The-re \\'Ould be no difficulry in seeing the destrucLil)tl
or the-Temple, foretold at Mt. 24.2 , ifl an updated ioterpretatil)n M Dan. 9.26-27.
lnterpn..->L"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.He-
al.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 tlle-
language 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 >jl<uoorrpo4>1]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-:<p•-e-~;:;sion ~ rropouoia roV uiOO rOO O:v6pc.lnou (Mt. 24.27).
II al~o appears 10 be !rue of the opening Q saying: i:O.v oUvt'l ITc.lOIV u~.~t v, 'ftioU iv TO
ipq~c,> EOTtV, ~i) i~<AOnn· "loou iv Toi~ TQ~OtOl~ . pi) rrurnuOTjT< (MI. 24.26).
Here idv + subj . aod 1.1~ TTIOTtUOllTE are the same as at Mt. 24.23//r..,fk 13.2 I. from
which they have presumably been taken to form a clearc.onnecting link. H:wing had
i:ltiE ... <5c5E at ~·It 24.23, Matthew now elabomtes with Ev tfl i:p~IJc.>: 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·· <t>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 <i-vOpc.lnou Epxc)ptvov E·nl

3. J. krc'mias. The Pwuhles (Jf JeJtu· (tuns. S. 1-1. Hooke. london: SCM. 2nd C\ln. t963),
p. t62 1\. <16.
216 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

rWv ~41tAWv roV oUpavo\i IJtt<i 6uvci1JEWt; Ko:i OO~nc; noAA~.;. Two small
changes from Mk 13.26 show Manhew de-libe.rald y and consciously using: the •e-xt
of Dan. 7. I 3 himself: the replaceme-n t of iv with 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<Hately followed by the gathering (ouv<i~t l)
of poople fn)m Israel aod Judah from the li.)ur con1en> 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:<l bas
o'1:i7 oJ ~iv:11 (Tg ~--o.•:ni7 nK l)lVJ''l; Pesh ~oo:.i7 KnK 7l;?W'Jl). Manhe\\ has added in the
1

trumpet at r-.·11. 24 .3 1, perhaps using Isa. 27 .13, for in both p.as,.~;ages the souoding
of the tnunpet is followed immediately by the gathering of the exiles. The same
complex of hope is found in the tenth benediction:

4. For dclaj!cd djscussion, set J. A. Dr:'lp.:or. ' The Ocvclopn~m of "thl.' Sign of Lllc Son of
Man" i.n the Jesus Tradi1ion •• l'lfTS 39 (t993). pp. t- 2 L
 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-:<act lime-
of the End. not even the angels or the Son. but only the Father. by adding the word
p6vo;. so ending with the very forceft1l El ~n 0 rro:Tnp JJ6vo:;. This has c-.aused
trouble to Christian commentators from the. patristic period onwards. but it is
pe.rrectl>' 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<lieJ (lcidoo: Brill, 1995). pp. 2 77-SO.
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. 24.40-
411/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;<tTO:t ... {Mark I 3.35). This also l'onns
a naturaJ link to the-sec.ond parable. fro m this next piece of Q material. in which the
authoritative-tlgure who remms unexpec::.tedly is again 0 KUptOt;. Secondly. we will
1\."CaJithat this is a term used by other New Testament writers inalluding totJ1e second
coming of Jesus. So Paul. for example, declares that 0 KUptoc; ... KaTa~rionat
ci:rr' oUpo:voU ( I Tiless. 4. I6); one of the deutcro-Paulinel> 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<linly inc.h!ded the little story of Mt. 24.43/fLk. I2.39, and an earlier versil)n
of the warning in the following verse. The title 0 u'u)c; ToU OvOpWrrou should be
regarded as secondary. The collocation of 0 uiOt;- ToU O:vOp<.lrrou and £px~TO:I must
be regarded as due to the unde.rlyiog inlluence of Dan. 7. I3. We have alread)' seen
tvlanhew deliberately u..o;ing this text at Mt. 24.30, editing Mk 13.2 6. which alre.ady
made midmshic use of this same text. This means that Matthew used this text in
Greek. deriving both 6 uiOc; ro\i O:vOpc.)rrou and Epxno:• from it. Apa11 from Mt
24.42, which I have alre-.ady discussed, all synoptic releretlc-es to Jesus' comi1lg m
his parousia use both 0 ulOc; roU O:v9p<.lnou and fpXOIJO:I. as references elsewhere.
in the New Testameot do not. The use of Dan. 7.13, whic-h we-have already seen to
be-oonscious for both Mark and Matthew. is the only possible explanation for this.11
Accordingly, the addition of 6 uiO; ToUOv8pc..)rrou has an excellent Sit-; im Leben
in the midrashic worK of the e.arly church, and in Greek.
It is more dillicuh to believe in satisfadOI')' Aramaic. or to find a satisfactory
Sit~ im Lelxw fOr this term in the teaching of Jesus. I have attempted .'til Aramaic.
reconsU11c-tion e.lsewhere.:9

1. The s:une canno1bi.' ~:.jd of the- non·c~hawlogie-JI par:. lkl~ in Gos. 711tnlt 2t . t03.
S. Se-e furthi.'l Casey, Srm of Mall. pp-. 162-4.
9. 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
4

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..:<h oc;
TOi~c..lnpo•r EK~t Eara10 KAaueiJOt; Kal 0 ~puy1JOc; rC>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
4

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

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<ll a.~; il ma)', the main point is c.lear. rvtauhew':o> 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 the-
c.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 Ri<htet: Ut1/trsuch1mgen :,mn

trcrdilitm.rgescltic·hJiiclren Or/ J~r Mt'tl.'>t'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 (1978-
9), I'll· 355-9? (378- 83).
12. Sec pp. 9t- t1t above.
222 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

~tuthew 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
'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
n
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.

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<d by Munson, Suyi11g:r. p. 142.
t7. Black, 'Aramaic Dimc•t~i oo inQ'. p. .19.
 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
$<ln'le in both evangelist>; (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-<uHparisoo
to the days of Lol, especially his escnp! from the wicked city of Sodom which \Vas
de-stroyed by God with fire and brimstone- (lk. 17.28-29). Wlte.ther this stood in
r-.·tmtiiC\V's Qsource is quite uncertain. The Son l)f man SHHcmem at the end certainly
did. for it is found in both e.\•angeli.sts. Matthew has exactly the same. form of words
at Ml. 24.39 as in the lWl) previous occu~nc-es (r\<(1. 24 .27,37): oUt w.;- faTal t)
napouoia TOU uioU toG avepc..lrrou. Luke is diffe-rent both from Matthew and
fro m his other comments elsewhere. so he may well be reproducing his source with
little change at this point: KaT<i: td aUt O: Eotal U~~ipQ: 0 u'161; Toli O:v9pc.lnou
c:i:rroKaAVn nto:L This is diO'crent language fOr the single e''c.nt l)f Je-sus' secon-d
Ol)llling. The use of the verb 1 reveal' is rel'uiniscent of the cognate noun at I Cor. 1.7,
where Paul has the Corinthians await Titv cinOKciAt41v t oU KVpl ov ~~Wv 'lnooU
Xp1otoU. It is again striking that where Luke has au<Hher fOrm or words ror this
major event, a l'ca.)ible Aramaic underlay cannot be reeoustruc.red. It follo'''S that
anything Iike the p~scnt fonn of these Son of rnan sayings first existed in Greek,
and that Luke. like Mauhew, regarded 0 ulOc; t oG O:vepc..lnou as an imponant title
of Jesus in Gri'ek.
These sayings comparing the days of the Son of man to the people of the da)'Sof
Noah and lot are fOllowed by more.sayings which imply large-scale casualties. The
firs• one (Lk. 17.31) ha.<a close parallel a! Mk 13.15-161/MI. 24. 17-S, ' " il probably
stood in this same section of Q material inherited by Luke. whereas f\•lntthew
preferred the tv1arcan version in its tv1an::au position. One more saying of this kind
<:·001es fi'om dle-same sec.tion of Q (Lk. 17.35//Mt. 24.4 I}. Luke then ha.:;; his own
introduction to his somewhat edited version of the saying about vultures:
.:a't dno~<pt&EVTEr; ).fyouotv au,.c;, n ov. KVpn: 0 8£ t,mv ooi-Toic..'Orrou TO Oc.:liJO. i:~a:i
.:a't ol O:no'• ln.ouvax&rioor.rra• (LI.:. 11.37. cf. Mt. 24.28).

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
Otla 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;
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<ll'l)' from the above discussioo. ln a ll three sayings, the tenn 6 u'1 6c;
ToU O.v6pc:.)rrou is a Iitle M Jesus at his second c.oming:. ll)at much is jus1as d eal'
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) \\'<lS a C-01nparisoo ofthe appearing orthe Son of rnan to lightning.
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<iT< ~T£ On ~yytKEV
~ ~pf1~Co."l0tt,; aUTTt;- ... 1.-poooo:"~IJ foTo:t ncnouJJillfl UnO Eev~v. cixp• 00 nAI'jp<o)8~otv
t::o:1poi (&vc;)v.

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¢<<Ao pn cl SwOue<.Y; tr:o't
~ry; rroh)iy; (lk. 2t.27).

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.
 Oilier Synoptic Sayings 229

the altetation of Mark's i v vt.jlEAa1c; to iv veq>~An. This fits in '"ith a very literal
tutderst<lllding of luke's story of the Ascension (Acts I. 9 -11). He must then:: fore
have believed this prediction in a literal way. Whether he perceived any reference.
to Dan. 7.13 is doubtful. lie retait'tS the •e-lltl 0 uiO;- roU OvOpc.lnou. together with
fpx6JJevov. the cruc-ial indicators of the intlueuce of Dan. 7.13. Dut we know that
Luke took lhese. and everything else which could ultimately come fro m Daniel.
direcdy from Mark. The change from vt4liAatc; to v~q>iAn 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.
n
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

20. Nolland, Lul:.t'. p. 1009.

21. 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<ri&v ;00 .St&ioutv ~:ol .:ru:Noottv Ev roir.; nOkto!V aUT~v {r\h. I I.I).

h is unde!'standable, lherefol'e, lh<lt Sch,lleitur ioterpreted the saying in this

historic context We have seen that the coming of the Son of man in ~·lnnhew refers
consistently to the parousia. Schweitzer accordingly interpre-ted this saying as an
onfuJfilled predicljon lh<ll Jesus' pan)USia \\'Ould take place during the- hisroric
ministry.::.t There are lhree se!'ious prt)bfems wilh this interpretation. In lhe iirst
place. it is dinicult to fit in with Jesus' other p!'edictions of his fo r1hc.oming: death in
Jerusalem. Secondly, any underlying Aramaic has to include a reference to Daniel
7. I have previously suggested a possible-reconsttuctioo M lhe dilli<:.uh p <ll1, Mt
(0.2)b;N

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. C3r.<y. S01u{Man. p. l &5.
25. 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<uthe\~ ill especially l ikc.ty to have d arili ed it and rect)rded
ils I'Uifilmeut. rather than orniuing the end of the missio1t, as he has done. Another
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<ll11y re fetring to I he present
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 Mutrh<i11S 10.13. Gtschkhte seint'r AllslegiiJig (BGBE 9. TUbingcn: ~·h>hr
(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'hommc-
n.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 rn<rrn:i, ICO:I OfliJ Eiov<>U &&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
rec.ord~ 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:
.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

h) 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
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 <one of the prophets'. Tilese are verdicts which the early church
would not have the slightest interest in making up. and which have an excellent Sit;,
im Leben in the Judaism of Jesus'1ime. tvlatk then interpolmcd Peter's confess ion oU
El 0 XP•OT6c;. and his ·messianic secret', followed by his heavily redacred versil)ll
or Jesus• geouine prediction of his forthcorniog death. In a de-tailed discussion, I
have sought h) establish that the genuine prediction did c.l)utaill tlle-term (~)lLiJ(~) 1~,
which was reasonably translated with 0 u'u)c; roG O:vOpc.lnou. in accordnnce wilh
a delinable translator's strategy. This prediction was then s-ubjected 10 sec.ondary
de\'elopment J'
tvlauhe\1/ contirn1ed llle- editorial proc.esses already visible- i1l Mark. h1 his
intn)(Juction to the act\1al prediction (ML 16.2 1), he supplied a subject, named as
'h)ooUc;-. to which he may have added XPIOTOc; (read by K' B'). Among his mafl)'
alterations to the prediction itself is the replacement of T0v v'~<)v ToU O:vOp~nou
with alm)v. so that it is no longer a specifically Son of man prediction. Jo Jesus'
question which introduces d1e whole incident. Matthew replaces pti with T0v viOV
TOU a vepc..)rrou, so that •he-edited question at tvlt 16. 13 rll)W !'e'~idS:

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.

2J6 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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:

The mamL~cript 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
 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 y<ip 0 ui~ ToV Ctv&pc..lnou £pxoo6cu iv ;-(i ~n Tcii rrcnp&; o:UTOO lJe-tcX Ti>v
ci~~v oVroU. t:a·, Tirn .Xno.Sc.lott E~eOoTG,> Ko:T<i nlv npa~tv o.VtoO.

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). These-
poin 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<lt 0 uiO:;- ToU O:vOpul nov and j3cxo•~£ia are
not ~sociated either frequently. or in ;.mything which looks plausible as the e.arliest
layer or the traditioo. h is emirely appropriate-lhat l11ey are associated here. where
Matthew·s e.ditorial ac.ti,'ity shows awareness of his use of this texl. Otherwise. the
two tenns are associated only at Mt. 13.41 in the whole. of the. synoptic tradition,
and we have seen that 1\.·l t. 13.41 is e-ntirely due to secondary Matthean editing.
Moreover, the kingdorHor God was c.emral hHhe teadting of Jesus. If Dan. 7. 13-14
had bee-n the mai1l source.or his use or (~)iilJ(K) -u, 1he IWl) tenn..~ w-ould surely haYe
been use.d together more often. and in tradition whic.h showed some signs of being
primitive. Matthew's late and soooodary edilorial procedures are eultumlly pe-rfectly
in place in Jesu.:;• environment This is part of the evidence lhat this kind or use of 0
u·ux: roG avap(o)nou is sec.ondary.
32. s~ 1)1). 191- 3 above.
33. SCi: further pp. 189--92.
34. See ,,,,. 21 S--6 above.
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. E.g. Fitzmycr, Luk~. p. 635.
36. 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~<rx:i~(,))tV.J 7
The Aran~aic. word VJJ has a large semantic area, it is the mos1obvious equivalellt
of EKrxiAA(.), and it is c.onscquenlly used he-re by sin cur pe-sh. None of Black's
parallels are hO\ve\'e.r quite the same as the proposed usage in this saying. and all
are M l'nuch later date-. I have accordingly preferred to use ncJ. This word l)CCurs
ill E2ra 6. 11, and in later Jewish Aramaic. s.tl il will have been io use at lhe time of
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. Black. Aramaic Approoch, p. 165.

3&. 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 <nTiioocKo:'t oWoat TOcirtoA(o)).&; (U . t9.10).

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 ro vt:!f!tha~ ~nO &uvci~ec,y;
no>.Air; w:ai ~ry;.

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 ~<h1rk.
The other secondary Son of man saying in Mark is equally clearly embedded in a
secondary context and part of a fnidra..o;hic.C·Otnbinatiou of SC1iptural te-xts. II conM!'s
at the climax of Je,;u..o;' trial bell)re the high priest, Joseph Caiaphas. It is well knO\IIfl
that the account of the. trial has many pecul i ariti es. ~: These basically begin after the
di.::ciples had tled (tvlk 14.50·52), so it is a rea~nable conjecture that Mark supplied
information at points wbe.re his source material failed him. After problems over the.
question of the destruction of the Temple. the high priest asks what is, in tenns of
the Marc.an narrative. a leading question:
IU <1 0 XptoTOc; 0 v'10; TOO tV>.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, the-
use 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 KOeitiJ<VOV ;ijt; Ouvci:u<<.Y; Ka'l
ipx~vov IJZTO: Ti>v ~~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 h<l\'C-Dan. 7.13 in midrashic combination with at least one other Old
Testament text with O$:o6-E probabl)' fro1n Zech. 12.10, and iK &~tC:.v Ka9~1JEVOV
Ti)c; Ouvci!JE<:.:>c; 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<k:r, 'Chrilll at 1he Righi Hand- Ps.CX I in the New Tes~amem'. ,\rr-5
24 ( 19?7-8), pp. 1 99-228~ M. Gowgcs,.-\ /.a DmiJe dt Dit'll. Risllrti!C'Iion <le Jistu t'l MrualisutiOJt
du Psmmtt 110:1 dans It i\'oan't'cur Testammt (EBib. P.Jris: Gabskb, 1978).
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
Sit:; im Lebi'll 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 <H Mt. 2 4. 42).*~ It was not characteristic of Jesus ro deal
with a topic only in such rigidly scriptural terms. Secondly, the resurrection of the
Son of man and his coming are never combined. even though the}' are alternative
indications of his vindication: this implies a separate origin for these two groups of
saymgs.
This concludes a massive argument of cumulative weight The.se. tv,oo sayings
are certain!}' secondary. This is a quite fundamental result. though it is not new.
It means that our oldest Gospel Ct)nmins seven uses of the term Son of man ir1
authentic sayings of Jesus. five sayings which \\ ete developed from two or nw1-e
1

authentic predictions of his death and resurrection. and only two sayings which
have resulted fron\ the-lflidrashie- aclivities of the early church. It has Mten beeo
argued that many Son of man sayings must be authentic sayings of Jesus because
the term is so common throughout all four Gospels. We can now see that our oldest
Gospel does in fact have a distribution of sayings that is entirely consistent with
SUC-h infererle·CS. It ShO\VS h0\1/ the u.:;e Of d1e term Q v'u)t; ToV avep(.)ITOU began.
The Aramaic (~)IV:.(~) u was used in authentic sayings l)f Jesus. The Greek 0 vi~
ToU O:vGp(.)rrou was ulied to translate it. h wa.:;; thcrefon:- used in the expansion of the
predictil)OS of Jesus' death aod resurrectil)O. expansions which satisfied a profouod
need M the e.arly church, fOr whic.h Jesus' death aod resu•Tec.tion were of central
 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<nulded
on the work M Mark in his 1\!JO secondary sayings (Mk 13.26; 14.62). While Luke
cannot be shown to have made cooscious use of Dau. 7.13 hil'nself, irs deliberate-
use by both Mark and Matthe-w shows that the ioflt1ence of I his text is one reason
for the predominam use of 6 uiO; ToU clvepc.lnou with eschatologic-al reference in
secondal)' sayings.
The other reason for this dominant eschatological reference-was the need for
it. One or the churth's mos1 profOund need:;; wa.~; to believe. in 1he second comiog
or Jes-us. In Mauhew, \\'e can see 1he creative stage of this oeed ill full now. and
in Mark we can see. its clear beginnings. Finding the tenn 6 u'a<X- ToU O:vEipc..lnou
in both scripture and tr.tdition with deliber.11e esc.hatological refe-rence, Matthew
expanded this usage crea tively, inventing the e-xpressive term r) rrapouola ToU
v'1oU ToU O:vep<.l nou. whic.h describes the churc.hes• need so be.autifully. Luke's
usage was diflt-renl, because he \VJ'Ote so much later. In se.coodary sayings, he still
uses 6 u'iOc;- ToU O:v6pc..lnou predominantly with eschatologicaJ reference. because
this is what his soorces transmitted to him. and he was happy with it. The passage
of time. however. made. it esse-ntial for him to show thm Lhe second coming of Jesus
should nol have been expected sooner. On the olher baJld, like so 1t1any Christians
down to the present day. he remained ferve.nt in his belief that the Son of man would
oome soon.
We are now in a position to see the.overaJI shape of the solution to the Son of man
problel'll. TI1e lirs1 sayings were the authentic sayings of Jesus studie.d ln Cbs 4-8.
A second group resuJted frOill the development of one or more predicrions of Jesus'
death and resun-ection. studied in Ch. 9. A third group began from the use of Dan.
7. 13 at Mk 13.26 and 14.62, and wa.-1) subsequently expanded into the eS<'hatological
sayings of Matthew and Luke. There is more to say abolll the. transition process
from (K)l.Vl(K) 1~ to 6 u'l()c; ToU O:vepc..)nou. to be considered in the-next chapter.
 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:<atnple Itare arguiog
that the. translator should have put CivOpwnoc; or viOt;- O:vOpc.)nou, A.Y. Collins
civ6pw rroc;. and Ross. 0 <iv6pwrro; oUToc;, civOp<o:ITToc;, Tt.; or CivOp<olTTat; n c;:'
Such vie-\'>'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. ScC (). I8ai)IWC.
2. krcmins. Nr:w Talumem 71teolog)', p. 260.
3. 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 <quh•atence. concd ved of as sameness across languages. The tmnsluted
te.xl will never be: the snme ~ the soun."C text. Morrovcr. there is ah'l'.t)'S a conle:"~;t in which
trSnJ>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 <iv6pc.lrrov IOUSt now be made. I again argue l1lat, given
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. Burkett. ScJt t>f.4/(JJt Dtbutt·. pp. 90. 93. Sec funhc1• pp. 47- 8 above.
5. 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!<l~•dam: B..-,lj.amins.. 1997), pp. S7-9S (8-.&-9). FOC' discussioo of the
OOlleepl of equiv:~lcnct in 1\."<'em schob rSihip. 11ec S. liatverson, · n~ Conec1>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<nion Studies.
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 vooot<ic; a ll the. same because. literal
translation wa..o:; his preferred solution to d1at kind ofdiniculry. Neubert sunHHarizes
our knowledge. of modem translators in a similar siwation, noting that translators
may read their translations with Lhe original texts still in the back of their minds.
Consequently, translations, through interference-. qualify as second-rate targe-t
texls: the.y read differently from originaJ texts.': At Gen. 6. 14. the translamr·s use
of voootcic; will have been controlled by D'Ji7 in a wa)' that the use of vooou:ic; in
a tnt)Ut)glot G~ek-spe-aker C-Ould llOt be. The use or 6 viO:; TOG a vepc:.)rrou as a
translation of (K)i?J(K) 1:! may fruitfull y be viewed as a more e-xtensive example M
the same phenomenon: when a bilingual translator read his version of sayings such
as tvlk 2.28 and 14.2 1, he c.ould see the original idil)tn \!Jhich he had translated in a
way that \WIS not possible for a monoglot speaker of Greek.
These two important points. interference in bilinguals and the increase in
interference among tmnslators. show that the fom1of a language spoken by bilinguals

10. K. Klaudy, Lang11oges ill TnmslaJiort. UclllJY'S OJtllre Them)'. 1C.udrillS und Pmclia of
Trmululimr cTta.ns.. T. J. de. Kornfd d, P. Hehai. K. K~roly and K. Kl.sudy: Budat>est: 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}<iJ(K) 1~ changed into 6 uiO:; ToU
OvOpc.lnou during the. translation process panly because the-Gospel writers needed
Christological titles.
Deliberate changes during the translation process are sullicienlly \\1idespread to
have given rise to the .t kopas theory of tmns1ation. 10r which the change-S for the
target c.ulture form the main point. IS For example, seguinot studied the lranslation
of ten articles in Le Mamie for The Guardi(ll1 l'll'ekly in 198 1. looking lOr changes

13. R. Appd and P. Muyskcn. La11guage Crmtact and Bili11,~ualism (l o.)don: Amold. 1987),
p-. 83. Cf. L Sclinkcr, Redi.,·awerillg fllltrlan.~tm.~t· (londoo: long_man, 1992}.
14. A. Neubert. Tt>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<lrget \'ersions l)f the texts. and class-i li ed
these as increased readability/explicitness (50%). adaptatiorl to the targel audience
(21 %), reductions in e motive and figurative laoguage {2 1%), increased objoctivity
(4%). a nd reductions in journalistic style (4%). Here the need.~; of the target cultu1'e
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<HI and Quality (Clc:vcdon:
Multilingual M:~nm l td. 1998).
1&. M. L:~my. 'lc TClll:l.Ol<.'-111de Saini Ephrcm lc Syrkn', C<Hnpte nmdu dct/V' C<Higrt;S
Seiet~lijiqur~ f111emulic1Jwl tii!S Cmlwllq~tes. Premihv: Set:litm. Scimc."t'.t Rellf:ie•r.~et (1898} pp.
173- 209 ( 174): R. 01.1\':JI, ' lc- TC!iltuncm <k: Sa.im Epltrcnf. Jmmwl Mialiqut' set 9, IS (1901}. pp.
234- 319 (240).
 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)<oiJ(K) .,~ show·s that the expression
itself did not resuh fron1SUCh tree traoslation.ln considering whole sayings, however.
'''e have.to take account of the fact that the Gospe.l writers were completely immersed
in the target c-ulture. The Jkopos theory of translation. and the prnc.tic-al examples of
the Targums and the Testament of£pltraem show us how far translators might go. At
this pl)int. we mu:.111bear in mind also the nanu-e or rnidra.sh as we find it for example
in lhe GeneJiJ Apocrypltmr. Here some verses of Genesis have been tr.mslared into
Aramaic. and the whole story has been massiw ly dewloped in accordance with
the author(s)' aims M teHing stories about traditional figures lOr Ar.unaic-speakjng
Jews. TI1e development of the pas..~ ion predictions propt.)sed in Ch. 9 fits into the
wry varied picture of the possibilities available to translators who were also Gospel
writers. or to Gospel writers who worked closely with trnnslmors. The editing of
Mark by Matthew and Luke also illust r.~ tes how much editing could be done in
Greek. All this needs to be taken into account in considering the de.velopmem of
Son of man sayings as a whole.
Whereas some translators are relatively or eve.n extremely free. others are.
c-Onsistently literalistic. Perhaps lhe best known in l)ur field is Aquila, who tranltlatOO
the Pentateuch imo Greek very literally, even rendering the l lebrew n...:: with the
Greek aUvwheo nK rneaus only that the-next \1/0rd will be the objec.t of a verb.19 0 ther
literal translations include the syrohexapla to the Old Testalllent and the llarklean
wrsion of the. New. Such liternlism is very helpful if one is trying to reconstruct an
original text: it greatly increases the proponion of c.ases in which only one original
text c-Ould have-given rise to such a tran~lati on. h is lbrtunate that some Son l)f
man sa)1ings in lhe Gospels have been translated into Greek so literally that we can
reconstruct them in Aramaic. Some of them are even embedded in c.ontexrs which
have been translated equally literally. I have argued this thJt)ugt\l)ut Chs 4-8. Tile
sayings studied in these.chapters. and the contexts of some of them, tit perfec11y into
a model of relatively literal translating. This is in no way unusual. and it is important
that lite-ral aspects Of lhe translatioo of(!\)WJ(K) 1J with 0 v·u)t; TOU avepWrrou fit
perfectly in1o the-known habits of more literal tmns1ators.
Many tmnslators vary in lhe exfent of their literalism. The LXX is like this if
treated as a single translation. '"hich of course it is not. It is howeve.r a partial
parallel to the Gospels. in that Lhe later translators knew at leas! some of Lhe work of
the eal'lier ones. Looking at the rende1ing of DIN p in the LXX as a \Vhole, we tind
that it generally \Vent for uiO; clvOpc.lnov, but that the~ are two e-xceptions, lsa.
56.2: ciuepc.lrro:;-. and Ps. 146.3: u'roUc; O:vOp<.l nwv. Of these. lsa. 56.2 is just free

t9. 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 <imbbc, •Aquils's
Translarion a.ld Rabbinic- Exeg.:sis'. JJS 33 (19S2). J)t). 527- 36; A. Paul, 'ls Bible g_recquc d'Aquila
•.'1 l'idOOI\'.gic du jud:!li~1nc anekn', AlVRIV 11.20. 1 ( t98.7), pp. 22 t -45: J. Ziegler. 'Ok Wicd~"rgabc
der nota acrusalivi 'e-1. 'al'l mit oW'. ZA \l' tOO ( t9SS Supp.). pp. 222- 33.
252 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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 <iv6pc.lrrou, we find evidence-or a
dec-ision wholly in accordance with the known habits of translators in their culture.
This dmws aue-ntion to another nlajor fac.e( of the traoslation process. Translators
may drliberately retain visible aspe<::ts of the source language and culture-when
this is \\'hat the-mrget culture-needs. The LXX is an Otl l~taodiog exanlple of this. It
includes a number of expressions whic-h are not found in monoglot Greek, such as
iyiveTo ... Kai (e.g. Gen. 21.22. tOr 1 ... •;r1). Expn.""Ssions like this ensured that
the Greek language of the LXX was as distinctively Jewish as its context. This was
ideal forthe need;; of Gree-k-speaking Jewish communities. ll meant that they C-Ould
understand their sacred text in Greek, and that at the same lime the. language of their
sac:red •exl was dis•iJlCti\•ely their owl!, significantly diflerent from the Greek of
secular and pagan works. The LXX was the Bible of the e.arly Christian churches,
so that distinctive.ly Jewish Greek was a central pan of their cuhure. The effects
of this are visible aU over the New Testament Some of the best examples are in
the Gospel of l uke, '"ho is justly faJnous tOr writing the best Greek of the throe
synoptic Gospels, and some of the best in the New Testament. For example. he. too
uses EyEv~To .. , Kat (e.g. Uc 5. 17; 8. 1), and it is notoriou;. that his birth narratives
are distinctively Septuagintal in style. ~• In 1his way, luke faithfully served the oeeds
of CJuistian communities who nee.ded distinctively Christian Gospels. All three of
the synoptic- evangelist.; recall the Jewish culn1re of Jesus in language as well as
in content. This made them quite unique, and marked the"m off from tJ1e secular
aod pa_gao culture of the Grec-0--Romao world, as \\'CII as li'OI'n Jesus' Aramaic-
speaking Judaism. This is the. cultural Sit:; im Ube11 M the production of the rnajor
<llristologicnl title 0 ulO; Toii CwOp<o)rrou.
This is related 10 anothe-r major filc.et t)f translation studies. the- discus.~ ion M
strategie$. Translators laced \\'ith significant problems in 1he translation of material
fro m one language into another may take deliberate decisions as to what they

20. E. T1w, '1'he Sc-ptuaginl', Mikra (c<l M. J. Mulder ::md H. Sysling; CRINT II, I . A~l'll
Ma:-.J~trit<bt/Pbiladctphia~ Van G(}(eunVFotlre!ls. 1988) t)!). 161- 88 ( 112).
2 1. cr. e.g. Fit1.mycr. Lukt>. pp. 107- 27, ' Luc:-.nlanguagc :-.nd St)'lc'.
 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 the-
most 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: equivalence-
is 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

T he tratlslation of (s.}'dJ(K) -u with 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 tlte-
most 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

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 <iv8p(.)rro; have been used
to tran.slau: (K)iiiJ(K) 1:), \\re can no longer lell. 11le-re are howeve.r passages where our
Greek text has ci\ISp(.)TTOl";, and (x.)Wl(K) 1J would rn ake perfeclly good idiom.atic
se-nse. For example, rnar\)' Aramaic slories begin tiiJ "U 1rt The parable of the Good
Samaritan is one of severaJ whic-h begin <i-vSp(.)rro; n .; (Lk. 10.30): this might be
a translation of ~:l 1J m. AI Mk 7. II. Jesu.:;• ver·sion of a leac.hiog of scribes and
Pharisees begins Edv ti'rro Civ9p<.:~rr01;: this co uld be a translatioo of\dJ ,:t 10s lK
o r c.ourse., there "'ill always be UllCertainty about any ir,di,•idual exarnple, but 1his
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<! (K)"'l(K) 'Il would make perfectly
good idiomatic sc.nse. For example., at tvlt. 5.16 ~JmpooOw r~v ci:v6pc.ln(...)V might
be a translation of (K)Wl(N} ,ll D'JP, while at Lk.. 13.4 rrcivrac; roUe; OvOpc.lrrouc;
could be a ltanslation of (x}Wl(K} 'l:l i>:~. 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:vOp<olrrou. using the. emphatic. Kciyc.l twice. with the verb
accordingly in the fi~t perso-n singular.~r. Whereas the.use of 0 uiOc; toU O:u6pi:>rrou
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.
1

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 1

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:
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.t<v l"Wv KaTci niv ipil!lwio:v m¢nXoffor.oi}I.Jh'Go)v Tto'iv l"t:w Ai~<.>v
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. Se-e pp. 140- 3 above.

26. Set' funhM pp. 183- 6 t~bo.·w~.
27. 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 !<C'<'m to have faJkn !iliott in the interpretation of some
V.'Ords. despite the gl'(-~lt e--fforts spent on the tr,lnslntioo. For whut is exprl:$..;00 in Hebrew
docs not huve the !<;1me me3ning when il is trllnsluted into another l!inguage. And not only
this work. but the. Law itself t~nd the prophets and the rest of lhe books differ not a lillie when
read in the original (Sit . Pml. 15·26}.

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 inst<lnces. when a man or boy
is the biological son of anothe.r person. This usage is very common. as for example
when 2 Kgs 15. I describes Azariah as ;T:i?:lK p , LXX v'u)c; 'AIJEOOtou (IV Kgdrns
15.1 ), Tg. :1'17.!K u. Like\llise in n<H'ural Ara!'naic, Zechariah is described a,t; Kl1li 1~
(E2ra 6. 14), LXX u'uii A&Sou (2 Esd. 6.14), Pesh. 11!01 "\J . The plural is common in
the same .se.JlSe of pe.ople's biological sons, as \!Jheo we are 1old that Noah fathe-red
~rJJ :ir:h'O (Gen. 6. 10), LXX Tp{ic; v'•oUc;, Onq. l'JJ ;m?n. Tile sallle •enos are used
when a mother is said ro have give1l binh to a son, ::t.t; lOr example at Ge-n. 30.23,
where Rachel p17n,LXX (nKE\1 ... v'•Ov. Nel)f. 1J m-7. They are all>O 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
<i rro1K~olac; f0t~Til7) 'D (Ezra 6.16): at Ezek. 44.7 u'1o~ ci:XAoy~vEtc; lbr -oJ ~:~J.. Tg.
K'J).':!li 'l~; at Ezek. 44.9 rr0c; u'16t; ciAXoywr}c; tOr -oJ p ?:-. T,g.. K'l'lO!i' 'D 7J; at Dan.
2.25 11)eod. Ti.lv u'u:7;,v nY; o:ixJJaAc.JOlac; Tijc; 'loutiaiac; tOr 11;r ~ Ml'l 'D, Pesh.
11:1'1 KirJUi ~JJ,; and at Dan. 11. 14 11lMd. ol u'l01 Ti.)v Aot)Ji.lv Toii XaoU oou for
~v ':l-....1:> 'JJ, Pesh. 10!01 K;li' 'JJ. lllese examples illustrate agai1lthe precise perc.eive.d
equivalenc.e bCh\ ef'-n p , 1~, <H1d uiO:;-.
1

It is this precise perceived equivaJe.~ce which explains the use ofu'iOc; lOr p in more
metaphorical examples too. For irt.:;tance. at I Kgdms 20.31 we find v'1 C:t; OavciTou for
mop ( I Sam. 20.31 ), Pes.h. ~mo u ; at I Kg.drus 26.16 v'lo16crvatc.)rc..>; 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),
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; E'iKOOl Kat 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\(;-;) •:a "'ith (oi)v'•o'i t C>v civSpc.lnc.:Jv. The 106e:«11llples of
Lhe singularv'u:.; ciuepc.lrrou arc i1l ellOCt fewer tlu'ln the)' appear at li!St sight. because
tlle-93 examples of the vocative u'•S O:vepc.)rrov in the book of Ezekiel re..suhed from
a single decisio1l. In additiOil to this. hl)wever. there are still a dozen examples spread
over six dilloreru books: Num. 23. 19; lsa. 5 1.12; Je.-. 49.18 (LXX 30. I2); 49.33 (LXX
30.28); 50.40 (LXX 27.40): 51.43 (LXX 28.43); Ps. 8.5; 80.18 (LXX 79. I6); Job 16.2 I;
25.6; 35.8; Dan. 8.17LXX and Tilet)(L. Tltere-i..;; ooe mioor adjustment in the additioo
of ~ at Nu!'n. 2.1. 19 (some doubts about the text or Job 16.21 and 35.8 do nm all~t
tlle rnain point at is.~ue). There i..:; also an aheration at Ps. 146.3, \\rhere the plural v'1oU«;
O.vOpc.)rrou (LXX Ps. 145.3} has bee:n used: in this case o-n\ p is obviously c:ollective,
and parallel to the-plural o•J•1ll<ipxovtac;. Al Dan. 7.1.1, the Ar.unaic td:x -a has also
lx>en rendered with u·,a.; ci:vOpc.'mov, by both LXX nnd Theod01ion. We should also
nole. u'100 civGpc.lnou a1 Dan. 10.16 Theod.. where hov.-ever t11ere is a textual problertl
in the MT: and lhe renderiog ofthe analogous 1.91::1\ pat Ps. 144.3 with u'10; Ov9pc.lrrou
(LXX Ps. 143.3). The only genuine exception h) d1e normal ~ndering is OC:Cl)rdingly
atlsa. 56.2, \!Jhere O'n\ p has been ~ndered \\'ith CivOp<.:~nat;, making good parallelism
with cXv~p (MT l.?l:<.'\). 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<H'ural translation
should be regarded as (K)WJ(K) 1J. Apan froru the Ezekiel Targum. the only major
disruption to the norn1is at Nurn. 23.19, \Vhere the lnlnslalors were dearly conce-rned
about the sense. So J()r example the Saruaritan Targurn ha..o;; 01K -.:~. Onqelos
~'10~ 'D '1'J1i!J., and Pseudl)-Jonathan has a massive expansion. including the words

~'10":1 'JJ "'1'Jl!h 'lUlli f'l'l1 K7 . Only the Peshitta re.fldered simply with ~:oiJu. All
 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 1

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
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,_ <H1d 1he more conventional K:xil'D l"or the-fOllowing txf·~ 'JJ. Fi1 l ally, at Dao.

28. Cf. A. H. McNdlc. An IIIIJVllltcHon to EccltJios/ts with N{}ftJ oml Appendices

(Cambridge: CUP. 1904). p~l . 115 -6S: S. Holm-Nk lscn, 'The Book of Ecclc~i.ssu:ll :l.Od 1hc
lmct-ptclatjon of i1 in Jcwi!ili :md Chri ~li:tn Ttu:·ology•, ASn 10 ( 1975- 6). pp. 38- 96 (57-f.S):
Hp·iiri n~~n. Aquilo. pp. 88-99~ R. Bcckwilh. 11:e Old Teslamclll COJU»1 tJ/ the Nttv Ttstoment
Ch11rdt and ir.\· Bad:srmmd in Ear(\' Judaism (Lotldon: SPCK. 1985}, ,,p. 302-4. 472-7~ Zicgkr.
'Wicderg:tbc'; J . Jarick. •Aquil.s ·~ K{}htlerh'. TexltJ.f 15 ( 1990). p~l . 131-9.
 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-k-
speaking 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<f Ooov xp0110v ~IJ. Here. ToU
O:vepc:.lrrou clearly refers to people in ge-neml. and once again the.re. is no possibi lity
of a particular man being thought of.
The same applie-S to tJ1e translation Greek of the Septuagim and the synoptic
Gospels. I have noted some ve1y general e.xa1Hples in Ecclesiaste:s.;u Some.examples
reft-r to a smalle-r social subgroup as hu1nan beings. For example., at Deut. 8.3 Moses
tells brael thai people (o1~;1) do not live by bread alone-. llere the Israelites are
J(). 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 the-
Son 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<une lO many people's minds.
These factors ensure that 0 u'1 6t; ToU O:v6pc.lnou would e ffectively be interpreted
as 'the son of humankind', so the most important pctsoo on earth. appropriarel)'
described also as 6 ui6c; ToG ~oU (rvlk 3. 11 ; r-.~tt. 16.16; Lk. 4.4 1 e.tc.). This tits
almost all Son of man sayings: perfectly. since they generally refer to Jesus himself,
and the e.arfy church regarded him as the most imponam person who had bee-n
on earth. l et us consider 1\)r example rvtk 2.28: c::)o-u Klip1&; i oTav 0 v'u3c; ToU
O:vOpc.lnou Ko:i ToU oo:~~ciTou. This makes it quite cle.ar that Jesus himself was in
c.harge of the sabbath. This makes perfec.t sense of the narrative as a whole. When
Jesus' disciples were accused or doiog !lomething uolawful on the sabbath, they did
not defend themselves, Jesus defended them. with two decisive arguments. This:
was bec-ause he was in charge. as everyone. knew. From the point of view of Mark
and of his audienc.es in tl1e-early clrurc.h, this is a pe.1fec.t ertd h) the peri cope. h is
a11 unambiguous declaration or Jesus• authority,ju~t what the early church neede.d.
Moreover, frorn their perSr)ective it fOII0\\1Soo perfeclly fronl Mk 2.27. This recalls
the origino.tl creation of the sabbath. when God himself rested on the sabbath and
made it lu)ly (Gen. 2.3), toget11er w·ith the fourth coJnrnau<huent. which gives this
as the-re.ason why people. together with their guests and animals. should rest on the.
sabbath (E:<od. 20.&-1 1). 11 therefore folh)ws 1hat the-son ofbumankjnd. the lln).:;t
important person to be on eanh, was in c.harge of interprering the obsen•ance.of the
sabbath by his disciples.
The effectiveness of this translation in producing a C1ristological title may be
further d arilied by contru.:;ting the-ot11er suggestions which scholars have made-.
Wellhause.n argued that the trnns1aLors should have used 0 CivOpc.:~ rroc;. ': Let us see
what effect this ha.s on the interpretation ofMk 2.27-28:

TO o~P,cno\1 Sui T6v c'Mipc.:mov fyivno Ko:l oUx 0 0:\l(!p<.)nor, 5uX TO oci~P,aro\1,
&n ~:Up1~ io-nv 0 O:vEip<o)nor. .:al TOil oo:l3(3chou.

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. f(l( dC'tait.:-d djscullllion, sc.:- pp. 12t-5 :~bo\'C'.

32. 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
<iv6p(.)rroc; at Mk 2.10 would rt\ake no better sense than a.1 Mk 2.28.
llare argued that. if I were right about the idiomatic use of (x.}oiJ(K) :n. the
translators should have used the.simple <iv6p(.)no;.:u let us therefore try this at Mk
2.27-28:

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. Hare. Sm1 (if Mmr. pp. 249-50.

34. 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, <ivOpwnov could be undetstood as indelioite
rnther than generic. Although there was no established Greek idiom for using the.
indefinite <ivOpwno; with reference to a panicular person. in this case such a
reference could not be avoided bec-ause of the namuive context. in whic.h Judah had
just idemified Jesus with a kiss. (hereby handir'g hirn ove.r to his enemies.
Similar remarks appl)' to Ilare•s view that, if I \\'ere right about the idiol'oatic use
or (x.~oiJ(x.) -.J.
the tr<"uL~Iarots might have used ui&; Crv8pc.lnov.ls. Let us suppose
agair\ that the sa)'ing did io fact use vfJ~ -u in the inde.finite state, and that this led a
translator to put the follo wing:

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.o-
Roman 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

We 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-:<ts. At Mk 14.62,
Ps. I 10. 1 has d early been employed '''ith Dan. 7. I3, and Zech. 11. 10 has probably
boe:o used as welt. At Mk 13.26. the 111idrashic process is equally evident, but the
precise texis are more diflicult to de-termine-: 1 noted among the possibilitjes Oeut.
30.4: ha. 34 .4: Zech. 2 .10 LXX. In both sayings. Daniel's WJ ~ IJJ, LXX Theod.
u'u)t; <XvOpc.lrrou. has been replaced with the new Ctlristological tille 0 uiOc:; roV
O:v6pc.lrrou. This can 01\ly be delibe-rale. II presupposes the ioterpretatio•t M the
man-like Jigure a.~ Jesus, and 1he Jocatjon of the- incident as his second coming.

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 \\'<b> 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\<lark used 0 ulO:;- ToU O:vepi:.rrou in the major
prediclions at Mk 9 .31 and I0.33·34. We have seen in Chapter 9 thai Mk 9.3 1 was
fanned on the basis or exis•ing traditions, especially tlu)se fOund in Mk 8.31 <111d
14.2 1. We have seen further that 10 .33-34 resulte-d frol'n creative rewriting of these
same traditions in the. light of the eveniS of the passion. Mark. had e.ve.ry reason to
retain the Christological title 0 ulO:;- ToVOvOpWrrou as he rewrote. these tr;.lditions.
From his point of \'iew it was both characteristic of bedroc.k tradition in the sayings
of Jesus. nnd perfectly adapted to the oeeds of the church.
Similar conlnlettts apply to Mk 9.9. This is in a very late context with the secrecy
motif prOI'rtinenl ll)Jiowing the secondary narrative of the Tran sfig uration. It appears
to be based on the. immediately preceding reference to the resum.~tion of the Son of
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
in the lexl. h is not h0\1/Cver the- Son or
'"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 <lltributed to
Jesus. The distribution of 0 v·u:lt; ToG avepWnou in Mark is panty due to genuine
sayings of Jesus. but it is also due to his own secondary use of this term.
The patterns of the usage of 0 v'u)t; toG <ivOpWrrou established by f\brt: were
inherited and continued by Manhew. with muc-h furthe-r development. We have
seen 1hat Mauhew recogoizcd the use of Dan. 7.13 a1 Mk 13.26. and de.ve-h)ped
the sa}~ns muc.h funher. This development included a seoond Son of man saying,
which made midrashic use of l~'l. 11.12, a~t wdl as nlmerial from Zec.h. I2.10-14 (tvlt
24.30). Mauhe.w canied much l'urlher the C$Chatologic.al referenc-e or 0 ulOt; Toii
n
O:vOpc.lrrou. He notably created the expression rrapouolo: toG v'•oU ToG avep<o)nou
in his editing M secondary Q sayings (l\•lt. 24.27.37,39}. He then procooded to use
0 u"aO:; ToUOvOpWnou quite. free.ly in creating more sayings with an eschatological
reference. This resulted in a high proportion of secondary sayings in Manhew. As in
f\•fark. ho"tever, the major cau::e l)f the use of 0 ulb; ToUO:vSp(.)rrou in secondary
~ayi ngs is thai it was a1read)' a well-established Christolog:ic.al title, aod 1he rcas;ou
for this wac; ito; use in the translation of genuine sayings of Je.sus.
Matthew also continued the. development of the passion predictions. n<Mably
ahering Mark•s accurate and tigunltive IJH0: Tpe'ic; ~IJEpac; to Tfi TplTO n~EpQ:. now
undersrood as a literal reterence to the inaccurate stories of Jeiius' bodily resurrection
(Mt. 16.2 I; 17.23; 20.19). He also re-edited completely ,..H: 9. I 1-13. \Vhich became
qt1ite ineoherenl fOr 1\U)IH>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

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<uu sayings of Je.~us hi1hsel[ It was
blindingly obvious to him that 0 u'J<)c; roG OvepWnou referred to Jesus himself. He
therefore had no reason to aher the basic pattern.
The pauerns of the usage of 0 ulOc; ToU O:vep(.)rrou established by Mark were.
also inherited and continued by Luke. with developments in some ways very simiJar
to those of Matthew, but with some important ditTerences too. Luke continued to
use 0 uiO:; r oU O:vep(.)rrou as a CluistologiC'..tl title in editing sayings with an
escha!ological reference. We have however seen that in so doing. Luke was careful
to remove the impression given by some Marean sayings that the second coming
of Jesus should have taken place relatively soon after the historic ministry. So,
for example. before editing: Mk 13.26 at Lk. 2 1.27, luke made-d ear reference. to
the fall of Jerusalem. and his. commento;; are consistent wilh seeing a considerable
gap between the fall of Jerusalem and the c.oming of the Son of man. Again, in
OOitjng Q sayings <tl Lk. 17.24,26,30, luke retaio~ the e$Chah)Jogic.al rerere.nce of
all three sayings. However. he introduces them with clear sayings to the. etTect thm
the kingdt)fn will not come-soon (l k. 17.20-2 1). and th::tl there \\'ill be a sjgujlicant
time during: which J e~ us' disciples will hope lbr one of the days of the $t)rt of man
and will uol see aJlYsuch (Lk. I 7.22). This also put<; the rectained eschatological
rdC.rence in perspeCiive. h i~ striking that Luke-h a~ cho~en to jJOStpone rather lhan
remove this eschatology. and that in so doing he has re.tained the. title 0 ulOc; ToU
Crv6pt.lrrou. II is even mo1e striking thar he has used it in his opening declaration of
the interim pe-riod in which people will not be able to see one of the days of the Son
or man (lk 17.22), and that he ha~ used a pronoun to refer back to tl1e-use of 0 u'1 6c;
ToU O:vep(.)rrou at 17.24 i11the passion prcdictjon \Vhich he has inserted on the basi~
of tradition at I 7.25.
Luke did remove the eschatological orientation of the important saying at Mk
14.62 when he edited it at Lk. 22.69. lie omined '*~o06. and with it the notion
that Jesus· judges Wl) Uid see the Son of man, and he ornitted the corning on the
clouds of he.aven. so the second c.oming has been removed altogether from this
passage, and wilh it all trac.e of Dan. 7. 13. In its place, Luke declares thal from
now ommrds (ci:n-0 roU vUv) the Son of man will be sining on the right hand of
God. This re.place.o; a supposedly future event which had not h:.\ppened with an
e.xahOO present state which cannot be falsified. It is all the-111ore remarkable-that
Luke has re-tained the-title 6 u'u)t; roU Ctvt3p~nou. He evidently considered it to
be an important Litle of Jesus. and not one which was especially associated with
e$Chatological e.vents which had nm occurred. Nonethele$S. just as we have see1l
him use it in eschatological oontexrs where. he makes clear that the-coming of the.
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<o)rrov referred to Jesus himse-lf. He therefore had no reason to
alter the basic pattern.
It would be-good if we could infer the position of Q in these. 111a1ters, but it is
dillicult to do so because Q io itself does nm exist, and irs co.ueuts and narure
ha\•e to be inferred fro m two very vigorous editors, Matthew and l uke. We. have
seen that Qcontained four genuine Son of man sayings of Jesus. Two of these. Mt.
8.20//lk. 9.58 aod Mt 11.19//Lk. 7.34, c.ame h) the evangelists io a single Greek
Lranslation. which used 0 ui<X ToU CtvOpc.lnou a~ a traoslation or (s.):olJ(K) -a. Jlere,
therefore, wece11ainly flnd the translators'stralegy ifl Q material. One Q saying, Mt.
12.32//lk. I2. 10, either !"\!ached the evangelists in two separate lranslations bmh of
which used 6 uiOc; ToU <XvOpc.lnov as a translation of (K)'9l(K) ,J.. agaio showing.

39. 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<iy<ol so as to translate I)K as well. Even more rernarkable is
Mt. 10.33//lk. 12.9. Here we might reasonably inter ftorn Mk 8.38 that Jesus used
(x)i7l(K) I J in the original saying, and Mk 8.38 itself !Oilo\VS the translators' sltate.gy
of rendering it with 0 u'u:)(; ToG O:vepc.lrrou.•) Mt 10.33. however. has K<iyc.l again,
while Luke has used the fumre- JJ<L~sive inste.ad. h is vt-1') ' i nte~X:st i ng that genuine-
sayings in Q. necessarily lhe oldest because they are genuine, and only the third
saying in Mark's Gospel (Mk 3.18-29). provide all the exc.eptions to the.translators'
strategy M rendering (K)Id:(K) 1:1 \\'ith 0 uib; ToG Ctuep~rrou. \Ve should infer that
this strate-gy h)Ok sonle-time to bec.ome firmly es-tablished. Extensive connections
between the <.~hurches, based originaJly on exrensive connections between Jewish
comrnuoities in the Greco-Roman \\'Orld, forti) the gene-ral framework withit1 which
an agreement was eventually reached. It did not however give rvlanhew. tvlafk and
Luke-sulllcient reasoo lO alter fhis small prOpOI'tion of initial excepliNL"i.
The remaining Son of man sayings in Q use 0 u'u)c; ToO Ovepc.lnou .as
a Christological title in Greek. Ooe of them, Mt 24.44//Lk. 12.40. e-nds with a
reJerence to the. second coming of Jesus with the. words 0 u'1 6c; ToU O:v6pc..)rrou
Epxerw. This has the c.oJiocatjon of 'Sor\ l)f man' and 'c-Oming:' at the last times
which is a clear iodication M the midra.:;bic use of Dan. 7. 13. We have seen lhat this
usage is sec.ondary. In this pas..c;age-. it applies a probably ge.!luine parable or Jesus
(Mt 24.43i/lk. 12.39) to the situation of Chtistians who helieve.d they \\•ere living
in the last Lime.s and who ferremly hoped for the second coming of Jesus. We must
i1de.r that the midrashic usc. of Dan. 7.13 which we have already noted in Mark
and much de.veloped by Matthew was also known to those Christians who were
responsible for this secondal)' addition to a saying of Jesus.
One fUrther S.on of man sayi1lg in Q, Mt. 12.40//Lk 11.30. is clearly based on
another scripmral episode, the fate of Jonah. Despite the enthusiastjc expansion of
it now found in Matthew. with a quotation from Jonah 2. I. there is so much verbal
overlap in Greek that '''e must infer Lhat the Q saying reached ~·tauhew and Luke.
in Greek. This is further evidence that, for some of the Q material. 6 ui.Oc; ToU
OvOpc.lnou was an important Christologic.al title io Greek. II also contin\1es the use
of sc.ripture. which we have seen already in Mark and carried funher in Matthew.
The remaining Son M man sayings in Q, Mt. 24.27//lk. 17.24 and Mt. 24.37, ct:39//
Lk. 17.26, cle.arly use 0 u'u3c; ToU O·v8pc..)rrou as a Christologicaltitle. in Greek. as
we have seen at length ... ' ~·loreover. despite evide.nt editorial activhy by Matthew. it
is clear that both sayings re;.tched both evangelists in Greek.

40. 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<i' sooond comiog in the near future. Ile went fUI'thet,
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- side-
ellect 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 (c<l E. Dinkier). Ext'gt•tka. All/:riit~ :;1r Et{orsch1mg dr.s Nturn TeSiamt>nts (Ti.ibingcn:
Mohr (Sicbo.--cl". 1967), t>t). 55-I 04.
 275

anempL~ 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
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<n ions of the corrupt Ge'ez trao..o;larioll ofthe-
Similiwdes of Enoch. Thirdly, the Son of Man Concept is an eschatological bein~.,
in many ways quite ditTere.nl from the Son of mnn in the Fourth Gospel. Attempts
to get round this by pointing out eschatological fe-atures of the Fourth Gospel miss
the main poim completely. The.y do not explain why the authors of this document,
appareotly in search of a major Christological r itll~. should dra\1/ on a source so
inappropriate for their purposes. Finally the notionthm this would produc.e exactly
the same term as the synoptics, 0 ulO:; ToU O:vOp<.lrrou. was always dubious. Some
of these-diflic.uhies we.re. sometime~-; mitigated by seei1l£, the inlluence of Jesus
and/or the synoptic Gospels as well a.:; 1his figure. All ofthe.m Cll)ufd not however
be resolved, and acknowledge-•nent or the- inlluence or Je~us andfor the synoptic.
Gospels takes us back to the. re-al origin of this term.
I have argued that the origins of the use or 0 uiOt; ToU O:vOp<.lnou go right bad
to the-t1se of the-Araru.aic (K)idl(K) -a by the historical Jesus. The idiomatic use of
the Aramaic (K)VJ(K) -u \\'as difficuh to translate-, so the translators had a strategy,
to ll~e. 6 ul&; ToU O:vSpc.lrrou when the. reference was to Jesus. and not otherwise.
They round this tenn in scripture at Dan. 7. 13, which Mark and Mauhew already
used in combination with other scriptural texK The Gospels of Matthew and Mark.
and just possibly Luke, must be the source or the Fourth Gospel's usc-orO ulO:;- ToU
OvOpc.lnou, because this 1enn is unique. Other features comfnt)n to all fl)ur Gl)sptls
are the use of 6 u'1~ To\i O:v-Opc.lnou with reference to Jesus alone. almost e-ntirely
by JesliS alone. and the employment of scriptures with it in midrashic mode. These.
arguments should be regarded as decisive. Whether the Johannine community had
other sourc.es or not. they c.annot have failed to know the Gospels of Matthew and
Mark.
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. S~e 1>1). H --30 above.
4. P. .\1. Cuse.y. IJ Jolm 'J GostJel Tmt'? (Loodoo: Rout!OO:gc, 1 996)~
276 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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 1

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 large-
scale 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

5. E. 0 . Fr~d, ' The Son of ).fan in 1h~ Foonh Gosp.::I\JHL 86 ( 1961), PI,· 402- 9.
6. F. J. Molor)Cy. Tht- Jolrwmint' S<JJ1 of Mall (BSRcl 14. Rome: LAS. 1976, 2nd cdn
197&).
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 rewritt<!ll ve.rsion l)f
a hallmark of the speec.h of the historical Jesus. The saying is widely recognised
to be a midrash oo Gen. 28.12, aomher distinctively Johannine feature. We ha"e
seen that Marie followed by Matthew, found 0 uiO:; roV O:vOp<.lrrou i11 Dan. 7. 13,
and used it midrashically \Vith other texts. One or the two rnost striking examples
is r-.•11. 26.64//Mk 14.62. Here o~ae~ is found with T(>V 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"$sed Nathanael in
the singular. e-nding with the very word 0¥,} (Jo 1.50). While Jesus' shifl to the
plural ~o(n at Jn I.Sirnakes pertectly good Johanniue sense (cf. Jt~J.I0- 1 1), it
is ,veil explained by the use of ML 26.64. r-.•toreover, most or theresa or each sayiog
consists of the midrashic use of other biblical texts. So does the other synoptic text
which combines ~1.10:1 with T0v uiOv TOO O:vOpc.lrrou. together with tJ1e angels,
the Matthenn version again using 0 oUpcivoc; and irrl, and both authors adding
additional biblical •e-xts (Mt. 24.30-31/&ik 13.26-27)." There are other signilicant
fea(ures of M t. 26.64 which a1-e re-levant to the immediate conte-:<t of Jll 1.5 I. Tile-
most important is the high priest's demand that Jesus should say ~loU tl 0 xp•aTOc;
0 u·tOt; roV 9EoU (MI. 26.63). Je$uS' response is oU Ei rro:~ (M t 26.64). TI1is means
that Joseph caiaphas has uowiningly dec.lared Je~~us· li'Ue S-tatus \!Jhile-in the rn i (L~t
of an a<.~t of extreme treachery. Contrast the open confession of Nathnnaei.'Po:f!~i,
aU E1 0 uiOt; ToG OtoV, oU f!o:oiAnJc; ti ro\i 'lopatlh (Jn 1.49). Tilat is the proper

9. S. S. Smalley. 'The Johannine Soo ofM.an Saying,.;'. ,\'TS 15 (t968-9), pp. 278-301. HI:'
nO(cs 7;; for€ rri .al Jn 151 from Black,Ammaic Appmaclt (2nd cdn 1954), p. 85. elf>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.
278 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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>.<ft. 26.64//t-.,lk 14.62 are taken from Ps. I 10.1 and Dan. 7. 13. Both are conditil)ned
by the introductory ¢¥o9t, perhaps originally ffol'l'l Zech. 12. 10. The first thing
that Jesus· hosti le j udges were supposed to see was Jesus himself a! the-right haod
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 \\'<lS Jesus coming on/
with the clouds of heaven (Mt. 26.64/!Mk 14.62). This was even worse. The second
coming of Je.sus. had been vigorously expected throughout the period of the early
c-hurch. It had not taken place-. as everyone. i11cluding hostile Jews in Ephesus. knew
fi lii welL Luke's c.ouotenneas-ures ittd uded the omission of oteoet
and i px61JEVOV
IJSTd: TilV vt¢lEAC>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.

12. Sec 1>1). 222- 30,239-41 above.

13. 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<lin, Luke-already took Ct)uotenneas-ures. IJe removed all
mention M the •generatiOil' fron1 l\H~ 8.38, dropped iAqAuEtvlav Ev tiuvci:~m from
Mk 9. 1, and linked the prophecy of the k ingdom closely to the li.)IJowing narrative
o r the Transfiguration with the introduc-tory wor'ds iyivero 6~ IJET<i ToUc; AOyOVt;
ToUTouc; OOsl -.i~-tipal 0KT<.l. For luke's readers, the c.oming M the Son of man
had no indicatjon of ti me, and Jesus' prophecy that some of tbt)Se Standing with
him would om see death until they had seen the kingship of God was fulfilled in 1he
presence of Peter, Jac.ob and John at the Tra.osfiguration.
tv1auhew tOt.)k a diametrically opposed view. He cut the opening of Mk 8.38 and
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 some-
of 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<o.:.vci, or :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:<LJ; by rnidrashic use of Gen. 28. 12.
In the originall lebrew text of Gen. 28.12, the angels evidently go up and down
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<o:i Ka6~ M.:..woijl; ~<v ,-Qv 0$1V iv ~ tprl~~.
o\:.T(o.)r, '*t:.l&iivo• &I Tiw \JiOv TOO Ctv&pWrrou, u';va n&; 0 mon:UGlv i-v aUTc;:, i:xn
~t.:~ i}V ai«lVI0\1,

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><l)'ing of Je.~u:o.. It has now been rewriuen in classic Johaonine mannel'.
The mundane details of the event have been removed, for these are merely the
story, to be told later (Jr1 I8--19). In 1he predicrion they ha"e been re-placed with
the theologicaJ teml ~eijval. This was imp011am enough to the authors for them
to repeat it elsewhere (.In 8.28; 12.32,34), a1ld to use it earlier in 1his ven->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 <H Phil. 2. 9).
This is likely to be. in mind too. Jesus wa~ not merely c.rucified. Fron'l a Johannine
perspective. he was raised from the de~ld and re.turned to the. Father. necessary
events to complete the salvific natuJ'e of his wotk $.0 lhat mic; 0 n•oTEU(.)v i v a.Un:~
l){l.l ~Q-.)V ai(o)vtov (Jn 3.15). We shall also sec that the ascension is referred to at
Jn 3.13.
The use of 0 uiOr; ToG O:v9p(.)nou in this saying is completely appropriate. We
have-seen that il is derived ultimately from one-of Jesus• geouine predictil)OS of
his death, one that has been l'nuch rewriue.n. II is also a prope-r relerencc It) Jesus·
genuine humanity. for it is characteristic of hlmlan beings that they die. At the
same-time, t11is is not the only way for the .authors to refer to Je:;us' death. I have
particolarly noted Jn 12.32-33, whe.re Je~;:;us ·uses ~13<:) with reference to himse.lf.
and there is an expkmation that this refers to his death. The follo wing verse goes
funher. for faith in him leading to eternal life might well be predicated of a divine.
beit~g. This is precisely what is expounded at Jn 3.16, using the tenu rOv v'•Ov T0v
povoytvfi. Til ill illustrates perlCctly the overlap in usa.ge behllecn these two major
titles.
It has olien been suggeste-d that the-use ofU~O(.) in this ve-•·sc retlecL-:; the Arfilhaic.
:pT.111 The Aramaic word 1lin is widely auested ' "it11the general meaning 'lit\', 'taise
up', a meaning found already in the Akkadian :;ak(lpu. In Syriac, i1 is also a normal
Wt)rd for 'erucit)'• .It is already used with rel'b 'l!-nce to impalement at E2ra 6.11, and it
is fC.lund with refere11Ce-to crucifixion in late Jewish Aran\aic as welLTI1e.pos.~ibi li ty
that V~eijvat is an Arnmaism is accordingly feasible. The o-lder scholarship did not
how·evcr wotk this suggestion ptope.rty through. I have already given good reaSl)ll
to suppose. lhat this saying was depe-ndent both on synoptic predictions in Greek,
and on LXX lsa. 52.13. TI1is particular Aramaic sugge~;:;t i t)l'l is therefore probably
unncc-es..~ary. A possible Ammaic. original of d1e whole saying is moreover diflicult

to envisage. and a possible Aramaic original of the whole discourse is out of the.
question. There were however bilingual people in the Johannine community. and
people who c.oufd read the Dible-in Ilebrew. It is possible-that this verse-was created
in Greek by someone wl10 \\'ali fan1iliar with bmh rne.auings of the Aramaic ~7i and
who accordingly suffered from interference. This might have prompted them to use
the Greek Ut QOijva• with this double meaning.
McNamara suggested the use of the Aramaic p7c.19This is widely attested with
the semantic area of 'go up', ·a.~ceod', and in theAphcl ' lit1' , ' take up', •raise. as

IS. E.g. BI:Jck. :\ramai< :\pprourh. p. 141.

t9. M. ~tcNtunat:l. 1)'N: New TeJtdl»ent wuf the Paltstilliun Torg11m w thf' Prrlid/eur:h (An Bib
27A. Ramc: Biblical lmaiunc, 2nd cdn. t97S), pp. 145- 9, wilh bibiM>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 reference-
to 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 the-
sabbath 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<Nnins thr Hhdd. Politics
and Commanit)' in the Gospel (if }(}hn (Londoo: SPCK. 1988), Ch. l~ for liiCI'.ll)' pc-r~()CCii vcs on
lhis. sec. D. A. Lee-. Tht- Symbolk Nurrotirt-s (if the Fourth Gosptl. The fllltrpluy (if Form and
Meaning (JSNTSup 95. Sheflidd: Sheffie-ld Ac:td<:mic, 1994). Ch. 2; D. Tovey, .tot·um.1Ji••t Art and
Act in tlw Fourth GustJel (JSt-.'TSup 151. Shetlktd: Shdlleld Acack:mic, 199'7), Cb. 5~ Md f(l( the
plac<ment of the whole chaplcr within the pc~ctive of the- Johannine communit)·. see Casc-.y. Is
John :r GtJspi'l Trttt?. pp. '75-S. 127- 32.
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 c;,.. 0 oiOO~~v Ao:hoU;u v Ka t 0 ((.)pcixa ~v ~o:prupoiiiJlV. Ko:l n\v
IJO:p rupla v ~IJ~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>.'<!n carefully prepared for.
Similar comments apply to d1e remainder of the. discourse. We ha\'e seen thai
the immediate continuation is a midrash using Nun). 21.9 and lli<"L 52.13, with
which son\e of Je:,.us' passion predictions ha, e been rewrinen. This shifts into the
1

presentation of him as the-only-be-gone1l Son. This implies his deit)1, a conc-ept quite
alien to Jesus of Nazareth and of central imponance to the Johannine. community.
Faith in him, whether as Son of ma.l (3. 14- I5) or as •he-only-begotten Son (3. 16--
18) is necessary for eternal life. Accordingly, there is no question of reverting to
Jesu.~· perspective at3.14: the authors continue co expouod Johaonine theology ffo m
their own perspective. They continue with their transmuted esc-hatology, according
tt) which sah1ation or judgen1ent mkes place in the here and now. depending on
whethel' one has faith i1~ the only-begotten Son of God (Jn 3. I8).
With all these po in t~ clarified, the auchors ptlt John the Baptist's baptism in its
plac.e: he is to be completely eclipsed by Jesus, to whom he finally bears witJless
(3.22-36). At this point Jesus baptizes. illld more suc-e-es.~ fully than John (3.22,26;
4.1), and this is correc-ted to baptism by Je.~us' disciple$ (4.2), two ways of n-.akiug
the point that Christian baptism is essential forsaJvaLion. This is again the perspective
of the Johannine community, and just as :,.ttikingly remote from the ministry of Jesus
as Jn 3. 13. John the. Baptist concludes the disc.ourse by reiterating lhe main points
of lhe basic shift in covenantaJ nomism. attributing the whole matter to the. Father,
ha\'ing the Son at the centre. wilh failh in him ''itaJ for sal\'ation, and the eschatology
transmuted toexpre$S the need for immediate decision: 0 na:Ti)p ciya rr~ T6v uiOv,
1r::a:'t rrcivta OE&.:.tav iv 11) )(t•pl a:UtoU. 0 moTEU(o)v Eit; T<)v u"a6v l)(tl ~(o)~V
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<lfical
Conte;rt (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000}. pp. 249- (14.
 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 'only-
be-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$avoU<;,
ipXOiiO:I rrp6<; \IIJti~. Equally, it may be. presented as the presence of both Je.sus
and the Father, as at 14.23: 'Eciv Tic; Oyo:n~ ~6- rOv AOyov J.IOU r qpr}oE1, .:o:i
0 rro:nlp IJOU ciyo:rrr)oE1 alm)v, ko:'• npOt;- o\m)v EAEuoO~t:Oet Ko:l IJOV~V nap'
o:Un~ norno01Jt0a. Most corrunonly in the final discourses, this is presented as
the work or the Parad ete. The first presentation of this is at Jn 14. 16- I 7: Kciy~
ipwn)o(,) T0v ncnipa Kal ciAAov rrapO:KATJTOV &.loE• U~lv 'tva ~Ee· VJJC:iv sle;
tOv aiC>va fl, tO nvsli)Jcx tijc; <iAI')Inicxc; , 0 0 KciOlJOt; oU OUvaTCXI Aaf3{iv, On
oU e~wptl a\m) oUO~ YlVc.lOKEI ' UIJ.Elc; yti)(.)Ql(&Tf o:\ITO, OTI nap' u~.iiv JJiVH Kat
iv U~iv l oTCXI. The irnmedime explanation of this includes both 14.18 and 14.23,
which should make it dear that these are three differe-nt ways of looking at the
presence l)fGod \vithin the community. h is the presence of God as this c-an be only
aner Jesus' death, reS-uJTeeliOil and ascension. This is put io negative fonn, but with
gre~t clarity, at I6.7: ciA>.' EyW niv ciA~eua:v Aiy<.l Uplv, ou~.J$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 <iytov: EKElvoc;
UJ,Jcil; 6l&l~~· rrcivta Kal U rro~J,V~OEl U~.tcic; rrcivTa a d TTOV UJJ1Vfyc.l. Seen in its
proper oomexl. this evidently means that words of Jesus may be.supplie.d by people
in the Johannine community who feh themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit This
is expanded at Jn 16.13: 601)yr)m1 U~cic; ~v Tfi ci:ATJ&I<? m:iorr oU ydp AaA~ou
ci4>' (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-<une down again with important revelations. .lt'S'l L;;' position as the only
Revealer was dependent on the incamation. At the same time, he was the onl)'·
begotten Son. so that the shift to this tide fOr the exposition at Jn 3. 16-18 is al;.o
entirely appropriate.
So far, then, 0 ulOc:; ToU O:vOpc.)rrou is a Greek title used with special reference
to the incamation.

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 h<lS centred on the question of dependence on Dan. 7. I3, where both
the LXX and Theodotion have il<; ulOc; CtvOpc.)rrou. also without the article-S. A
great deal of trouble has aJso been caused b)• attributing some parts of the passage
to a redac-tor whose. effons to edil an earlier source have resulted in a text which is
suppOsedly oot consistent. lthen~-fOre begin by discussing 1his saying io iu; present
Johannine context. and then consider what we may infe-r about iL~ origins.
This saying belongs 10 a Johannine discourse. the most relevant part of which
is the ope-1tiog verses. Jn 5. 19-30. This takes oil from 'the-Jews' wantiog 10 kill
Jesus. OTI oU ~Ovov E'Ausv TO oci~~aTov OAAd Kal rra Tipcx iO•ov iAEyev T0v
&Ov, ioov EauTOv rro•i.)v T4) 0£4) (Jn 5.18). Jesus' response begins ,.,.ith a w~ty
strong subordinationisLstatemem, according to which the Son can do nothing excepL
what he sees the Father doing. This gradually becomes more specific. wiah the Son
gh~ng life ((c:.;>orrot~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:<t is however more itnporr:uH than this. We ha\•e
seen that 6 vi be; Toli O:vepc..)nov refers panicularly to the humnnity of the. inc.arnme
Jesus. TI1is is essential in interpreting Ju 5.27 too. God did Mt send the Son intt)
the \\10I'I d It) judge the world (.ltl 3.17). Nt)uelheless.. jlldgement was the enec::.t of
the ineal'!late ministry, because some people did not believe in the Son (.In 3 .18-20).
It fo1lows that judge.ment must be exe-rc.ised by the incarnate-.l eslL~, bec.ause it was
his earthly 1hinistry which wa..~ decisi\1e io bringing sahrl'nion and judgeme.nt. The
anan hrous phrase v'1 6c; O:vOpc.lnov at Jn 5.27 accordingly has the san1e n~aningand
reference.as 0 utOc; n ii 0-vBpc:.lnou in the other Johannine Son of man sayings.
It follows thar the debate abt)ul whether viOc; O:vOpc..)nov is really tituhlr and
~lly the same as 0 uiOc; ToiJ OvOpc.lnou is less important than has often been
thought. Coh,'ell's l awl'll has ofte-n been invoked in auempts to -equate the two
phra.~tes, but this application of it is dubious. It is supposed 10 explain the abseoc:e M
Lhe articles from the fact that u'1 0c; is ~1 predicative nominative noun which prec.edes
the verb. While this might explain the absence of the article-with u'u)c;. it is doubth1l
whether it explains its absence before O:vOpc.) rrov. Moreover, it does not explain
why the evangelis.t expressed hi l'tL~te-l f like thi$. If he itllended to repeat an itnponant
Olristological title, he would ha\'e done. beue.r to have placed it after the verb.
complete with articles, or to h.ave expressed himself quite differently. We must infer
that he intended to draw attention to Lhe centrality of the inc.amate ministry of Je-.sus
as a hunuln being to the IUuctiOil of judgement. This is absolutely d ear from the
context and does not require the use of the articles.
This brings us to the questjon orthe origins of this verse. It fits perfectly where it
is. but should we.follow scholars who have argued that it has come from somewhere
else? The immediately following verses are important in considering this question.
They present a traditional eschatology, with poople emerging from their tombs.
lhose who have done good to the resurrection of life. and those who have done
evil to the resurrection of judgement (Jn 5.28-29). This traditioo.al eschatology is
the kind of seuin_g from which 1he term ·sou or man· is t~uni l i ar from the synoptic
Gospels. h is a..:;St)Ciated \Yith judgemen1 especially dearly 011 r-.·tt. I6.27-28 . whe1-e
0 u'u)t; ToG CrvOpe:.lrrou ... cino!Sc.lou iK<iOTCo;~ KaTcX nlv np<i~111 aUToli. This is

2-&. E. C. Colwell.' A fkfi11ih:- Rule for she Usc of1hc Ankl~ in Lhc Grcck New T.-:>: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 the-
complex 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. Se-e t>t). 217- 81. 282- 3 aboV<:.

30. 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 77-
8 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, <U Prov. 9.5. Wisdom ealls 011 people 10 eat o r her bread, and
drink of the wine which she has mixed.

J I. R. D. Aus. 'Caug/11 in tilt' Acl', U~lking on thr Se<cr. <tJUI the Rrle<crst ofHaraiJbas Re~isited
(AIIt~nt:l !
Sdtol:us, 1998}. pp. 53- 133.
3'2. Sec the. clussk di$Cussion of P. D. Borg_en. HrMd from He<m'ttl. An E:regdirul Smdy of
rile C<mce<pl ofMamw ill tlrt GoJt1<'1 ofJohn artd Jlie IVrilings of Philo (NovTSUt) 10. l~id.:"1l: Brill.
1965).
33. Sec c,;pccially M. J. Menken.' And They Sh:.ll All Be T:.uglu by God'. ETL 64 ( 1988}.
pp. t64-72.tcrwimcd in M. J. Mcnk.:-n. Old Te<slummt QLwlutiOJrs i11lht' Fou11h Gos(WI. Studies i11
Te<xt1wl Fom• (Kamp.::n: Ph:.roc;., t99()). t)t>. 67- 77.
 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 tllC-
Last 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. Clsc:y. ..\mmaic Souft't'.r ofMarkSGo.rpt.o/, Ch. 6.

35. S~ 1,1,· IJ.I--6above.
296 The Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

XplotoU; tOv <iptov OvKAW~tv, oUxi KOIV(.)Via t oU oc.liJa t oc; to\i Xp1otoU
i:onv; Ot• tit; <ip t e<; , t v oc:liJCt olrroMol i o!J.EV, ol ydp ncivn~ ~K ToG ivOc;
cXptou IJETiXOIJtV. This dearly refers to the Pauline Eucharist, with the bread
interpreted of the body of Christ and the cup interpreted with reference. to his
blootl. Moreover, witllOUt the polemical cotHe-xl of I Cor. I I. 17-34. whic.h arose
from the Corinthians not behaving as Paul thought they should. this passage also
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)'
1

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
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.

298 Th e Sollllitm to the 'Sou of Man ' Problem

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<lictil)ll.S of Jesus' death. and in the predic.tion of hi.:: betrayal at the Last Suppel'.
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.
1

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
 299

for lhe divisive em:ct of whether t) Oe t'<lB hi.s tlesh aod d rillk.S his blood. bmb at \'V.
53-54 and in the linal quarrel ofvv. 60-66. Tite.re arc pt)ltitive references to the need
for and pt)..:;itive enects ofbelie••ing, and as early as v. 36 there is also a reference to
the fact that son-•e of Jesus' audience do not believe-. These pave the '''ay both for the-
possible 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, <lJ)d \\'ho thus believes that they are in fact e.atingJesus'
lle.s h and drinking his blood. It is such Johannine Christjan_.. who are d efined as
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$sage that Johannine-Christians who
believe in their fully developed Eucharistic theology already posses....; eternal life.
At the end of the. discourse. we rue infonned that it took place in a synagogue in
Capemaum. 11 fo llows that as the description of JeS-tls' irHCI'1ocutors: changes from
'the Jews' (6.4 1,52) to 'his disciples' (6.60, likewise 6 .6 1,66). we should infer that
the authors mean Jewish disciples. The rationale for this is th~ we are to be presented
next with some M Je="us• Jewish disciples lea\•ing the Johanninc-cornnrunity (6.6 1·
66). We should oot confuse this group \Vith hostile ou t~ iders, ofte.n described i11 this
docurnc-nt a.:; 'the Je\\1S'. We-have seen that their reaction to the djscourse-is a natural
Jewish reac.tion to the very high Eucharistic theology in tJ1e discourse. including the.
implication of Je5Us' deity: oKM)pO:;- i:OTtv 0 Aciy01; o6t or;· T'it; &iva tat aUToU
<iKo.Jt; tv; this means dlat. as we are told in the fOIIO\Ving verses. nlil.oy of his disc-iples
did not believe in the Johannine theology of the pre\~ous discourse-.
Jesus responds with the remaining Soo of man saying M this discourse. II h.as
caused endless trouble- to c.oftunentators. l\•loloney com.nent.s. 'Interpreters have
diHiculty with v. 62 because it is an aposiopesis, that is. a conditional clause. which
has the prota.;;is. but lacks the apodosis' _J; They presuppose a lrnnst.nion like that of
RSV: 'l11en \Vhat ir you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?'
They then discus.o; whether this would rel'rtove-the l)llCnce., or make-the disciples•
difficulties eveo worse. or ensure that they have to take a decisi011. None M this is
properly Jollannine. because it is only those who already have a full Johan.nine fai th
who c-Ould possibly pe-roeive 1he Son or man as.cending whe-re he was before. Others
do not believe he was pre·e-xistent with God in heaven beiOre hi$ e-arthly ministry,
and at his death they lOee at nll)St the crucifixion of a prophet, nm the exaltation and
sublOeque-nt re~urrect i on and ascension of the Son of man. I therefore punct\1ate a11d
translate this verse, and its immediate context. as follows:
T<lU;o UIJO:t; oKo:v&).i~u . ~O:v OOv &c.;,p~n T0v u'10v T<lU O:vEipc.)rroo civa~o: ivov;o
Onoo iiv TO npOnpov, •',.0 n\l'.ilU~& £o-t1V rO{t.;aorrotOOv. ~ oOp~ O'liK ~~Mi oU&iv. ni
P~~o"To: 0: €y~ k~&).qko: U1-1i v nv~& £omt Ko:i ~ri f:o-tt\1.
Thi ~ 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
10 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<lmate. In dis.::ussiog the fairly d ose parallel at
Jn 3. 13, I have noted that this do.::umem ha.~ se'>'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 'A6y<Y;. Thirdly.
this comment about the-. ocip; is a rx:fcreuce back 10 JeS-Us' nesh in the Eucharist.
From the point of \'iew of the Johannine community. Johannine Christians who
ea1 1he llcsh and drink the blood of the Son of man in the-Eucharisl al~ady have
eternal life. Jewish Christians who eat bread and drink wine on the. same occ.asion,
however. do not receive life. We aJre.ady know that Je$US is speaking to Jewish
disciples who do not acc.ept the Eucharistic theology which he has just eX(>l)unded.
What the Johannine community regards as the ocip~ of the Eucharist is acc:ordin~ly
of no help to them.
a
It is thereli.)re appropriate that Je..;u.-. should continue: TO: Prl!JO:TO: Gyc.l .MAci'AllkCX
UIJIVTTVtiJJ,Jci ionv KO:.I ~w~ i:onv (6.63). From a Johao.nine perspective. this is jus!
what was needed by the Jewish Cluistians who were about to lea\'e. They should believe
the. Euchruistic t11eology which Je'$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).

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 <if 'AIIf H1i' ill
Jt>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 ev
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.
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.<ofk On (yt.l thn. ~::a'• an· £ ~.~auT®
note:> oUSiv, ct>J.Q "a&lt; 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<o)rrou was derived from genuine and secondarily developed pnssion
predictit)ns, a lL:tage c.ontinued here. I also fn)ted the rnidrashic usc M scripture,
with Nu.r\1. 2 1.9 beiog obvious and lsa. 52.13 being the .source of ~eiivat. This
is contioued here, with Js.a. 52.13 ~till the S0\ 1tee of U~c..lortn-. and the use of the
divine revelatory formula Eyc.l EIIJ• from Deutcro-lsaiah. PurLher midrashic use of
De utero-Isaiah is evident i111he. Johalllline context.40 At Jn 3.1S, the purpose of the
Son of man being lifted up was given: 'Iva rni~ 0 mcrnU(.)v iv aUr~ txo ~(.)itv
o:ic.lv1ov. Here we find a fAith response in the context, and in this saying a re ference
10 having knowledge of something which ca n be known only by faith.
The 0To:v clause accordingly refers to the-crucifixion and exaltatjon of the-S.on M
man. The second pe.rson plural is deliberately used to lay the responsibility for the
crucifixion oo the Jewish people as a whole. The passion narrative aiSt) ~ks to do
1his in a li1eral sense, while the-linal diseourses oever lose sight of the respl)I)Sibil ity
of the K001J.oc;. The exaltation is of equal importance. not least because it is only
those \Yho pen::e.ive the exaltation of the Son of rnan in the crucifixion who can
possibly ).:now Ort iyc.l sipt. This divine revelatory fomlula implies a full Johnnnine
faith. including the deity of Jesus as well as the importance of his death. The rest of
the verse amibutes to these people. the reaJization thnt God the Father is completely
responsible-fOr the whole M Je$us· miniSll)'. including his leaching.

40. 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 the-
humanity 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 use-
of 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<fuld lead 10 faith but which actually leads
to division. After puuiog mud on the man •s eyes, Jesu s sends him lO wash in the
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<i' demh and exahatil)O.
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 £tpli<it Old Ttstume'lll Ciwlions ill tlw Gospe'l ofJolm (SBLDS 133. Allanta:
Sdtolars. 1992J, pp. ? t--84: ~k•tkcn. Old Tt>stamtrtt Quotations. t)t). 19-97.
44. Sec Pt). 27S-80. 282- 3, 3-0.1 abcwc.
45. Sec l)t). 277- 80. 282- 3 above.
46. 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;
d~-tapT<.lAilv. This is f>.•lt. 26.45, rewriting Mk 14.4 1, part or
which has not beer•
correctly preserved. Most MSS of Mk 14.41 read i\AO<v ~ <.lpa. followed by i6ou,
and it may be this which helped inspire Jn 12.23. Jesus also prnyed thnt ~ <.lpa
might pass fh>n-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 see-
it 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 the-
reason 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 is3

not possible to rec.onstruct a convinc.iog Aramaic original. One might suggest the
foiJowing:

IIere we must suppose that the Aramaic 'glorify', unden~Jent a change- of

""11;-t,
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

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 <lf Chicago. 193 I),
pp. 99- 100: Bl:tek. Ammaic Apprtmt·lr. p. 19.
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<!.~l!lnlem in John 12.34',Nm1T 3 c1959).
pp. 174- 9.
 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 the-
Jewish 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<lriot, a nd that this was pre dieted in Ps. 41. In this kM\1/Iedg.e. he has
given the decisive orde•· hil'os.elf at I3.27, and Judas has t)beyed hifn. It is precise-ly
in giving that order that the-Son or 1\lan was now glorified, and God was gh)rified
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 <liSl)
be referred to without I his tenn (cf. Jn 7.39: 12.16: 16. 14; 17. 1.5).

/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:<cLustoNs

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 $ChOiai'S have
been handicapped by lack of the knowledge necessary for solving this problem,
a massive degree of ignorance compounded by ideological bias. This regrettable
combination manifested itself in frequently re..ading primary sources in transfarion.
rather than in the languages in wh ich they ha ...e sur\•ived. It also led to 1he almost
complete domination of the study of this problem by Christian scholars committed
to the study of the Gospels in Greek. withOU[ any proper appreciation of the stud}'
of Aramai~ .the Jang·uage which Jesus SpOke. I isolated the SUIT)' consequence-$ of
this situation inCh. I.
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:<t few chaptei'S studied ge1luine sa)'ings of the historical Jesus. In Ch.
4, I recapitulated previously published work on six genuine Son of man sayings.
e.ach of whic.h belongs in the context of a literally translated Aramaic source which
can be. recowred: Mk 2.28; 9. 12; 10.45; 14.21 (where the tenn oc.curs twice); r-.•11.
11. 19//Lk. 7.34; and M L 12.32//lk. 12.10. In each case there is some general
level or meaning, as well as a particular rel'erence to Jesus. At Mk 2.28, there is a
ge.nernl level of meaning refe-rring to the poor disciples who had been taking Peah
0 1~ the sabbatl1. but the position of Jesus was nonetheless pre-etl'linent. The use of
lhe idiom i~ due h) that pre--eminent position. which Jed Jesus tOspeak or himself
indirectly.
Mk 9. 12 is unus-ual in that there is an i111portaut reference to John the Baplist.
as well as a very general le.vel of meaning referring perflaps to humanity as a
whole-, or at least to the. Jewish people. The importance of John the. Baptist set
a problem for the translator. who decided 10 use 0 vicX- ToU O:vOpc.>nou on the
grounds that Jesus was more central. l11e-resuh has been very dilllcult for scholars
to unde.l'stand, and it h<lS only become really clear since 1 reconstruc.ted the Ol'iginal
Aramaic. At Mk I0.45, there is a particular rel'erence to Jac.ob and John. as well
a..:; a rnore general reference to any disciple$ who might share in Je$uS' death and
an underlying theology of manyrdom. At the same time. there is a reference to
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 he-
could 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 <ivSp(.)TTOt;, and when they encoontered (~)JOIJ(l'\) ~J~ in
the plural. they did not use the pluraJ (o't) uio'1TC>v <ivOpc.ln(.)V, bu1 preferred other
terms, such a~ <ivOpwno1.
This was an excellent strategy at three. differem levels. First of all, it is a literaJ
translation, fully in accordance with literal translations whic.h were nonnal in the.
culture of the translators. Secondly. it retained the. most important level of meaning
of aU the original sayings. the primary reference to Jesus himself. Thirdly. it created
a major Christologic.al title-. an-d thereby s:nislied the nee.d of the l<ltget c::ulrure to
express the centrality of Jesus.
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<ic tradition. especially !he Gospel of Matthew. A trnce of
the us.e-of Dan. 7.13 re.maioed in one saying (Jn 5.27). \\•here lu)wever it ~rerre.d to
Jesus' judgemental functil)rt, not to the Second Coming. The delay Mthe Parl)lL'> 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.t<IJnetlllml Gmerum AIICJmitall: Societatis Lilltranrm Gotrinsensis Etlittmr
(cd. l. 2'..icgkr et al.: Q3uingcn: Many vols, 19.36- }~
Jjie Old TtsiU.meJit in Sydac ucamlins u, the Peshilta \"t>rs.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<lm n:rsi<>~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.\·<he- Ubt rm:.uns de.s Pmph~ltn Danitl {P.lris: Gucthi)C'r.
1927).
Diltms nn, A. (<."d.). \'t'teri.r Testmnenti ue-tltiopici Unmt.r quint1rs, qt10 contilrt'ntltr Ubri ApOCI)phi
(8\'folini: Ash\'r ct Socios, 1894J.
SJ>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<oi)ps~ d(' Hamdr: introdlfctimJ, traductio11 du syrioq11!' d commelllaire (2 \•(IJs:
SC 144- 5. Paris.: G.• •f. 1969).
Brooke. G .. et <II.. Q11mrun G 1\-l' 4..Vr/1. Purubiblk'til Text,, Parr J (OJO XXII. Oxlbrd: Cl:ltcndoo,
1996).
Broshi. M.. (f/ al. (C'ds), QwruYm Om· 4. ;m: Porubiblitt~l Te.rb'. Pw·t 1 (DJD XIX. OxiOn:l:
Cla.rcnd(ltl, 1995).
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<rsimls(Cb:ford: Cbu~ndon. 1906).
- -The- Gntk l 't'ni<»IS oftht' Ti:stomeni.S of tire Tll't'll·e Patriarchs (O:<f\)(d: Cl:ul.'nd<m, 190&).
Ch:ldCSW(II'Ih. J. ..1. (cd.). T1r~· Old Tts/£111U'111 Psctldt:tJigrapiltl (2 \'Ois: New York: Oooblcdtty.
19&3- 5).
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 &9<r l926).
Colson. F. H. d ul. (cds), Philo. with on E11s,li.th Tronslation (12 vols: LCL: Camb1i dgc, MAl
London: Har,·atd lJPJBcincmann. 1929-62).
Cotton. H. M.. and A. Ynrdt'ni. Aramaic. Hebrew ami Grt-rk Dowmentur:r Tex/.sfivm .\ra~al f!rwr
mul Olht•· Site.s (DJO XXVH. Oxf(lf'd! Clarc:ndon, 1991).
[):- Jonge. ?-.L tl of. (cds), 71re Tts/umt'llb' Qfthr Twtlre Pmriun·lu: A Critical £Jiti011 oftltt' Greek
Te:..1 (PVTG: l.cidcn: BrilL 1978).
Dillmunn. A.. Llher Em>ch 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:<f(ltd: Clarendon,

1976).
Odcberg. 1-1. (cd.}. 3 EJwde. or Tlee Ht•brew Book of£11(J(h (C;unbtidg-c: CUP. 192&).
Puccll.. E., (cd.). Qumni11 Gl'rmr 4. Xl7/. Tevtes Arorn~&U Premil:l't! Purtil!. 4QH9-5.t9 (DJD
XXXJ. Ox f.:~rd : Clarendon. 200 1).
S..-h:'i:fcr, P. and H·J. Bcck..-r with G. Rccg tl a/. (ed ~}, S.'itlopse :.um Talmud l'atuhalmi.
·.~?tin·,; ;;,:.,;,; ; o•o$-rro (? ''OI !;~ TSAJ 3 1, 33. 35. 47. 67, 82, 83. TUbins:en: ~fohr Sic-b..-ck.

1991 - 2001}.
SchmktL. F. (cd. a.nd uans.}. U Testam~lll gr« d'Abrohom (TSAJ I I. TUbingc-n: Mohr. 1986).
Sluck!:'nbrud:. L T.. 1'hr Book of Giams fivm Qumran. Te.trs, n·wtdotion, and Cmm11ento0·(TSAJ
63. Tilbingrn: MohrSicbeck. 1991).
ThackQa)'. H. SIJ .. i'l al. (cds), Juseplw.f, ,~·ith on E1gliJI1 1iunshltimr (9 vols: lCl: Cambtidgc,
~iAILoodon : H:.rvsrd UP/ Hcinem:mn., 1929-53).

Theodor. L and Ch. Albexk. Brreschir R11bboh (3 ' 'ols: Betlin.: Akad.:mic. lt:d:ow~ki & M.
Poppdauc•·, 1903- 29}.
Uhlig. S. (cd. and trans.), Das Athiopisdw Hmochbstdt (JSHRZ V,6. GOk'rsiOO! (illtcrslohcr, 19&4).
\landcrl:.am. J. C. (cd. s nd trans.). n ee Btmk ofJu!Jilf'es <2 vots: CSCO 510-511. SA 87-&: lcuwn:
PC\'ICI'$. 1989}.

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
(P:~ris ~ Finni n~Oidm e1 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<t
Quai' Exslunt. \'0 1. 5 (Rome: Ex Typogr:.phia V!llic:wl, 1740).
Sai11l iplll't111. Comntt'lltail'f' dl! L 'Em11gilc Ctmcordunt. Te.rlt' Syri(tqJtt (Ms ChtJitr Dealt)' 709)
(00. and trans. L lc.Joir. CBM &. Dublin: !-lodges Figgis. 19<U).
Saifll i:pha-m. CmmllttJiuiw dt L 'Ewmgilt Concordurtl. Tt.Yie SJn·aque (Ms Cltts/l'J' Htalt.v 7(1}).
Ft1lios Addilionrl.s (ed. a1ld fr~•t~. L lcloir. CUf\.t 8. L~uvcnfl>:.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: <k G I'UYICt . 1997).
Ja<qlu!s dt Suroug. Homtlits Ct:mlrt les Juifs. cd. and mms. M. Albc:.rL PO 38 (Tomhou1: Br~pol ~.
1976), j)p. 3--242.
Jc.rome.:S. HiemJI)TIIi Presb.\·teri Opem. P:~rs.l. Opera £tt,-;ttku. 5. F. Gtoric (<'d.). Commtllladtmlm
ill Dunielnn Libri Ill (/'.tJ (CChr. SL LXXVA. l'umhom: Brepols, 1964}.
JOOn of D:~lytuha. 'l.a CoiiC<Ction des le1tres de- Jean de Dalyslh.'l. Editiol\ Critique du Text<'
Syriaql)(' ln&li1, Tt:lduc1ioo Fr:~n~:tisc. lnttoduc1ion e1Noto.'S'. p:~r R. Ocolay, PO 39 (Tomh0t11:
Brepols. 1978), pp. 254--538.
Nursai"s Mtlrical Homilit.f tJII tht Nutiltity. £piphmt)" .... cd. und tr.ms. F. G. McLeod. PO 40
(Tomhout: Brepol ~. 1979). pp.4·193.
J. Frishm:ltl., ' The Ways a1ld Means of the Divin.- Economy. An Edi1ioo.. Tr:~ns!:ltion and Smdy o f
Six Bibli c:~J Homilil.'ll by NaNai' (Oi:ss.• J.ddc'' · 1992).
Philoxcni Mabbugl~nsis. Di.\·.rertationts dt•cem dt U1wt Suncta Trirtiratt... \~ .o\IJt'ltmlicf'.~: Tmclams
...• cd. and tJll..M. ~t. Briere ruld R. Gr::~mn. PO 41 (Tumhom: Btc-pol ~, 1982), pp. 3- 143.
Tcnullian.AJreNIIS Mart:itJtJtm, o.' d. ::tnd trans. E. Evans (2 '>'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.
I'N&).
TOY MAKAPI OYGE0~!1PH TOY ... YnOMNHMA Eli TA! OPA!EI! TOY nPO<I>HTOY
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). KaJtO<IJk1i.fcht wtd Aramiiischt' lrucltrij;en (Wicsbud<"n:
li artfiSSOWitZ, 1962-4: 2.1\d C\ln. 19(t(t-9).
Eddstdn. E. J.. and L. Edd std n. Asd€pi1ts. A Coll«timt and lmerpNtaliiJit ofthe Ttstimottits (2
vols; Bahinl4>rc: 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. 1900-
J: 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\'hcn-
VIuyn: 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.
326 Bibliography

- -'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 <kr :.ltc Synagogc eincn pr:kxistcntcn Mes11l:.s gd:anm'. Na1luuwd 21 ( 1905}.
pp.89- 150.
Bbek, M.. •'J'hc "Soo llfM:.n"' in th~ Old Bibli<:al li1cranuc', £rpT60 (1948·9). pp. I 1- 15.
- -'The "Son ofMa.n" in Lhc Teaching o f Jcsu11', E.tpT60 (1948-9). pp. 32..(,.
- -'The E11eha1ology of !he Simililudcs \)f Enoch\ JTS NS 3 ( 1952), pp. 1-10.
- -'Se.-,•a.nl oflhc Lotd and $s)ll MMan', SJT6 (1953}. pp. 1- 11.
- -'The Soo of Man Probl\•m in Rec.:m R~"M::.teh and Debate'. RJRL45 ( 1963). pp. JOS-18.
- -'The "Son of Ma.n" Pa.~sion Sayi ng.~ in the CrO~J)i!) Tradition ' , ZNW (,0 (19M). 1)1>· 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~<lologicsl
Origins•, in J . H. Clltltleswonh (cd.). THE MESSI:\H. Dewlupmtm.t in Em·!itst i1ului.'>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. 111-
22.
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 ~\<illc: Jan1es Cl.srtci\Vcstmimacr/John Knox. 1991 ), pp. 46-56.
- - 'Mclhod in our M.sclllCS.'I. :l.Od Madn\'iS i.n their Mclhods. Some Approoch~ !I> 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~'· 164-
82.
--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.
- - : \It
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.
92- 102.
CatdlJ>Oic, D. R., 'The Son of ,\tan's Scsrch f.:~r Fai!h (l uke xviii Sb)', N011T 19 t1977). pp. 81-
104.
- -'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'. 4

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,· 391-
407.
- -'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 Tou<h tilt' Ti!:rt. Bibliatl and Related St11die.J itl 1/(}fltJr of 1• .'\. Fil~tii)U S.J. (New York:
Cros.sto:.d, 1989). pp. 369-&9.
- -'Dank! ? and the Historical Jesus', in H. W. Attridge t'l al. (cd~), Of Scribt>s 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 <tl. (c.:lll). Thi! Futltrt" of &r!y
CllliJtianiiJ: Essays in Ho110r ofHt'lmltl Kot.ster(MiiU\C:l.polis: Fonre!\S, 1991). pp. 220-8.
- -'The "Son M Man" Tr:ldi1ion :.nd 1ho: Book of Revelation'. in J. H. Ch:.l'lf.':~'orth (cd.J, THE
MESSIAH. /Nw•lopmenl.s i11 Earliest Jmlaism and Chn·l·Jitmi(v (Minn~'31)C)Iill : fonn.'SS.. 1992).
J)J). 53(H>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><l Scrolls mul Other Ancit'nf Lilt ratw-e (Ne.w
York~ Ooublcd:.y. 199.5), pp. 173- 94.
Col1>c. C.. ' Ocr Bcgriff "'Mcnscl'l\'ltSOhn" und die ~klhodc <k:r Erforschung mc~sianischc-t
Prol<llypc-n', Kaims II (1969). pp. 241-63: 12 (1970). pp. 81- 113; IJ (1971), pp. 1- 17: 14
(19 72). pp. 241- 57.
----0 uiOt; Tali 0:\IEipc.)rrou. nvN1' VIII ( 1969), pp. 400-?7: Trans. G. \V. Bromilcy, TDNT VIII
(1972). pp. 400-?7.
--'Ncu~ Um~rsu~hungcn zum M('nSd lensohn-Probletn', TRt'l' 77 ( 1971). cols 353- 72.
Copp~~ns. J.. La Rtl;-a•(! ap(}t:ai)JJJiqllt' du Mt>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).
 Bibliogmphy 329

C~nes.. J. B.• alld Ciani. F. M., 'The Son of Man ot the Son of Adtlm'. Hib <!9 ( 19f'.&). 1>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. 5-
59.
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 <tmlthr Scripturi!J: Qmmu11 Fifty
Ytars .J.fter (JSPSu~' 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Al'Sde-mk. 199'1), 1>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>itr<Tgt• :.t• ihrtr st1:,ialm Gestaltung. Zwn 70.Gtbumtag
ron Pmf. D. Hei11:,-Dietrich \\'mdltmd (Zurkh: Zwing.li. 1970), pp. 4 7- 59.
Emcnon. J. A, ' Tho." Origin of1hc So,, elf Ma'' Imagery•. fl'S .'\159 ( 1958). pp. 225-42.
Fc.n:h.A. L The Son ofMmt in /)(mie/7 (lkrtiro Spri ng,~ : Andrewll Univ.• 19S3).
Fcuillet. A.. ' Lo." Fit~ de l'hommc de Otlnicl t( 1:1 Tr:uHtion Bibliqu.::', RB 60 ( 1953). ,,,,, 170-202.
32 1-46.
- -'l'£umsia du Fils de I' Homme', Rel·ScRe/42 ( 1954), pp. 161-92.
- -'lcs 01igiM~ ct Ia ~i g.ni fica1ioo de M1 l 0.2Jb: ComributH>1l i I'Ctudc du pmb!C.mo."
cscf'l:uologiquc•, CBQ 23 (1961). pp. 182- 9&.
- -'Lt Triomphc du Fils <k l'hommc d':tpr.:S Ia declsr.u ioo du Chri111 :lUX Sll.nlk.-tdfitcll (Me.,
XIV,62: MI•. XXVI.64; le .. XXII.69)'. in E. Mas.>~aux (cd.J. La ~'<-'lllte d11 Mcssit (Brugcs:
Oe:~clk de Brouw-er. 1962). pp. 149-71.
Fiebig. P.. Ot'J' Mens<hmJo!m: Jt:su S.elbsJbe:,tic/lmmg (TIIbingcn: Mohr(Sielx:cl:). 1901 ).
Fitzmyer, 1. A.. 'Another Vicw of tile "Son ofM:m"' ()::bate•JS,\'T 4 (1979}, pp. 58- 6S.
- -'The New TeMamem Tide "Son of Man" Philologkally Co•t~i ck:rcd'. in J. A. FitunyN, A
\lUncltring Aramean. Colledrd Aramai< £uays (SBlMS 25. M i s:~oula: Schol:us, l 979). pp.
143-(,(),
Fk dderm:mn. H. T.. 'The Q S3ying on Con fc~~i n,g :Uld D::nying'. SBLStminar Papo:rs 26 (Atlanta :
Scholars, 1987}.pp. 606-16.
Fkldtcr·Loui ~. C. 1-1. T.. Llrke-Act.f: Angtl.t. Chd.ftology und SorerioloSJ' (WUN'T 2.94. Tdbi.ngen:
Mohr Sicbcck, 1997}.
- -'TI)C High Prics;t :.s Di\'ine Mcdia1or in the Hebrew Bible: D:.n 7:13 ss a TCllt Case\SBI.SP 36
(Atbma.: Scl10lsrs, 1997}. pp. 1(>1-93.
- -'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<!6)d'P· 1-35.
FI\."Cd. E. D., 'The Son of ).fan in 1h~ Foonh G~I \JHL 86 ( 1967), PI,· 402- 9.
Full>: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. 476-
l!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. z,, 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.
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<he UntuJildFLfiiS (CH!o:
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 <kr Mcn:ochcnsohn-Logi..-n•. ZNIV 58 ( 1967). pp. 159- 72.
--Nt'lll Teswment n':e(}/og_~ ~1.1. The ProdcTIJKitiml ofleslfs (rr.t~. J. Bowden: l ondon: SC~i.
1971), p~l. 250- 99.
- -'Dk Ot~i ·T3gr-WM~ do::r E\'a.ngdic•''- in 0 . JNcmi:l>~ f!l<tl. {cds) 1i·aJitioJt tmd Gfallbt'. Das
friillt: Cllrilft'fllllm in sl!inr.r Umwe!J. Fr:;tgabt fiir K.G. Kuhn ::um 65. Grlmrtstag (Gliuirtgco:
V:uulc-nhocd: & Rul)l\_--cht. 1971).
Ke:uns. R.. 1't1r{ragen ::ur Christologit'. Vol. I. Mmpltologis<ht' und Semu.siologisdrr Swdit' :;11r
\~rgts<hichtr eiJ:es <hrislnlogisc!Jm Holleitstitds (Ttibin~c-n: Mohr (Si~k). 197&): \~1. 2.
Ubt-diefmms.f..s:ts<hkhtlirhi! wul Re;cplitnugrsdtidulicltt' S/lldie :. ur ~·fm;rscltidrte ei11rs
rhrisw/(},s:i.sciJm Holtdtstitels (TUbi ng~,,: Mohr(Sicbc-d: ), I 980): Vol. l . Rrligionsgndtidulidte
tmd Tmdilimugesdti<hllidrr Stlldie ::tlr \hrgcschichtc eim•s chri.stologisdrtn Hoht:ii.WiJds
( Tt'ibingcn: Mohr (Sicbo.--ck). 1982).
--0..1l' Traditi(}nsgefi(.~f! ctm dtll Mntrchensohn. UNpriiJ1glichrrGelwlt wul iiltcsrr '-'t •·iilldl!rJtJig
im Urcl!ris.trntwu (Tt':ibingcn~ Moht (Sic-bo.--ck). 1986):
--Die £ntdtri.st(llogisimms des Mm.H·ht-ttsoi\/Jes. Die iibtrmJ,gllng Jes Tmditionsgefi(.~ts um
den MeiJSchtnsohn aufJe.ms (Tiibingc-n: Mohr(Sicbcd:). 1988).
- -Mtttma}JungetJ :;11r Chri.ftofogie. P..ul I.!Hr grwal1samgt-liilf!tt' tmd nuch dt-m UJd ~'E'rherrlidrte
Ga.-drtc (Tt'lbingc-n! Guldc-·Drud Gmbh. 2002): Pan 2. '0 uiO; roU «~W1Tou uls
hofrtir.flit~tfarts IIVngebi!Je (TUbirtgco: Guldc-·Otuck Gmbh. 2003}: Pan J. Die EpitJ!umie des
Mnr.fcheruohnt s in dtr Welt: Dit- 1runs~enJent--esdr«<olosi.sclte Epiplumie des Mtlrschtlt.fo/rncs
{TUbing~n: Cillld~-Oru~k Gmbh. 2003): P:w 4. t> 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
<i mbh, 2004).
Kcndgc, K., ' Oi~ Volln13c-h1 des Mroschc-nsohncs zur Slindc-twcrgcbung (M:k 2.10)', i.n P. HolTmann
{cd.). on·emiemng all Jrs.11.s. Zttr Thto/(Jgit- dtr Synoptiker. Fiir JosefSdmtid (Freiburg/Btti>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. 161-
86.
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 <lf Christ'. HJRLt.l 51 (1974- 5). pp. )(,(,_a?,
- - 'Re·Emcr the Apoc;tl)lp(k Soo of Man'. ."'n' 22 (1975-6), p~l. 52- 72.
--'J c;u~ a~ Advo..--ate: A Coo!ribtuion to the Chri..-.tology D..-batc', BJRIM 62 ( 1979-8()). p~l .
476-97.
- - 'The New lllOk oo the Soo of Man'. HJRLM 63 ( JCJS0-1). pp. 431-62.
--it•Jus Sm1 ofMwt A Frt.\'11 E.ramitwlioJt oftile Son ofMan Sa.\·iJ1gs iltlht' GtJSfuds itl tire Light
of Recent Ne.srtlrdt (London: SPCK. 19&3).
- -' Rcs.poos.c ta Richard B:l.uckham: The Idiomatic U~~e of Bar Ena.>~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. 171-

93. 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: All<litu 7 ( 1991), 1>1,· 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 <les Hmoc/1 (BL \ W 35. Gi c~n: TJpclmann.
1922).
Me)·cr. A .. l t.m Mutltrsprache. DtH galiliii.sdre Aramiiisch in sdtttr Btdtatrmgfiir <lie Erkliirrmg
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 <ks Ncuen Tes.!alll('IUS' . rz 27 (1971}. pp.
&1- 104.
- -'ON MenschetiSOiln. in dc-r J.:susiltk'llkfcnmg'. TBd 2 ( 1971). pp. 119- 28.
- -'Det Umb"•ch: r.·lessianil~l = ~tc-n~henso.'lhn. ftagcn zu Markus SJ I ' , in G. Jeremi:tll t'l a/.
(cdll), TraditiOIIIIJUI G/uubt : Das)iii.ht Clrrist~llllllll itl.ft'iller Um,~·e/1. Fts(~abt'/fir K. G. K11h11
:;utl 65. Gi'!bw·r.stag (GI'ittingen: Vandc-nhoeck & Rupl\."eht. 1971). l)p. 310- 16.
Moloney, F. J.. 'The Targum on Ps. & and the New TellmJncm'. Saltsiarmm 37 ( 1975). pp.
32(>-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 er<kr. 1974}, pp. 413-28.
- -Tht Origin of C.hri:>li1logy (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'. Ostli<ht Chrislt'llllWI 25 ( 197 n, pp. 253-6 1.
- -' M cn:«:hensohn und Messias. Religi onsgc:«:hichtlichcn VM:·,b.:>rlegungcn 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 <kn Evangelic-I) ', Sr ) I ( 1977), pp. 65-82.
--Dtr Arudmck 'Mtlfs(·htltWHIII ' i11 den Ewmselien. \ 0rtw.un:el1 IIJUI Btde11Jmtg (Acta
Thcologi-ca Danica XVII. lcidl.'n: Brill. 1984).
- -'The ExprcS!lion " the Soo of Man"' tiS Used by Jcsu.,.·. Sr 38 ( 1984), pp. 41-(,.:1.
- -' '' Havt you Faith in the Soo MM:tn'?" (John 9.35)'. NTS 37 ( 1991). pp. 29 1-4.
- -'Schkicnnacher und dcr Ausdruck " ~fo:olt....:hcll.(()hn". Ejn 1ypisches Bdspid und cin
Ausd" •ck'. in D. lang~ :uld P. \Vid1n:u1n (eds). Kitrhe :;wiJdren Heii'SbotKh«/1 wtd
 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}.
--' Paru~i c 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.). 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.<l1n. ~i. ~L net> 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.
Roc-Mi.~ G.• 'JCl!uscllc Fil s de 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·
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<U), pp. 355-f,?.
S:ingcr, D. (cd.). Gnltessuhn wtd MenscltenschJt. Exegelischi' S1udie11 :;rt ::ll'ci P<mtdigmen biiJii.sdrer
lntute.rttralitiif (Bibli !~th ·Th..."''i ogiso:-he Studie-n 6?. Ncukirchen· Vluyn: Ncukireh.:•ler, 2004).
S:t.SSC". M.. lkr Mensc·hettwlm im Emn,s;tfilmr nur.h Jnhmr11es (Tc,tc: und Arbdtc:n zum
riCutestatlll.'nd ieh~n Zcit.sllcr 35. T(lbing.:-n: Fra.ocke. 2000).
Sdl3bet!;. J .. 'Daniel ?,12 and dle Nl.'w T.:-~tamcm P:.ssio•l·Resurrec•ioo Pred iNion~·. NTS 31
(1985). pp. 208-22.
Sdtc:nk. W.. Das biogmphisdre Jdr-Jdiom 'Mrnsdu:ns(}/m' itr de11 frii.hm Jesu:>·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<hl' Unterstlt'hllngtll :;u dcu syltop!isclren
ltl t'tl.ft'htruolmwonm l t:ill (BWAI\"T 119, = VI. 19; Stuug:.rt! Kohlhammct. 1986).
SC"hWdZI."r. E., '0\'r Menschcnsohn (Zttr cschlltoloyiSo."hen Erwanuog Jcsu}'. ZNl\' ).() (1959). pp.
1&5-209.
 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<t9), PI,· 278- 301.
Smi1h, .\ l. 1-1.. 'No Place fM a Son of Man', Fmllm 4 (1988). 1,1,. 83-107.
- -'T.:a Judgi! Lhc Son of Man. The Syn(l{l(ie S:.yings\ Fortu/1 1 ( 1991). pp. 20'l -42.
Sr.autfcr. E .. ' Mcs.<tia.s ode•· M cnsl.'l1Cnsohn·, Nm·r I (1956), pp. .&1- 102.
Sron, W.. ' "So•l of r..·lsn" - A Tide ofAbss~'flll.'nt' . £~p1' 83 (1971- 2). pp. 278-81.
Stowallsl.'r. M•. 'Mk 13,261' und die mehdsdich~ Rczcption des Ml.'tlS('hensohnll', BZ 39 ( 1995),
pp. 24(t-5 2.
Strecker, G., ' Oi~ Lcidellll· und AtiiCI'llt~hung>\'(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:lri<htfic·hnr 0 11
dl!r Menscl!t'Jtsolmgl!stc'lll c'ler Bildtnwil!n des iithiqJischm He1ux:h (SUNT 12. G6uingc,l:
Vandenho..--ck & Rupreclu. 1915).
Thoo1pson, G. H. P., ·n.~ Son of Man - Sonl~ Funhl.'r Considersliot\S.'. fl"S NS 12 (1961), P~'·
203-9.
TIIImann. F.. Dtr .4kllschrrts(}hfl: lt>Jil Sdbstbe:.~tlJ;IIi.J fiiJ' stilll! meuia11isd:t Wfi1rlr (Frdburg
i.B.: Herder, 1907)._
- -' li:JI dil.' Sclb!<!bcJ.cichnuns Jesus "dcr Mcnschl.'nsohn" ihte Wurzc1n in On ?.l.l?'. BZ 5
( 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-<L).. Logia: lcs fXIJYJitJ de Nsw: - 71te SayiJ1gs ofJenu (BETL 59. Le-u,•en: le-u \len
U.P.IPec-to.' -IS. 1982). pp. 77- 99.
- -'Ei.nc Obcrhohc-."'Mc-nsc-hcnsohn" l-lyi>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~'<l. 10 Jesus'. JBL 9 1 ( 1972}. pp-.
4&2- 90.
- -'The- Son of r..-Jan: Some Rc~'t'nt IX:\'clopmentll', CBQ 45 ( 19&.3). pp. 584-601.
- -' John 1.43·51 and "The Soo of ~tan" i.n the Founh Oos1X"1'. JSNT 56 (1994). 1)1). .ll--12.
Wdlhauscn. L lsroclirisdu~ IIJld Jildisdte Gesd•idlle {Berlin: Reimer. 1894), p. 312 n. l.
--Ski;3UIIcl \brarbtilm V I (Berlin: Reimc--t, I &99), pp. I &7- 215, 'Des M~hc-n Sohn'.
--Ei11leittmg ill dit drti ersttll £wmgelien (Bctlin: Rcimc-t. 2nd C'dn~ 1911). PI>· 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<ibbas Rl"t'isittd
(Atlt~ma: ScOOI.nfll, 1998).
Avulos. H.. Illness and Ht'<iltll Can: in the Alldtnt Nt'(Jr Eas.t. The Rolf' of tht' Tt.mpli' i11 Grt'('t't',
Mesopotamia and J.mrd (f-ISM 54. Atlsma: Scholars. 1995).
Bal:cr. J. li., and J. R. Silwr, ' Hysterical pss-aplcgi:.' , Joomal of Ntwulog); Neuro.mrgtry a11d
P:.yclliat'f)' 50 {1987}. pp. 375-82.
B:.rt. J.. '"'0ctcmli03tion" 3.1\d thi: Definite A nidc in Biblical licbrew', JS.S l4 (19S9}. PJ).
307- 35.
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<lS.>~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!<hip :md Chri11tological IX\'clopmc-mll in the Pt~uli ~ Churchc)l'. in C. C.
Ncwnlal\. J. R. Davila and G. S. L.cwi!< (ed.~). Tl•e kwish Roofs ofChriswlogirol Mmu>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<fll(lli.tulimt tfu Psowne I /0: I dans
/e NtHll'CUil 7btcrmelll (EBib. Paris: Gabalda. 1978).
Grabbe. L L., ' Aquila's Transla1ioo a.nd Rabbinic Exegesis•, JJS H (1982). pp. 527- 36.
Gn.x:Jlbaum, S., ·com.:-x1ual l.ofl ucncc on Acceptabilit)' Judgcm~ms', LiJigJti.f/ks 187 ( 1977). pp.
5-I L
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 <k b redac1ioo pt'inlilivc du U\•re d'£nocll\ Journal
Miutiq11e, Sileh~mc SCrh.\ 9 {1867), pp. 352- 95.
lhlligan, P. W.. and A. S. D:tvid {eds). Cmrw•rsirm H.nuriu: Tuwonls u Cognitirt'
Nt'lWOJJ.rycleolosical Accomrt (l·lo1x:: Psychology Prcs11. 1999).
li :alvcrsoo. S.• 'The Conccp1of Equh•alc.ncc in Tr:ansls tioo Srudies: Mud 1Ado About Something',
Target 9 {1991), pp. 207- 33.
Hanson. A. T.. 71re Pmpllt'lif: Gospt'/. A Sludy of John urn/lire Old Tt-surmtnt (Edinburgh: T&T
Ct:trl:. 1991 ).
Han•ey. A. E.. Jesc1s a11d tilt' OmstrairttJ of History (B:tl 1980. london: Ouckwo11h. 1982).
Ha)·. D. M.. Glory «I tl!e Right Hand. Psalm 110 i11 Early Chrislitmity (Nm;h,·ille: Abingdon.
19?3).
Hilgc.nfdd. A . Oil!' jiidische Apokti(\'Jitik itl ilu\'r gesdeidlllidJm £m,ri<klw1s (Jcna: Muudte.
185?).
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 Sru<lies: 11ft' Srutt of rf:e Arl.
PI"'«'cdings of the First James S . Holmes Symposium on Tr,,nslntion Studi<s (Amstc.rdam.
1991). pp. 71-89.
Holm·Nidscn. S.. '1'hc- Book of Ecclcsia.<.;t~ ll!ld 1M lm.:rp•-cl:ttion of i1 in J cwi~h a.nd Clldstiao
Th.:-ofogy\ ASH IO (1975- 6), 1,1,· 38-96.
Hooker, f\1. )).. Jesus a11d lilt Sm·unt {london: SPCK. 1959).
--The Gn.tpt'l Acmrdin_s; W St Mork (BNTC. LondM: Blt'ld:. 1991).
li uchcw:rgard, L ' Wha! is Arnm.~ic?' ,Atum 7 {1995). 1>1,· 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
<Tt:~.os. T. J. de Kornfeld. P. Hcl1si, K. K.Sroly :~.od K. Kls udy; Budapest: Scholaslica. 2003}.
Klein.. M. L. 'Cocwcrsc Tra•l~lsti oo: A 'f;~_rgumk Tcc-ltniquc' .. Bib 51 (1976}. 1>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 Bibliography

Lars~. 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 <k: s.. JCrOmc sur Daniel'. Rel•tu•
tl'hislnirt d <le litltm/lJI't religitltses II ( 189?). pp. 164- 13. U>&-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<ik . A. H.. All lntJY!tlltdiml to Ecdtsioste.\' h'ith NcMs t11td Appendices (Cambridb><:: 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<lit~'ICl'. Tht £YpCsilnr,4th series. l ( 1891). pp. 1- 1'7, 109-24. 2'75-91.
Moel:s. W. A . The Fir.'i1 Urba11 Cllristiun.f. 111e Snc:ial mu'id uf the Apo.ftle Paul (London/New
Hawn: Val<." Unh·cl'llit)\ 1993).
~'lcnkcn. M. J.. 01<1 TtJtamelll Quof(llioru ill Ihe Fmmh Gospel. Swdits ilf Texllwl Form (Kampen:
Pharos. 1996).
Mci:T.gc--r. B. M.. A Texllwl Cmmttcll!UI)' im tilt Gm*- Nth' Tcst(lmtm (Swindon: UBS, 1971).
Micklcm.. E. R.. Mimdts tm<IJ!Je New Psy<htJiogr (Loodoo: OUP. 1922).
Murphy. M. R.. ' Ciass.ificntiOI) of the Som:uofomt Disorders', in C. Bass (.:d.}. Smllati;t.IIi<»r:
PhyJical Symp10111s un<l Psydwlogiclll Jllnts.'i (Oxf.:~rd~ Blackwell. 1990), pp. 10--39.
Neube-rt. A.. 1i'.\1 Wl<l1hm.dalitm (0bctsel2un~wisscnsch:tl'dK:hc Beitdge &.leipzig: En.z)•klop&He.
1985).
- -' l1l1Crf<."renec bc1w<."en Languages and between T~1s'. in H. Schmidt (ed.). lnterjert'll~ itl tkr
Ji·mulatiwr (l)hcrs(tzungswillsenJ~chatil k:h<." B<:itrl~ 12. Leipzig: En:eyl:Jop:idic, 19&9). pp.
5(H!4.
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<l hculiJ1g: the h'ork of l.·M. Chart'ot (London: Dobson.
1971).
 Bibliogmphy 343

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<cmrling to SJ JtJhn (81\'TC. London: Black.
19(.S).
Sch§ffil.;-r, C.. ' Stratc&ics of Tnt..ns.l:u1ng Potitkst Tclt"ts', i11 A. Trosborg (00.), Tt.fl Typolt1g)' and
Ji·a11sluti<m (BTL 26. Ams.t..-rd:un. Benjamins. 1997), pp. 119-43.
ScMffi\ct C., (cd.), Tronsfation and Qcl(dily (Cicvcdon: Muhiling\1al Maners Lid. 199&).
Schagcn, S. H•. 'Coo.x~lL~ of Rcsttti\."Ction s nd lmmon:tlity in lmcrt ~SL'lnwmal JOO:tism and i.n the
NcwTc,.lanl!Cm' (unpublished doetorsl dissen:.tion. Noui11ghsm University, 19S5).
Schmidt. N.. 'The 0 1lg_in:.l LangW~ge of the Par:.blcs of Enoo;"ll'. in R. F. l·larpcr t-1 al. (00s). Old
Ttslumetlt und Semilic Stltdies in Memory tif\V. R. Hartwr (2 vols; Chicago: Univ. of O.icago,
1908). \'OI. 2~ pp. 327-49.
Schudtan:l. B. G .. Suiptlln! wilhin Saipllll\'. Tht- lllltJ'J'tlalitnuhip of FOJ'/11 und Function ill
lht- E.rplidt Old 'Ti!Jt(tJIIt'tll CilutiMs in tht Gospt/tif John (SBU)S 133. Allanla: Scholars.
1992).
Schullhess. F.. Gmmmatik dt.~ chn'stlicll-paliisliJlischm Aramiiisch (TUbingcn: l. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Skbcek). 192<1).
Schwankl. 0., Dit Suddu;unfragt- (Mk 12. 18·17 parr)(Fr.tnkfun~ Alhen3um. 1987).
Schwaw~ <i., '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.
Stone. ~f . E.. Fo.mll E:.ru. A C<nnmi!Jltary Ott the Book iJf Foctrtlr E;,ra (Hcrmc-nciu. Minneapolis:
Fon~ss. 1990).
~\·cj.xr. A. D.. ' litctal Translation as :. Produ<.'t of lm..-cf~rc.ncc•, in li. Schmidt {OO.J. ltlltr/eren;
in dtr Tmmlati(Jfl (0bcrsl'C:w.ng;,wis..;..-n!lJChallliehc Bdtt3gc 12. L.cipz.ig: Enzyklc>p!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.
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: Chri~1 ian K.oowlcdgc SociCt)'. 1867;
10tl'lcdn.l91 1).
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> <trgwrwrtts /OJ' o11d againsl) (Heidelberg:
TEXTw nTEXT, 1996).
\bs. L A . The Synoptic Tnuliri<HIS in lite Ap«UI)pSt' (K:.mpc-n.: Kok. 19(>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).
- -/J<u· £wmgeliw11 Man:i (Berlin: Reimer. 1903).
--Einlt>illmg 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 <ks Gdahnncn (Me 2.10) ', Zl\f\V 5 ( 1904'). 1,1,· .l54-S.
J. Z~cr. ' Die Wicdcrgabc der oo1a a..""Cusath·i 'l!t, 'aet mil oUv'. ZAW 100 ( 19&& Supp). pp.
222- 33.
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND ANCI ENT LITERATU RE

Old Testam('nt 13A6 154. 155 5.4 258

14.11 155 7. 10 258
Gene-sis 14.18·19 155 12.13 156
1.26 6. 122 14.20 ISS 12. 14---!3 156
1.27 1!2 18.5 ISS 13. 1· 14 l>i
2.3 263 21.1 257 14.2 259
3.19 204 17. 10 258
3.22 204 !'\umbers 22.45 257
-
;. _
~,__ 103 2.25 256
5.2-1 100. l OS 18.21 257 I Kings
5.32 101 20.1 256 17 152
6.10 256 21.8 282 21. 10 25&
6.14 248 2 1.8·9 293 22. 19-'!! 181
13.16 49 21.9 282.287.304.312
20.7 152 2J .I9 258.259 2 Kings
21 .!2 252 24.17 250 2.J 257
22.4 207 4 152
27.35 278. 2SO IXuteronomy 4 152
28.12 lii. 180. 28 1. 293. 2.19 256 15. 1 256
312 8.3 262 18.4 282
28.16 280 18.15-19 294 19 153
30.23 256 2 1.20 137
49. 1 58 22.6-7 158 E:au
22.21 2CH 4. 1 257
Exodus 22.25 21).1 6.4 164
3.6 207 30.4 242. 266 6.11 283
3.15 207 32.6 260 6.14 256
3.16 207 32.8 260 6. 16 256.257
14-15 294 6.11 256
16 294 Judges 7.1 5 17J
16.29 122 6.3 257
20.8-11 263 l5A·5 172 Nehemiah
21.14 ~ 3.35 17 1
23.12 122 I Sumucl 12.28 257
14.-15 204
l...e\·itkus 14.52 61. 116 Job
4.3-12 155 20.31 257 1.6-12 181
4.20 155 26.16 257 2.1 --6 181
4.26 155 26.19 259 14 127. 129
4.31 155 14. 1+2 135
4.35 155 2 Samud 14. 10 129
13.42·44 154 2.7 257 14. 12 129
346 Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

14.14 129 9.5 194 10.22 11 1

14.21 203 10. 1 256 17.5 77
16.21 25S 23.20-21 138 27.4J 149
25.6 25S 2.1.12 279 30.28 171
30.29 171 24. 14 237 49. 18 158
J5.S 258 49.33 171. 258
&-dcsiastcs 50.40 158
PsnJms 1.3 260 50.43 149
8 26 1.14 260 51.J7 171
8.5 23. 258 3. 11 260 51.4J 258
8.6-CJ 122 6. 1 260
lOA 259 6.11 260 l.amcntution$
J2 151. 155 7.29 260 4.3 171
32.13 259 8.9 260
J& 151. 155 8. 15 260 Ezekkl
40.15- 16 136 9.3 259, 260 16.26 157
4 1 129. 135. 155. 311.312 9.12 259 18.6 97
4 1.6 129 21.12 149
4 1.7 135 Isaiah 23.7 257
4 1.7-10 135 11.12 216. 267 37. 18 256
4 1.9 129 13.22 171 37.27 173
41.1 1 129. 136 27. 13 216 40.46 157
43.10 171 l4.4 242. 266 44.7 157
45.5 I7J 34.13 171 44.9 157
48..12 173 35.3 149
49.3 260 38 153 Daniel
6 1.13 237. 279 38. 10-10 151 1.6 256
61.10 260 40 129 2. 11 174
63.1 1 172 40.3 127. 130 2.13 138
n-8 29< -10.6 128. 129 2. 11 138
n.16 256 40.6-8 127. 128 2. 18. 138
80.17 26 42. 1 280. 282 2.22 164
80.18 258 .l.l20 171 2.15 257
88.23 258 49.3 282 2.J5 2 15
103 155 51.12 258 2.27 153
103.3 151. 151 52. 13 282. 283. 287. 304. 2.28-29 126
110 243 308.309.311. 312 2.J2 60
110. 1 266.278. 280. 28 1. 52.14 260 2.37-38 63
312 52 23. 25 2. .18 260
116.3 129 53.1 308 2. .18.-39 60
116. 15 129. 135 S4. 13 294 2.44 205
116. 15 129 55 2'14 3. 15 125
118.7 136 56.2 25 I. 158 3.22 284
118. 14-17 136 3.23 5
118. 17-18 129 Jel"<'minh 4.4 15.1
118.22-23 12'9 6-7 12S. 129. 130 4.9 174
118.25~26 308 6.24 148 4. 10 9&
144.3 258 6.27 12S 4. 19 173
146.2 251 6.27-30 128. !03 4.22 151. 17-1
146.3 252. 258 7 128 4.24 60. 132
7.29 128. 20J--4 4.27 1.12
Pro\•c:rbs 9. 10 171 4.28 174
2.13 I IJ 10. 10 207 4.J4 182
 Index <if Scripture and Ancietll Literature 347
5.1 59 Hosea 111.18 164
5.6 149 6.2 207.233
5.7 153
5.11 153 Am<~ D«ad S(!a Scrolls
5.12 164 9.7 257
5.16 164 IQapG<n.
5.21 17-1. 260 Micub 11.5 60
6.20 205 1.7 171 11.10 60
6.24 284 5.6 259 Xll.l3 60. 164
7.4 60 XIX. 10 59
7.5 51 Nnhum XIX 153
7.8 60. S4 2.13 172 XX 153
7.9 9. 9S. 221 XXI.S 59
7.9· 10 84. lSI. 221 Jottt~h XX1.13 49.62
7.9-I.J 221. 23S 1.1 207. 234. 271
7.13 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9.10. 13. IQpHab
14. 15. 16. li. IS. 20. 22. Zcdt.1riah V11.2 230
2S. 30. 3S. 39. 49.50. 51 . 2.10 242.266 V11.9·14 217
52. 54. 61. 85-91. I l l. 9.9 308
11·1. 117. 162. 192. 193. 12.10 243. 277. 278. 280 4QEna
215.. 216. 2'19. 220. 227. 12.10-14 216.12 1. 266. I ii 25 191
229. 230. 231. 2.l7. 238. 261 l ivS 59
239. 242. 243. 244. 245, 14.5 192. 221
246. 25S. 166. 269. 278. 4QI97
280. 281. 291.293.294. t<.·l alnchi 4ii2 153
308. 312. 315. 31& 3.1 127. 130
7.13-I.J 4. 6.40.50. 51. J.2·3 128 4Q203
S5. 220. 235. 237. 266. 3.23 12S \'iii. 14 164
267. 27 1. 272. 275. 277 J.23·24 125. 126. 127
7.14 221 4Q204
7.16 224 vi 9 99
7. 17 83 S~·riac PeshJita
7.18 83 4Q212
7.21 84 Genesis ii.20 60
7.22 84 8.21 63 i\•. 12 ~
7.2-1 205
7.25 84 Exodus 4Q213a
7.26 181 33.20 79 frg 21ine 5 192
7.26 85
8.17 258 Job 4Q242 153. 164
9.26-27 213. 216 16.21 78. 79
9.21 213 16.20-21 42 4Q246 52
10.16 261 35.8 113
11.14 257 4QS36
11.9· 10 5 Psalms l ii l2 202
11.31 2B 40.5 42. so
11.35 132 94.12 .J2. so 4QS41
12.1 91 2ii3 128
12.1·3 205 4ii6 128
12.2·3 133
12.11 213 4QS42
Sc.fin:- Ii 3 ~
111.14·17 67. 187 1 i 6 129. 204
348 Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

I i II 60 ..J Moceab«s 46. 1-3 97·<.19. 106. 2:11

I i 12 59 6.28·29 IJJ 46. 1-4 30
17.20-22 IJJ ..J6.2 91. 9J. 9..J. 95. 100.
4Q558 115 10 1
Simch 46.2-4 101
6QDun 26 1 Prof. 1 5~26 156 46.3 17. .w. 92. ()3, 94. 99.
14.18 299 100. 109. 110
l i T:;lob 17.31 299 46.4 94
111.3 60 38. 1-15 151 46.4-5 97
IX.9 64 48. 10 125. 126. 127. 130 46.8 97
XI.I J 60 46. 14-17 109
Xl ll.6 60 Wisdom 47 39
XVI.4 60 3. 1 185 47.4 17. 31
X.XXIII.6 132 --1. 16 185 48.2 94
XXV.6 60 5. 1-16 185 48.2·7 101
XXVI.2·3 64 16.7 282 48.4 102
XXV11.9 132 17. 18 149 48.7 103
XXVIII.5 60 48.9 103
XXVJII.7 174 48. 10 92
XXIX.8 60 l'seudepigrapha 49.60 102
X.XX.2 60 52.4 92
XXX.6 59 Ahiqttr 58.26-27 105
XXX.7 60 70 145 60. 1 102
XXXI.3 60 107-8 60 60.8 102
XXXI.S 60 126 60 60. 10 94
XXXI.S 59 129 59 61.1 108
XXXII.5 174 171 59 62.5 17. 9-1. 109. 221
XXXIII.8 59 175 164 62.5·9 102-3
176 16-1 62.7 93. 103
IIQIO 207 59 62.9 93
62. 14 93. 103-104
xxxvnu t64 2 Baruch 62.27 105
1·1.18 122 62.'28 106
IIQI9 62.29 106
I EIIIXII 63. 11 104
XLV.12-14 154 1.9 192 69.26 9.1
..J 174 69.26-29 104-5
5.9-6.4 96 69.27 93
6.~. 1 96 69.29 94. 109. 110. 221
6.6 96 70.1 .19. 93
I ~facca!xes 6.7-8.1 96 70. 1-4 107-S
2.50 133 12.3 99 71 288
2.64 133 14 288 71.5 108
95-J-55 149 14. 1 99 71. 111 98. 108
15. 1 99 71. 11 100. 108
2 ~faccabees !2:206 11. 14 30. 40. 94. 99. 106.
6-7 I3J 22.3 63 107. 110
7.15 133 32. 1 2 10&
4
71.14-17 99. 221
7.37-S 133 31.3 lOS 71. 17 93. 110
8.3 133 -12.6 102 71.29 106
45.3 97 77.3 108
J ~faccabecs 46 39 81.5 288
2.22 l -l9 46. 1 100. 109 85·90 I ll
 Index <if Scripture and Ancietll Literature 349

89 31 T.!lbr. 2.4 222

89.36 m IJ 29 1 2. 11 176
90.31 Ill 2.1J·I4 177
90.40 Il l T. lfi.m. 2.23 176
93.1 98 5.6 99 3. 15 164
3. 16 281
2 Enoch T. Le••i u 169
22 100. 109 10.5 99 4. 11 281
22.10 109 4.1J 176
645 10 T. Jud. 5.11 239. 271
14 IJS 5. 16 II. 2.54
3 Enoclr 18.1 99 5.20 286
16 2SS 6. 12 138. 16-1
T. Le1•i 6.25 115
E;,el:.ie/lhe Tragedkm, 7.4-8. 1 110 7.9 II
E.tu.gogt' 10.5 110 7.21 286
68-69 114 8.2 169
8.4 169
4 E~ro Philo 8.11·13 240
3.7 204 8. 14 176
3.36 112 Dt dtt·ologo 8. 18 117
5.12 112 99 122 8. 19-20 168-78. 316
6.10 112 8.20 6. 7. I I. 16. IS. 20.
6.16 112 lk tbrit'llllt' 21. 28. 31. J5. 40. 46.
6.>1 122 206-2-1 138 47. 120. 171..173. 176,
7.1 1· 16 104 271. 272
7.29 112 lk spedalibus legibus 8.2 1·22 168
7.78 204 4.97·104 138 8.22 ITI
S.6 112 8.28 ITI
13 17. 20. 22. 23. 29. 30, Dt \'ila cmtlt'mtJiiwr 9. 1 176. 177
39. 40. 51. 52. .54. 112 2 14S 9.2 152
13.3 112 9.6 II
135 112 9.7 165
13.11 112 .JOMphus 9. 10 176
13.25 112 9. 15 26 1
13.3! 112 Anriqt1ilies 9.28 176
13.51 112 1.72-6 118 10.4 195
\'111.45·9 148 10.5--6 2JI
Jubilees XVJJ1.14 205--6 10.11 170
2.17 122 XX.97·8 214 10. 18 232
4.15 96 10.23 2JI. 232
4.17·24 99 IO.J2 12. 181. 185. 271
4.21 103 IO.J2·J3 117. 179-94.
4.11·22 288 239. 2.55
4.22 108 Apiott IO.JJ 237.271
10.10· 14 148 11.195 138 11.1 231
10.17 99 11.10 127
11.13·14 49
P.mlmJ ofSn/(}rmm t\ew Teslrunent 11.16·19 136
8.1'2 97 11.18·19 20.46. 47
Mouhcw 11.19 21. 28 . .16. 42.
Sib)'llint Orodes 1.21 222 136-9.271.27-1. 315.
V.414-6 51 2.2 222 316
350 Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

11.20.24 156 21.31 2 139

4
26.45 309
11.2 1 170 22.16 169 26.49 169
12.8 10. II . 12. 15. 26 22.24 169 26.63 222. 277
12.28 223 2'2.36 169 26.64 17. 51. 54. 274.277.
12.32 I I. 19. 42. 117. 23.23 58. 159 278.278,279. 280. 281.
1 ~3. 271.315.316 24 212- 22 282. J 12
12.38 169 24.2 213 26.68 197
12.39 233 24.3 212 26.75 197
12.40 2-J.O. 271 2-1.15 213.2 16 27. 1I 222
12.41-42 185 24. 17-1& " 6 27.11 222
13.1 176 2.1.20 213 27.22 222
13.36 164. 176 2.J.21 213 27.29 222
13.37 16. 234 24.22 215 27.37 212
13.38 261 24.23 214. 215 27.42 222
I.H I 16. 234. 137 24.23·25 2 15 27.58 169
14.13-33 294 24.24 213 28.2 169
16.13 9. 12. 15.235. 236. 24.26 214. 225 28.9 289
138. 282. 312 2.1.2~28 213. 214
16.13-20 215 2.J.27 212. 214. 216. 224. Mark
16.16 222. 263. 219 226.227. 26 7.271 1.2·3 127
16.18 279 24.28 213.215. 226 1. 13 28 1
16.17 279 24.30 6. 16. 17. 215.216. 1. 18 164
16.20 222 219. 220. 211. 267. 274. 1.20 164
16.21 2.35. 236. 267. 274. 308 1.21-34 "5
282. 283. 312 24.30-J I 2TI. 278 1.21 160
16.27 lSI. 237. 2JS. 293. 24.32-36 217 1.13-.31 160
294. 312 2.1.34 217 I.JO 154
16.27-28 183.137,238. 2.1..17 212. 216. 218. 224. J.JI 160
279. 292. 293. 308. 3 12 226. 227. 22:8. 267. 271 1. .18-39 170
16.28 237. 286 24.37-39 215.226 1.41-44 156
17.9 274 24.37-41 2 17 1.45 145
17.10-13 24.38 212. 216. 218 2. 1-3.6 16 1

17.13 169
"
17.12 12. 236 24.39 224.226. 227. 228.
267. 271
2.5 152. 156
2.7 16 1
17.22 236 2.1.40-41 2 1:8 2. 10 152.261.272. 316
17.23 267. 274 2.1.4 1 218. 226. 235 2. 1-12 121. 144-67
17.25 176 24.42 2)(). 244 2. 10 19. 21.31. 36.5 1.
18.3 2S6 24.43 219. 271 121 . 124. 162-6. 144.
18.9 2S6 24.43·5 1 21:8 264
1:8.21 169 24.44 271 . JO& 2. 16 138. 139. 160
18.27 164 24.45-51 220 2.13~24 42
18..32 164 24.51 220 2.21 1. 15. 19. 263
19.16 169 25. 1-IJ 220 2.21-28 19. 42. 12 1- 5.
19.23-24 286 15. 19 220 263. 264
19.28 181. 185 25.20 169 2.28 1, 19. 21. 26. 3 1. 35.
19.28 131. 238 25.22 169 42. 143. 162. NS. 263.
20.18 236 25.24 169 264.265. .115. 315
20.19 201. 202. 261. 269. 25.30 220 3. 1-6 148
274 25.31 230. 1JJ. 279. 293 3.2 16 1
20.20 169 25.30-46 18 1. 183 3.6 160. 161
20.28 236 15.31 221 . 2JS 3. 11 263
2 1.5 222 26.2 236. 268 3.17 26 1
21.14-30 220 26.25 169 3. 19 195
 Index <if Scripture and Ancietll Literature 351

3.20·30 138 10.32 187. 210 295

3.22·30 157 10.32·33 266 14.10 129
3.22·31 161 10.32·35 192 14.2 1 28. 36. 42. 58. 117.
3.28 19. 117. 118. 180. 10.33 236 129. 130. 13~. 198.
185. 254.255. 266 10.33-34 201 . 2 10. 266. 199. 210.2 1I. 24S. 266.
3.28·29 21. 42. 140-3. 271 317 267. 295. JIJ. .liS. 316.
4.14 182 10.34 130. 26q, 274 317
5.22·24 154 10.35 261 14.22·24 200
5.26 IS4 10.35·40 20S 14.24 IJO
5.35··U 154 10.34·45 44. 129. 131. 196 14.3 1 196. 208
5.41 57. 205 10.38·39 130 , •. .15 .109
5.42 l>i 10.39 129 14.J6 116
6.6 170 10.45 28. ~ 2. 44. so. 130. 14.41 19&. 200. 210. 267.
6.i 165 131~. 143. lSI . 184. 309
6.10 170 200. 236. 266. 21"2, 315. I4.4J·SO 195
6.13 165 315 t•.so t64
6.2<1 165 11.17 128 14.5().52 243
6.32·52 294 11.17-33 139 14.58 20&
655 170 12.7·8 130 14.6 1 24J
7.11 25 ~ 12.10·1 1 129 14.6 1--61 278
7.:14 58 12.24 182 14.62 23. 51 . 54. 6 1. 117.
8. 1·21 294 13.26 274 182. 192. 19J. 242. 244.
8.11·13 233 12.26·7 207 245. 266. 269. 212. 273.
8.27 235. 236 13.1·32 212 274. 277. 278. 318
8.29 182 l.l2 156 , •.64 157
8.31 130. 201. 202. 203. 13.9·13 232 , •.65 197
204. 209. 210. 211. 224. 13.10 242 I U2 197
225. 238. 266. 267. 272. 1.3.15·16 226 15.32 182
274. 282. 283. 312. 313. 13.20 213. 228 15.J4 204
317 1.1.21 214. 225
8.32·33 129. 201 1.3.21·22 242 luke--
8.38 179-9-1,137. 271. 1.1.22 213 1.5 224
279. 293. 312 13.23 213 1.16 26 1
8 ..18-39 279 l.l24 213 1.57 26 1
S.3S-9. 1 308 l.l24·25 242 2.46 223
9.1 225. 237. 279. 286 13.25 242 3. 12 169
9.9 266. 274 l.l.26 15. 23. 49. 51 . 54. 3.2 1 281
9. 11 202 61. 117. 192. 193. 216. 4.2.5 224
9.11·13 14.+1. 49. 125- 31. 219. 220. 242. 24J. 244. 4.J2 169
268 245, 266. 266. 267. 269. 4.41 263
9.11 44. 45. 118. 125. 129. 172. 273.308.318 5.17 2.'i2
130. 143. IS4. 185.203. 13.26·27 277.278 5.24 5
204. 236. 254. 266. 315. 13.27 216. 228. 229. 2-11 5.34 26 1
315 13.28·29 229 6.5 26
9. 12·13 1.36 13.28·32 217 6. 16 195
9.31 201.209. 210.2 11. IJ.29 217 6.12 239. 171
236. 266. 214. 317 l.l.30 229 7.27 127
9.J1 211 IJ.32 230 7.3 1-.15 1.16
9.39·40 222 13.35 218. 244 7.33-:W 20. 46
9.47 286 14.8 130 7.34 7. 21. 28. 36. 42, 136-9.
10.12 !!2 14.10 195 271. 174.315. 316
10.15 286 14.12·26 134 7.40 169
10.23·24 286 14.18 58. 129. 135. ISO. 8. 1 251
352 Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

8.7 223 12.3940 '218 19. 11 222. 225

8.11 1&2 12.40 271 , 308 19. I 1-27 220
8 .24 169 12.4 1-42 2 19 19.39 16!1
~us 239 1~.42-46 2 18 .220 20.21 16!1
9.4 170 12.50 200 20.28 16!1
9.10-17 294 13.4 254 20.41 16!1
9.18 236 13.31-JJ 200 21 222-30
9.20 182 13.32 176 21..5 16!1
9.21 225 LU2-JJ 130. 208. 234 21.5-36 228
9.22 271. 274. 281. 283 1·1.18 58 21.8 128
9.26-27 279 16.8 26 1 21.20-N 228
9.27-28 225 16. 19-31 202.206 21.2 1 22.3
9.33 169 16.30 206 21.27 51. >t 213. 224.
9.38 169 16.31 206 228.269. 273, 274. 278
9.-14 225. 27 1 17 121- 30 21.36 27 1
9.49 169 17-18.8 2.39. 241 21.28 ~29
9.50 222 17.5 222 21.32 229
9.51 169 17.20.2 1 26!1 21.36 239
9.57-58 168- 78 17.20-22 222 22.3 195
9.5S 6. 7. 18. 20. 21. 28. 17.22 223 •.,.,4, 225. 227. 22.27 22J
3 I. 35. 36. 40. 46. 120. 269 22.30 13 I. 185. 238
172. 173. 270. 272 17.23-24 214 22.47 16!1. 198
9.59-60 168 17.24 224, '"5. 227, 169. 22.4& 42. 195-9. 264. 265
9.61-62 168 271 22.49 198
10.3 223 17.25 224. 22.'i. 239. 269. 22.50 198
10.6 261 271 22.51 198
10.13 170 17.26 218. ""4. 227. 269. 22.62 197
10.13-15 156 271 22.64 197
10.25 169 17.26-27 215. 217. 226 22.67·70 278
10.30 25-J 17.28·29 226. 228 22.69 182. 184. 269. 273.
1.4 138. 164 17.30 218.224, 227. 269 278
1.20 22J 17.31 226 23.35 182
1.29-30 233 17.34·35 217. 218 24.7 20 1. 225. 241. 27 I.
1.30 240. 271 17.35 226 274
1.31·32 ISS 17.37 214. "'6 24.36 223
1.39 16!1 18. 1 226 24.47 165
1.42 58. 159. 169. 182 18. 1-6 226
1.43 16!1 18. 1-8 226 John
1.45 16!1 18.6 226 1.14 299. 309
1.47 16!1 18.8 271 1. 14-18 28-J
1.49 16!1 18.15 222 1.18 278. 289
152 16!1 18. 16 223 1.26-36 281
12.4 ISO 18. 17 223. 286 1.32 280
12.5 ISO 18. 18 169 IJ2·34 282
12.8 28. 52. 55. 183. 184. 18.21 169. 239 U J 280
185. 271 18.2+ 2.'i 286 U 4 280
12.8·9 179- 94.239 18.31 169 1.42 279
12.9 237.271 18.31·33 225 1.47 278
12.10 19. 42. 117. 140--3. 18.32·33 202 1.49 277. 279
190. 271.315. 316 18.33 271.274 1.50 277
12.12 175 18.4 1 169 1.5 1 13. 276. 277-SI. 282.
12.13 169 19. 1- 10 138 286.293. 312. 318
12.39 219. 271 19. 10 24 1 2. 11 309
 Index <if Scripture and Ancietll Literature 353
' ,
.1.-. 2&6 6.55-58 300 12.23 274. 282. 308-1 1.
3.5 2&6 6.56 300 312
3.10-11 277 6.58 301 12.27 309
3.11 287 6.59-66 297 12.32 281. 308
3.13 26. 27-J. 283. 284. 302 6.60 300. 301 12 ..12-33 283. 310-1 1
3.13-14 276. 318 6.60-66 299.300 12.33 '274. 282
3.13-15 282-91 6.61 301 12.34 .108-11. 318
3.14 6.274. 282. 282. 283. 6.61-66 299 12.3S 30&
293. 304. 308.311. 312 6.62 274. .301. 313 12.42-43 30-1
3. 14-15 307 6.62-63 289. 303 13.2 195
3. 15 282. 283. 304 6.63 295. 302 13. 18 295
3.16 283. 289 6.64-66 302 13.2 1 295
3.16-18 187. 290 6.66 299 13.26 195
3.17 287. 289. 292 6.68 299 13.27 195.311 •.312
3.18 292 6.71 195. 295 13.3 1-32 282. 311- 12
3.18-20 292 7.39 309. 312 1•. 16-18 1')0
3.19 289 8.11 303. 306 14. 18 278. 290
' ? ) 287 8.18 303 I.J.22 195
-'·--
3.22-26 287 8.21 303 14.23 290
3.26 287 8.23 289 14.25 290
33 1-J2 2&9 8.N 303 15.26 190
3.35-36 187 8.28 274. 282.303-5. 307. 16.5 290
4.1 287 308 16.6 290
4.2 287 8.29 303 16. 13 290
5. 18 291 8.30 3~ 16. 14 312
5.19-30 291 8.30-31 3()4 16. 14-15 1')0
5.20 291 8A8 JO.I 17. 1 312
5.22-23 291 8.52 3~ 17.5 2&9. 312
5.24 291. 297 8.57 3~ 18-19 282
5.27 291-4. 307. .3 12.3 18 8.58-59 3()4 18.2 196
5.28-29 292 9A·5 306 19. 1 274
5.37 278. 29S 9.5 306 19. 16-JO 27-1
6.27 297. 298. 303, 313 9.6 306 20-21 274
6.32 298 9.13 306 20. 17 289
6.>3 296. 298 9.16 306 20.22 165
6.34 296 9.17 306. 306 21.22-23 278. 280
6.35 298 9.18 306
6 ..!6 299 9.29 306 Acts
6.37 298 9.30 306 1.7 2..10
6.38 298 9.32 306 1.9-11 229
6.40 297. 298 9.33 306 1. 11 90
6.41 298. 301 9.34 306 2.33 28..1
6A5 29-1 9.3. 305-7 2.34-35 2-B
6.46 278 9.35-38 306 2.42 295
6A7 298 9.36 307 2.46 295
6.50 299 9.37 307 3.20 243
6.51 296. 298. 299 9.38 307 5.31 28J
6.52 296. 300. .301 9.39 306 7.56 184. 238,241
6.53 297. 298. 299. 300. 11.39 208 19.8 296
.303.3 1.1 12.1 308 19. 10 296
6.53-54 274. 299 11A 195 28.7 207
6.54 297. 300 11.7 308 28. 12 207
6.55 298 12.16 308. 309.3 12 28. 17 207
354 Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

Rom:ms Rcvda!jon Tnrgum Pseudo Jonathon

1 162 1.6 183 L.e,·ilicus
1.7 266 13.24 65
I Corinthians I. 13 238 Thrgum 2 Chronicle~
1.6 126 1.30 JSJ 14. 10 78
10.16- 17 295 3.3 219
11. 17-.!4 296 3.5 17<), I &2 Targum Probcrbs
11.23~25 295 3.21 183 27.:22 2 15
11.29 JOO 14.1 183
15.23 213 1·1. 14 238 Tnrgum Psal m~
16.8 296 16.15 219 8.5 112- 13
16.17 213 !2. 18-19 188 9.8 113
16.22 52. 218 22.20 218 44.20 171
80. 18 53
Galatians RA BU I ~J C UTERATURE 88.5 65
IJS 279 11).1. 14-15 64. 11 3
3.12 ISS Genesis Rabbah
7.2 21. 34. 75 Thrgum Job
Philippians 56. 1 207 16.20.21 42
2.6-S 90 68. 12 280 3329-30 42. 78
2.9 183
~.,•itkos
Rabbuh Targum Jeremiah
I Thessalonians 18. 1 208 51.43 64
2.19 213
3.13 213 Numbers Rubbah Thrgum Er.d:.icl
4.15 213 19.3 35 28. 13 172
4.16 218
5.2 219 Eslher Rubbah Tnrgum Micah
5.23 213 9.2 207 2.2 113

2 TI1essalonians T:ugum Gcnc:sis Bcrakhol

2.1 213 4. 14 37 i9.6 72
100.2 72
I Tim()(hy T:vgum Pscudo Jonathon 100.7 73
6.14 218 Genesis
40.14 77 Midr. P,alms
Hebrews 21.5 192
2.6 238 T:ugum Ncofiti Genesis
1 .2~27 75 M.Abolh
James 2.23 42. 76 1,13 202
5.7-8 213 4.14 76
5.8 218 -10.23 77 M. Kidd.
49.22 65 IV.I4 174
2 l'e tcr
1.16 213 T:ugum Pseudo Jonathon m. Shab.
J . ~ 213 E.1.odus 6.6 ID
3.10 219 13. 14 65
b.Bcr
I John T:u:gum Ncofiti Exodus l Oa 126
2.29 213 33.20 77 21a 126
4.12 278
 Index <if Scripture and Ancietll Literature 355
b.Hag. y.Kcl Apbrabat
14a s1. n 11.314 (3Sa) 70
15 288 12.3/19(35b) 7) fNIIWJIStrtJiio
V.20 84
b.Ki<ld. y.MQ V.21 9. .86
8 2b 174. 175 3.5140 (S2d) 73

b.Ncd y. Nat. Ephraem

4 la 165 7.1118 (56b) 202
COIIVUtllfary tHl lhc
b.San y.Ncd. Dialt.fJOrotl
3Sb 221 H/J (39b) 74 V.19.10·11 7
107b 137 V.24.10·12 7
y.PC$. V1.24:t.l·2 7
b. Scm 1.&111 (2&) 74
Vlll.l 208 6 .3/3 (33<1 n 1i!J.t(IJ11t'fll
121-6 78-9
b.Shab. y.Qid. 124 250
l47a 123 1.7122 (6Jb) 158 297-304 79
944 250
y.San.
7.213 (Nb) 74
10 .2147 (29a) 75 Eusebius
b.Sukl:ah
53a 71 y.Shabb. HiJ.Ioria £cdcsiwtico
1.5114 (3b) 6S 111.39.15 160
y. AZ 1.7110 (3<) 66
2.3n (4 Ja) 205 2.3/5 (4d) 74
19 .3/4 (17b) 74 Gregory of N:uianrus
y.lkr.
1.5JI0(3b) 68 y.Shevi. Oroti011
2.&13 (5b) 68 4.2112 (35b) 164 30. 21 3
2 .&110 (5c) 69 9.1112 (3Sb) 72
2.8/12 (5c} 69
3.1/ 12 (6.:1) 70 y.Sukk. Gregory of Nyssa
5. 1126 (9>) 62 1.212 (52b) 74
J.4/2 (53c:) H A,~aiJISt Emwmius
y.Oem.ai 111.1 .91 2
2.1117 (22d) 66 y.TI1'nn.
l ,l/15 (63di 73
y. ·erub Groffus
9.311 (15cl 72 y.Tcr.
8.915 (46a) 74 AnmJt11Iimws ill qmmwr
y.GitL £mngt'lio & Acla
9.7/ 5 (5():) 14 y.Ycb. Apmtolomm
4.714 (Sd) 72 On ML 12.8 10
y.Hag. S,l/21 (9a) 74 On Mk. 1.44 II
1.1112 (7oo) 74

y.Kil. PATRISfi C SOl:RCES Hippolytus

9.4/4 (J'lb) 70
9...1/6 (J2d) 205 2 Clement JV.J0.2 4
9.4/19(J2c) 71 3.2 179 IV. I 1.3 4
356 Index of Scripture and Ancient Litemture

Refitratio Omnium Hfflldolus

H<trrcsicml
V.l 6. 11 6 Tmctat11s dt> Adrersurio 1.27 257
32 8

lraneus L u<'ian
J-.seudo Attwn asius
AJ,·trsLIS HutrtJes Dips.udts
1.30.1 6 Or1 the l ncanwli(m Agaillsl 5 257
1.30.12-13 6 Apollinari.s
111.3.85 6 1.8 3
V.IJ. I2· 13 6 Pericles

Tertulllan 11mcydides
Jacub or Ser·ug 1,1-*0.1 262
Ado.:ersu.f Man:imwm
Homily against the Je•,·.f 111.7 4
1.17 s JV.IO 4 Plato
VL I7J4 9 IV.I0.9 5
V1. 175-6 9 lV.IO.II 5 i.AI-I'J
IV.IO.I2 S V1.769b 257

J erome Ad,·ersus Praxeam

2 2 Pliny
Ctmwumtariorum in 2 4
Daniekm Libn' 1/J (I \') N11tllralis Hiswriu
1).;1n. 2.14-35 SS-CJ 10.3 2 15
0.:10. 7.7-8 87 Theodore bar Koni
Dan. 7.13 89. 90
D.ln. 7.13-14 88-89 Ubtr Sd1oliu111
0..1n. 7.14 89. 90 5·9 s
Dln. 7.18 87
Dan. 11.44 88-89. 90
Dan. 11.4445 90. 91 CLASSICAL
0.:10. 12. 11 87 LITERATURE

Aeschylus
Justin
Pt'rsi<ms
Dialogue 403 257
31.1 4
76.1 4
100.3 4 Aristotle

Hist. <m.
Karsal 9.33 2 15

Homif.\' On tire Epiphan.v of

Our Lord Artem.idorus Oaldianus
387 8
Ontimcritt>~r
1.76 284
IV.49 284
 I NDEX oF M oDERN AuTHORS

Abbott. F.... A. 22. 32. 33 227. 2J I. 2:42. 247. 261 . 275. 2:76. 27S.
Allison. C. D. 170 . 173. 183 27(), 285. 290. 293. 295.29 7
Anderson. H. 163 Cotc.hpole. D. R. 12:1
Appd R. 249 Clx.stc:mwn. A. 247.253
Avuk>s. H. 152. 154 Collins. A. Y. 43. 246. 255
Collins. J. J. 52. 110
Buker. l . H. 147 Colpc. C. 35. 36. 37. 47. 50
Burr. J. 60 Conk. J. 8 . 53
Burrctt. C. K. 132 Creed. J. r..t 2 -1. 217
Bnssnett S. 247 Crossky. J. G. In. 160
Buuckhum. R. l. 36. 48
lkas.lcr-~tutTtay.
G. R. 190 Dnl mt~n. G. H. 61. 18 1. IS!
lkckwith. R. 260 O.:wid. A. S. 1-17
Berger. P. ISS 0<!\'kS. .\i. 170. 173. 183
lkt7.. 0. 50. 51 D.wila. l. R. 288
Blac.k. M. 21. 22. 34. 97. l OS. 157.214 . De Jongc. ~i. 132
215. 224. 225. 240. 277 Doerr. H. A. H6
Bohen. I. A. II. 12. IJ. IS. 55 Downing. F. G. 207
Borgen. P. 294 Downing. J. 132
Borsd t.. F. H. 25. 26. 52. 187.274 Otuper. J. A. 216
Brown.. R. E. 28 I Dupont. G. 21
Bul!mann. R. 27. 28.29 . 37. 144. 175. 186. Dupont. J. 232:
187. 274 Dupont-.Sommer. A. 153
Buri:en. D. .J7. 48. 246. 281.285. 288
Burney. C. F. 170. I 72. )73. 3M Edwards. R. A. 188
Ec:rdmuns. B. D. IS. 144
Cudbury. H. J. 190
Cncloux. A . T. 30 F<:uilkt A. 232
Cansdak . F. S. 170. 174 Fitt.mycr. J. A. 47. 6 1. 229. 239. 2..'i2
Cnquot. A. 107. 110 Flcddc:tm."'nn. H. T. 182. 190
Cumgounis. C. C. 110. 112 Frt:<'d. E. D. 276.289. 308
Curmignac. J. 157 Fuller. R. 48
CmoiL J. T. 22..1
Curson. 0. A. 284 Gaillan!us. l. 12
Cusc.y. P. M. 7. 14 . 15. IS. 29. 30. 37. 38. Gaston. L 188
39. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45, 46. 47. 49. 51. 58. Gathcrcok. S. 136
61. 77. 78. 82. 83.85, 87. 91. 95. 107. Gntli. F. M. 53
113. 116. 117. 11 8. 120. 121. 12.5. 126. Gci!-1. H. 40
127. 12 &. 129. 131. 134, 136 . 137. 138. Gnilka. J. 144. 162
1 4~ 1 G.I43. 1 4S.I 5~ 1 53 . 157. 1 59. Goorgcs. ~t. 243
160. 165. 170. 171. 179. ISO. 181. IS•. Gtobbc. L. 1- 251
185. 187. 191. 196. 197. 198. 200. 201. Grolius. H. 10. II. 12. 13. 55
202. 203. 208. 209. 213. 2 1&. 219. 223. Gundt)'. R. H. 144. 162
358 Index af Modem Authors

J.bencbcn. E. 186. 181 Lindars. B. 38. 39, 46. 48. 52. 209
Hagner. D. A. I 70 Lipifiski. E. 67
HaiiC\'i. l. 96 Loodcr. W. R. G. 2 43
Halligan. P. W. 147 Loisy. A. 90
H.!lh·crson. S. 247 l.Ovcstum. E. 230
1-Wmpd. V. 170. 172. 173. 209
Hanson. A. T. 280. 304 !l.'k Anhur. H. K. 207
Hare. D. R. A. 2 46. 255. 264. 265. 291. Mc:NamarJ., M. 283. 284
J04. J l l McNeil. B. 260
Harvq. A. E. 148 ~kNc-i k. A. H. 260
Htl)'. D. M . 243 Manson. T. W. 30. 31. 32. 132. I 76. 224
Hi~,gi ns. A. l B. I. 132. 306 Marc-us. J. 24. 53. 156. 162. 166. 247
Hilgc:nJdd. A. 16. 17 Marshall. I. H. 147
HoO'munn. A. G. 16. 91. 94 Marshall. J. T. 61
HoO'munn. P. 184 Maslin. B. A. 197.281
Hogan. L P. 153 Mocks. w. A. 166
HOnig. H. G.. 45. l iS Menken. M. J. 294. JOS
Holm·Nidr.cn. S. 260 Mcl7.gc-t. B. M. 165. 166
Hooker. ~f. D. 46. 47. 132. 146. 15 7. 159. Mc)·cr. A. 10. 18. 19. 20. 2 1. 32. 33. 55. 6 1.
16J 124. 170. 173. 249
Horbury. W. 53. 114 Mickkm. E. R. 147
Howard. J. K. 147 MU!kr. M. I. IS. 39. 40
Huchnergard. J. 56 MUlkr. U. B. 52. 190
Hyviirinen, K. 25 1, 260 Murph)'. ~f. R. 146
Muyskcn. P. 249
Jabknsky. A. 146
Jan~n. H. l. 24 Ncubc:.rl. A. 248. 249. 250
Jarid :. J. 260 NOidckc. Th. 57
Jc:n:.mias. J. 2S. 6 1. 170. 172. 173. lS I. 19 1. /lioUand. l. 170. lB . 229
207.209. 215. 234. 246 Nord. C. 250. 253

KagatU'Iraj. J. J. 288 Olson. D. C. 107. 10&

!Gse.mann. E. I81. 188 Olto. R. 186
Keams, R. 48. 49. 50. 107 Owen. A. R.G. -45. 146
Kci.r Howard. J. l -17
Ki npbt1ry. J. D. 176. 177 Pattison. E. ~~- 146
Klm:scn. W. 198 Petrin. N. 2'9, 30. 95. 18'&
Kloudy. K. 248 PC$Ch. R. ISO
Kld n. M. L 76
Kldnmnn. A. 146 Rccd. J. L ISO
Ktacling. C. H. 24 ReiB. K.. 249 253
Kiimmd . W. G. 46. 47. 51. 52. 183 Rensberger. D. 285
Roge-rson. l. W. 31
250
l..."tm)'• •\ f. Rose-. R. P. 27. 146
L...1nc-, W. L 163 Rose-. L 146
L...1pide-. P. 207 Ross. l. .\ i . 43. 246
Lapin~ N. A. 146
Larsen. S. 247 Sacks. H. -41. 187
Lcbourli<r. J. 223 Sanders. J. N. 28 1
Lee. D. A. 285 Sch.1ffner, C. 250. 253
Lch-c-stud. R. 29. 30 Sch.1gcn. S. H. 205
Lttoumct~u. P. 284 Sc-hmidt. N. A. 96
Lielzmann. H. 20. 2 I. Jl. 33. 55. 95 Scholtc:on. w. IJ. 1-4. 15. 16
 Index ofModern Autlrors 359

Schuchan:L B. G. JOS Toone. B. K. 146

Schulthe.ss. F. 57 Torrey. C. C. 224.225
Schub.. S. 15. 16 Totman. R. H6
Schulze. L Th. 15. 16 Tov. E. 252
SchwankL 0. 207 TOY<)'. D . 285
Schw·a n:. G. 47. 61. 170. 172. 173. 202 Tristmm. H. B. 170. 171
Schweitzer. A. 23 I Trapper. 1. 59
Schwdzet. E. 29
SC:guinot. T. C. 249. '!SO Y..m Unnik. \V. C. J IO
Sdinker. L. 249 VcrtTK~r.H.-1. 249
Sharman. H. B. 29 WrtTKs. G. 12. 20. 22, 30. JJ. 34. 35. 37.
Shorter. E. 147 38,47. 51. 52.55
Shn:V<:. G. M. 250 Vid hauer. P. 29. 30
Sil v~r. 1. R. 147 Vos. L.A. 182. ISJ
SjOberg. E. 25. 95
Srn.allcy. S. S. 276. 27 Wales.. K. 4 1. 187
Smith. C. S. 4 1 WdJhaUS<'"-11. J. 246
Smith. M. H. 171. 17J Wikox. M. 58
Slttrt. R. 266 Williams. C. 303
Sl!lub. U. 82 Williams.. P. J. 197
Stone. ).i. E. 112 Wrcd~. W. 144
Sn:jccr. A. D. 248
Zkgkr. 1. 251 . 260
Thyk>r. v. 14 5. 151
Thdsohn. J. 221
TOdt. H. E. 22. 23. 28. 29. 182. 183. 186.
187