fl uid the linguistic environment was.86 The Bar Kokhba letters appear around 60 years later than the source material for the Son of Man sayings, and after the revolt of 66 and the subsequent destruction of the temple in 70 as well as during the upheaval of the Bar Kokhba rebellion. Where it contradicts earlier material, therefore, the relationship of that evidence to the earlier texts must be clarifi ed before it can be applied to the present problem. Consequently, to use the corpus closest in provenance to the earliest post-resurrection Christian communities without equivocations one necessarily turns to Qumran Aramaic.
Whereas the Bar Kokhba material is well outside the period in which the Son of Man sayings came to be used among Christians, Qumran Aramaic existed in parallel. The earliest dating given to any of the Aramaic texts from Qumran is the fi rst half of the second century BCE. The terminus for the community as 68 CE, however, closely parallels the writing of the earliest Gospels.
Consequently, the role of Qumran Aramaic as the primary source for any philological enquiry about Aramaic and the New Testament is beyond dispute.
The question of the Aramaic behind o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou thus moves from a concern about the genitival expression according to an allegedly homogeneous Aramaic, or even the more precise Middle Aramaic, to the construct phrase in Qumran Aramaic specifi cally.
‘Natural’ Aramaic
As with Biblical Aramaic, the Aramaic from Qumran evinces more than one way to form the construct relationship. Where Biblical Aramaic refl ects three different ways,87 however, Qumran Aramaic (QA) manifests up to seven.88 A scientifi c approach to the problem must justify its choice of form then, otherwise 86. One of the primary ways the presence of Judaea-based Arabians are known to us is through the names included in this material.
87. F.
Rosenthal,
A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1995), p. 29
(§48).
88. Lukaszewski, ‘Viable Approach’, pp. 199–201 (§9.1.2.2). This is not at all unusual.
T. Muraoka and B. Porten fi nd six different forms of the construct phrase in the Elephantine Papyri ( A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic [Leiden: Brill, 2nd edn, 2003], p. 216 [§60 b]).
F. Schulthess fi nds four ways in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic corpus from centuries later than our period ( Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinischen Aramäisch [Hildesheim: Olms, 1965], pp. 81–82 [§157]).
22
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
the debate lapses unnecessarily into generalizations such as ())#n()) rb, which do little to further the discussion beyond a lexemic level.
The most defi nitive conclusion from that reconstruction is the use of the construct for the nomen regens, but this is an assumption given the lack of pointing for the word rb. In fact, not all attested forms of the construct in QA have a nomen regens in the construct state, as the prevailing reconstructions of Dalman, Vermes, and Casey suggest. Rather, 3.5 per cent of the construct phrases from Qumran use the absolute state for the nomen regens.89 When retroverting a phrase that accounts for even less than that among the articulated genitival relationships of the New Testament,90 that is not an insignifi cant amount.
The following constructions refl ect the ways the construct relationship is expressed in the Aramaic documents from Qumran:91
1. construct + emphatic ()mmy r(# 4Q209 7 2.5; )nwn bbl 4Q197 4 1.12) 2. construct + absolute (Nwyl( l) 1QapGen 22.21; Nwyl( rb 4Q246 2.1)92
3. emphatic + emphatic ()ym# hrm 1QapGen 22.21)93
4. absolute + relative particle + absolute (N)smd )qr( 1QapGen 22.21) 5. construct + relative particle + absolute (N( yd rkd 4Q197 4 3.11, 4Q205
2 1.26)
89. Lukaszewski, ‘Viable Approach’, p. 200, n. 32.
90. The
phrase
o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou occurs 84 times among the 6,847 articulated genitival noun relationships attested in the Gospels and Acts (i.e., 1.23 per cent).
91. For a fuller discussion on the construct phrase in Qumran Aramaic, see Lukaszewski,
‘Viable Approach’, pp. 199–201. For confi dence markers relative to any passage here cited, see the chrestomathy in Lukaszewski, ‘Viable Approach’, pp. 241–412.
The data presented here is based on readings taken from high-resolution photographs in consultation with the relevant editio princeps. These readings were then verifi ed against the texts themselves, as necessary, in a research visit to Jerusalem undertaken in 2002. Thanks again are due to the Russell Trust Foundation, Emanuel Tov and Weston Fields of the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation, and Hava Katz of the Israel Antiquities Authority for being supportive of that research.
92. The Aramaic of the Targum of Job is necessarily questionable on grounds of genre, dating and issues of linguistic milieu (i.e. the Aramaic–Hebrew interplay). However, 11Q10
26.3 does offer #n) rb for consideration.
93. There is the possibility that the nomen rectum of this phrase should rather be understood to function adjectivally – so heavenly lord. However, it is more commonly rendered the Lord of the Heavens.
1. Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou 23
6. emphatic + relative particle + emphatic ()xlm yd Nd )br )my 1QapGen 21.16)
7. construct with proleptic suffi x + relative particle + absolute (l) yd hrb 4Q246 2.1)94
To bring these grammatical constructions into the present context, a retroversion of o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou into Qumran Aramaic can be one of the following, respectively:95
1.
)#n) rb
2.
#n) rb
3. )#n) )rb
4. #n) yd rb
5. #n) yd rb
6.
)#n) yd )rb
7. #n) yd hrb
Contrary to the forms espoused by Vermes and as Fitzmyer has previously noted, the initial aleph of #n) has not yet disappeared in Qumran Aramaic.
The only exception to this is the plural absolute of the lexeme, Ny#n (1QapGen 20.7; 4Q201 3.14; 4Q202 2.18).96
As noted above, the matter of the defi niteness of the emphatic form has recently been a matter of debate.97 The defi niteness of the emphatic form within the construct phrase, however, is a slightly different matter. As shown in the 94. It is worth noting that, while unlikely, this may be an emphatic nomen regens. In Qumran Aramaic aleph is the primary indicator of the emphatic state but has not completely replaced he. See Lukaszewski, ‘Viable Approach’, pp. 109–110; H. H. Rowley, ‘Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon’ in Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver (ed. D. W. Thomas and W. D. McHardy; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 119.
He, however, remains the sole indicator of the third masculine singular pronominal suffi x
[Lukaszewski, ‘Viable Approach’, pp. 155–56]. See, e.g. form number 2.
95. The present retroversions use the same lexemes as used in earlier cognates of the form in Daniel 7.13 and the third Sefi re inscription. The consistency with which #n) is used where the phrase ‘Son of Man’ occurs in the whole of Aramaic literature argues against any form of rbg.
96. Other examples are in the most poorly preserved columns of the Genesis Apocryphon: 1QapGen 6.8 and 6.10.
97. Owen and Shepherd, ‘Speaking Up’; Casey, ‘Response to Owen and Shepherd’.
24
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
passages cited above, the emphatic nomen rectum in QA does not always refl ect a defi nite connotation but may refl ect indefi niteness.98 As a consequence, an emphatic nomen rectum is not necessary for a reconstruction. The consequence of this is considerable for the syntactic force of any hypothetical construct phrase said to represent o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou in the Aramaic of Jesus’ time.
Any defi niteness would be implied by the speaker and inferred by the hearer, but would not necessarily be manifest in the grammar of the language.
The choice of form is made even more diffi cult by the presence of two differ
ent construct forms in synonymous relationship in 4Q246 2.1: ‘hnwrqy Nwyl( rbw rm)ty l) yd hrb’ The son of God will be proclaimed and the son of the Most High will be named.99 The use of both options (Nos. 2 and 7) in parallel suggests that the second and seventh options of the above list were understood as stylistically equal.100 The apocalyptic nature of this context naturally supports the use of either option in similar terms and in addition to the fi fth form, found in the Enochic literature (4Q205).
Which of the above forms are most likely to be correct thus remains a matter for discussion. The fi rst and second options have received the greatest support in studies to date. They are the most frequently attested in the QA corpus.101
98. Of the emphatic forms cited, the only one about which one can speak with certainty of a defi nite nomen rectum is 1QapGen 22.21: )ym# hrm the Lord of the heavens. Also included in this pattern is )my dy the shore of the sea in 1Qap Gen 21.16. At other times, however, the same form is of questionable defi niteness. The phrase )nwn bbl in 4Q197 4 1.12 may be read as the heart of a fi sh or the heart of the fi sh, either works equally well in context. Similarly, the aforementioned construct phrase in 1QapGen 21.16 begins a chain of construct phrases that contains )xlm yd Nd )br )my this great sea of salt. The ambiguity of the emphatic nomen rectum and the fact that this construction is a modifi ed form of the ancient name for the Dead Sea justifi es several alternative translations: this Great Sea of Salt or, more commonly, this Great Salt Sea. Additionally, one is unclear about whether Nwyl( in 4Q246 2.1 should be understood as a reverential superlative-degree combination (i.e. the son of the Most High) or as a technical reference to (Elyon as a proper noun synonymous with God (i.e. the son of Elyon).
The evidence thus suggests that defi niteness was clearly present in cases where the emphatic occurs as a nomen rectum, but it may not always be present.
99. Translation mine. For the implications of this passage relative to the New Testament, see Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean, pp. 102–107.
100. All of the options for expressing the genitival relationship would be syntactically equivalent. Their exact usage with regard to genre and other literary concerns, however, suggests that certain forms would be more common in certain circumstances.
101. Nearly 96 per cent of the construct phrases in Qumran Aramaic do not use the relative particle. See Lukaszewski, ‘Viable Approach’, p. 200 (§9.1.2.2).
1. Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou 25
The fi rst form is also supported as an option by Fitzmyer’s observation that the earliest occurrence of a phrase ‘Son of Man’ in the Aramaic literature is in the third inscription from Sefi re. It is then echoed in the Aramaic of Dan. 7.13.
The diachrony of linguistic development, however, suggests that the other options are very much in use. As Vermes observes, later dialects from the region use the relative particle exclusively and especially when rendering the phrase o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou into either Syriac or Christian Palestinian Aramaic.
For the former, this is consonant with the strong use of yd outside Eretz Israel between the tenth and sixth centuries BCE.102
Consequently, after one has legitimized the need for retroverting o( ui(oj tou=
a)nqrw/pou into Aramaic, one is left with three possibilities for an apocalyptic setting. The presence of several forms of the construct phrase in the non-apocalyptic Genesis Apocryphon and Tobit, however, leaves the available formations open to the seven listed above. Currency of one form over another may be argued by both frequency and dating, but the collection of the documents together at Qumran suggests that each was as intelligible as the other to the community.
In conclusion, investigation into the linguistic origins and consequent meaning or meanings of the phrase o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou requires the following steps:
1. Development of a grammatical touchstone of Hellenistic Greek syntax that is au courant with current studies and that differentiates it from Attic while also being aware of the potential for geographic differences in style.
2. Recognition that the position that odd Greek equates to non-Greek origins is an assumption that does not hold up all of the time. Therefore, o( ui(oj tou=
a)nqrw/pou could simply be a unique phrase that does not have non-Greek roots. While this argument seems weak, it is presumptuous to dismiss it out of hand.
102. W. Randall Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine: 1000–586 BCE (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), pp. 85–87. This is not to suggest the preferred formation of the construct phrase in these regions. Rather, the ancient prevalence of the relative particle yd in areas outside Eretz Israel suggests that its adoption as a matter of style would not be as common within the region. The occurrences of the different construct phrase formations in Qumran Aramaic support this suggestion.
26
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
3. Recognition that non-Greek origins for o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou could be from one of the three other dialectal collections in use in fi rst-century Eretz Israel: Hebrew, Aramaic, and the pre-Arabic dialects. We do not have enough of the last to forge a way forward, so the most promising way forward at present is Hebrew and Aramaic. However, because o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou is non-Greek does not make it either; it simply becomes a Semitism.103
4. Establishment of a grammatical touchstone of Hebrew syntax against which one can say that Son of Man fi ts with Hebrew or does not. We do not currently have a grammar of fi rst-century Judaean Hebrew. Rather, the closest we can come is fi rst century BCE.104 Given a lack of better resources, one can use this, but it would be better to map a trajectory of Hebrew’s syntactic development from the sectarian Qumran Scrolls, through what there is among the Bar Kokhba letters, and fi nish with the Mishnah. This would thus give a spectrum against which to judge the possible development of the phrase.
5. If
o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou is thought to be not Greek and not Hebrew, this does not necessarily mean that it comes from Aramaic. Rather, one must use a grammatical touchstone of Aramaic syntax against which one can say that o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou fi ts with Aramaic or does not. It is widely recognised that the written dialect closest to that of the early church is Qumran Aramaic. Therefore, such a touchstone has been established to a certain extent.105
Ultimately, just because the phrase does not fi t with one language does not mean it belongs to another. The way forward is to use negative proofs to show where it is not likely to belong.
After proceeding through these steps, one is in a position to critically evaluate the phrase o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou against the wider linguistic milieu. If all options are exhausted and o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou resonates rightly with no 103. On this point we are indebted to the excellent work of Max Wilcox who has continued to work in this area since his thesis under Matthew Black on Semitisms in Acts.
104. Cf. Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).
105. See this author’s Viable Approach.
1. Issues Concerning the Aramaic Behind o( ui(oj tou= a)nqrw/pou 27
known language, one must say that we cannot know more at the present time, pending further research into the syntax of the languages involved. Until the linguistic data has been mined to this extent, however, no further clarifi cation seems possible with respect to a form, never mind defi nition, of an Aramaic Son of Man.
2
PROBLEMS WITH CASEY’S ‘SOLUTION’
Paul L. Owen
In scholarly discussion of the ‘son of man’ problem, there can be no doubt as to the weight of the contributions of Maurice Casey.1 Through a series of articles and monographs, he has carefully advanced a range of evidence for his views, drawn from fi elds such as Aramaic research, apocalyptic literature, historical Jesus studies, translation theory and linguistics. Casey has robustly argued for a rather simple hypothesis: the actual Aramaic expression )#n) rb lying behind the gospels expression ‘son of man’, which appears
as a title for Jesus in the Greek gospels, was simply an ordinary term for ‘man’. Hence, by way of implication, the only ‘son of man’ sayings in the gospels which can be accepted as likely authentic must be drawn from a pool of sayings which are capable of being understood in generic terms – applicable to Jesus, but also to a broader group of people. In this chapter, I will interact with some of his most recent works in this area,2 and hope thereby to carry the argument forward in several important respects.
1. The most thorough history of the ‘son of man’ discussion thus far must surely be attributed to Mogens Müller, The Expression ‘Son of Man’ and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation (London: Equinox Publishing, 2008).
2. The two works which will be the focus of discussion here are: Maurice Casey, ‘Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd’, JSNT 25 (2002), pp. 3–32; and The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (London: T&T Clark, 2007).
2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’
29
The development of the Aramaic language
One of the central pillars in Casey’s defence of his proposals in his 2002
JSNT article, is the appeal to the stability of the Aramaic language (pp. 5–12).
If Aramaic is shown to be a relatively stable language, then this will justify his utilization of texts ranging over a period of around a thousand years to establish the probable speech patterns of Jesus in fi rst-century Judea. Casey tells us: ‘Aramaic was a relatively stable language over a period of centuries.
It was especially stable after being spread in standard form by the Persian bureaucracy. Even before this, it had features that are found later in the Talmuds and in Jewish midrashim’ (p. 5). But the evidence that Casey then compiles in support of this observation amounts to an extended exercise in obfuscation, for they involve an appeal to examples that no scholar would think of contesting.
For example, the Sefi re inscriptions ‘contain words’ found in later midrash and Talmud (p. 5). And ‘many words’ which appear in the Qumran texts also show up in the Talmuds (p. 6). Just as trivial is the observation that: ‘Syntactic features common for centuries include the narrative use of the participle’ (p. 6).
Who Is This Son of Man Page 5
