How any of these mundane linguistic notes advance the current discussion is diffi cult to understand.
The argument of Owen and Shepherd3 certainly did not require the accept-ance of complete instability in all features of Aramaic syntax and vocabulary.
Obviously, in any given language, some things will necessarily remain constant through an extended period of time. The fact that certain lexical and syntactic items can be traced through different bodies of Aramaic texts over several centuries is exactly what one would expect of any language. By focusing on such minutiae, Casey manages to ignore the central issues in the discussion, which he chose to side-step. Namely: (1) The emphatic state appears to have remained in force in Western Aramaic well beyond the time of Jesus, which undermines the idea that Jesus’ own use of the emphatic state could not have borne a defi nite and specifi ed meaning with an individual referent. (2) The generic use of the emphatic singular )#n) rb for ‘man’ is nowhere attested in Aramaic texts predating or contemporary with the time of Jesus, and even the use of the singular absolute #n) rb is not clearly attested anywhere in such 3. Paul Owen and David Shepherd, ‘Speaking Up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar Enasha a Common Term for “Man” in the Time of Jesus?’ JSNT 81 (2001), pp. 81–122. Referred to below in the body of the text as ‘Owen and Shepherd’.
30
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
texts with a generic, abstract meaning.4 It appears but rarely with an indefi nite meaning, and always due to some apparent contextual infl uence. (3) In Aramaic texts close to the time of Jesus, the generic idea is always employed by the use of the plural construction ‘the sons of men’ ()#n) ynb) or simply ‘man’
()@#n)). Therefore, Jesus, in the expression he employed in the ‘son of man’
sayings, did not in fact use the most natural idiom for generic statements about human beings.
Why then did he speak of himself so often as ‘a son of man’ (if employing the absolute #n) rb) or ‘the son of man’ (if employing the emphatic )#n) rb)?
These remain the most likely linguistic explanations for why the expression
‘son of man’ appears so frequently on the lips of Jesus in the Greek gospels. The most likely answer, which is entirely consistent with the actual Aramaic evidence from Jesus’ time period, remains one of the following. Either: (1) Jesus spoke of ‘the Son of Man’ as a messianic agent of God, and derived this term from Dan. 7.13, though he did not claim to be that agent during his earthly ministry.5 The post-Easter Church made that identifi cation. (2) Jesus spoke of himself (perhaps employing the indefi nite expression in Aramaic) as a ‘son of man’ and intended his expression as an enigmatic allusion to the language of the vision of Dan. 7.13.6 Later Christians then turned the expression into a title for Jesus to remove all ambiguity. Or (3) Jesus spoke of ‘the Son of Man’ as a way of speaking of the fi gure mentioned in Dan. 7.13, and viewed himself as the present and future fulfi lment of that vision.7
Casey also appears to miss the methodological point when he insists that Owen and Shepherd hold a ‘dogmatic commitment to using only earlier source material’ (p. 7). This is by no means the case. The issue is not simply the date of the material, but rather a need to pay careful attention to developments evidenced within the history of the Aramaic language. If it is indeed the case that Western Aramaic retained its determinative force in emphatic nouns even well beyond the time of Jesus, that point is certainly crucial in the present debate 4. As opposed to a concrete meaning, equating to an indefi nite pronoun.
5. This can be referred to as the Bultmann hypothesis. It has been adopted more recently by John J. Collins.
6. This can be called the Jeremias hypothesis. It has also been adopted by Matthew Black and Richard Bauckham.
7. This can be called the Dalman hypothesis. It has been defended most recently by Paul Owen and David Shepherd.
2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’
31
about the ‘son of man’ expression, and should caution scholars in their appeal to later evidence. Likewise, if (as Dalman argued) Middle Aramaic avoided the singular ‘son of man’ terminology in generic statements (expressing this through plural constructions), whereas the generic usage of the emphatic singular became common only in the later period, such an observation would need to be carefully weighed in the handling of documentary material from the time of Jesus. In other words, in the context of this discussion, the problem is not a lack of evidence for how the ‘son of man’ terminology was used in Jesus’ time, which needs to be supplemented by later material; the problem is that there is plenty of evidence from the time of Jesus, and it all runs directly counter to Casey’s proposals.
This also goes to demonstrate that Casey’s discussions of matters pertaining to dialect (p. 8) and date (p. 9) in Aramaic texts are beside the point. Nobody would contest the fact that the boundaries between the Aramaic dialects and time periods are somewhat fl uid, which means that evidence from various sources can indeed be fruitfully compared (with due care) in linguistic study.
The point which Casey ignores is that when there are demonstrable differences in dialectal usage (such as the case with the use of the emphatic state in Eastern and Western Aramaic), and shifts in terminology over time (such as the much later use of the singular in the emphatic state ()@#n) rb) to make generic statements in the Talmuds and Jewish midrash), then those shifts must be accounted for. Again, the issue is not the use of later texts of various dialects to supplement our knowledge of the language of Jesus;8 it is the use of later texts to impute linguistic usage which is contradicted by the sources contemporary to the time in question.
Generic and optional use of the emphatic state
Casey takes Owen and Shepherd to task (pp. 14–18) for their handling of the use of the emphatic state with generic nouns. He has three primary complaints.
First, he complains about their ‘standard of judgment’ (p. 14). Essentially, he grants that they are correct in arguing that ‘the absolute state was still in normal 8. Casey’s examples to this effect (on pp. 10–11) are all therefore interesting, but likewise irrelevant.
32
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
use’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which date near the time of Jesus), but then insists
‘I have not however suggested otherwise’ (p. 15). It is not clear what he is trying to establish here. Certainly, Owen and Shepherd understand that Casey sees the breakdown between the states as a somewhat gradual process.9 The issue at stake is simply this. Did the emphatic state retain its determinative force in Aramaic usage during the time of Jesus? After all, we are discussing what Jesus’ use of )#n) rb would have meant to an Aramaic speaker, are we not?
Casey has insisted that the breakdown between emphatic and absolute was so pronounced, that it could not have been understood to refer to one particular man ( the son of man, identifi ed by some Jews as the apocalyptic agent of God), but could only have borne the generic meaning of ‘man’.10 This is because the term itself simply meant ‘man’, and the interchangeable relationship of the states was such that no further nuance could have been added by the employment of the emphatic state. But if the states were in normal use in the time of Jesus, and determination was still being expressed through the emphatic state, then in fact the Greek-speaking church need not be said to have misunderstood the meaning of the expression )#n) rb by rendering it as a proper title for Jesus. It is only if the emphatic state lost its determinative force that one would expect to see )#n) rb appearing at times in generic expressions pertaining to people (which is precisely what we do see, only in later Aramaic texts). This is clearly central to the whole discussion.
Second, Casey criticizes Owen and Shepherd for their over-reliance upon
‘existing’ (p. 15), ‘traditional’ (p. 17) and ‘antiquated’ (p. 18) secondary literature. (Why ‘existing’ should be a negative qualifi er is especially diffi cult to decipher.) He complains particularly of
their repeated citation of the work of such specialists as E. Y. Kutcher, T. Muraoka and B. Porten, S. A. Kaufman, and F. Rosenthal. Since Casey has produced no meaningful scholarship in the area of Aramaic grammar, one is at a loss as to what to make of his somewhat casual dismissal of others who are widely recognized for their particular 9. See Owen and Shepherd, ‘Speaking Up’, p. 89, n. 36.
10. ‘The nature of the idiom is such that this variation could not affect the meaning’
(Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Infl uence of Daniel 7 [London: SPCK, 1979], p. 228 emphasis added). Casey is adamant that the absolute and emphatic states of ())#n) rb were already being used by the time of Jesus ‘without any difference of meaning’
(Casey, Son of Man, p. 228, emphasis added).
2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’
33
expertise. Casey himself is unable to appeal to any existing body of scholarship in Aramaic studies to counter the established positions Owen and Shepherd documented through citation of the standard literature. He is content merely to offer his own isolated conjectures based on individual examples, as a substitute for the detailed studies of those who have published widely in the fi eld. This is certainly a curious method of argumentation.
Other observations
Casey’s reply to Owen and Shepherd contains some other problems, which can be set forth without the need for lengthy discussion.
Problems with the evidence
Casey reduces the argument of Owen and Shepherd to the mundane observation that )#n) rb is not used to make generic statements about people in Middle Aramaic. ‘The trouble with this is that the quantity of Aramaic text that survives from this time is too small for such inferences to be valid’ (p. 18). But the trouble with Casey’s response (as Owen and Shepherd have documented), is that there are plenty of generic references to humankind in Middle Aramaic.
They just do not employ )#n) rb.11
Normal and common
Casey complains that Owen and Shepherd confuse ‘normal’ and ‘common’
when discussing )#n) rb (p. 19). But it should be obvious from their discussion that by ‘common’ they mean ‘ordinary’, not necessarily ‘frequent’. Hence his complaint is a needless rabbit trail.
Qumran evidence
Casey dismisses Owen and Shepherd’s discussion of the Qumran terminology with three responses (pp. 20–21). He says that sometimes authors simply chose to use different terminology than )#n) rb. He says that the choice of one expression does not indicate the unwillingness to use another expression.
And he says that the usage of one author should not be casually attributed to 11. Owen and Shepherd, ‘Speaking Up’, pp. 104–20 for details.
34
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
another author. Hence, the idiomatic expressions employed by the Qumranites do not necessarily tell us much about the speech patterns of Jesus (who spoke Galilean Aramaic). In response, we can only insist that such a neglect of the actual data does not carry the discussion forward. When writers of a given time period consistently employ certain sets of terminology and avoid others, that means something. And to complain about the use of the Dead Sea Scrolls to make generalizations about the language of Jesus, when Casey himself employs much later Aramaic texts to that end, is somewhat astonishing.12
Inadequate discussions
Casey’s discussion of the fi ve examples of #n) rb (pp. 27–30) is quite inadequate. It leaves out the fact that in Dan. 7.13, the expression ‘son of man’ stands in place of the expected description of an angelic appearance (a ‘son of God’) in the heavenly court (cf. Dan. 7.10 and 3.25).13 It ignores the repeated use of the term ‘son’ in Sefi re 3.14-17, which provides the context for understanding the use of the term ‘son of man’ to describe the death of any future heir to the royal throne.14 His discussion of 1QapGen 21.13 ignores the distinction between abstract and concrete references. The text anticipates the concrete instance of some particular man attempting to count Abraham’s seed. It employs #n) rb, therefore, in a purely indefi nite but concrete, and not a generic, abstract sense.15
Furthermore, the imagined ‘counter’ is likely described as a ‘son of man’
because it is the future descendants of Abraham who are in view per the context.
And his discussion of 11QTgJob 9.9 and 26.2-3 stumbles on the simple fact that 12. Especially when Casey says in the same article: ‘Qumran Aramaic can safely be used in the reconstruction of sayings of Jesus’ (‘Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Sayings’, p. 7).
And again: ‘We must suppose that Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic, but hardly any Galilean Aramaic of the right period survives. This diffi cult situation has been quite transformed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which provide us with a large slice of Aramaic vocabulary, and standard syntax, from shortly before the time of Jesus’ ( Solution, p. 117).
13. Alternatively, ‘one like a son of man’ may be a way of identifying the humanlike fi gure with one of the angels (cf. Dan. 8.15; 10.5).
14. Casey says this ‘excludes the death of the king himself, as mentioned in lines 14–15, from voiding the treaty’ (‘Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Sayings’, p. 29). As if the king himself was not also a son!
15. It is true, as Casey points out (‘Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Sayings’, p. 28), that indefi nites can also be generic. But it does not follow from this that all indefi nites are generic. Some indefi nites simply refer to a particular person or thing, equivalent to an indefi nite pronoun.
2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’
35
these are translations of an underlying Hebrew expression (Md) Nb), which add nothing to the present debate (beyond the fact that the emphatic )#n) rb, which could have been used, is consistently avoided).
General issues of dispute
In this next section of the essay we will look at Casey’s contribution to the
‘son of man’ question from a more general framework. Whereas the specifi c matters discussed above focused upon his 2002 journal article, the following section will focus upon his 2007 monograph ( The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’
Problem). Not only are there serious questions from the standpoint of his appeal to the Aramaic expression, but there are also problems with his hypothesis as a whole, in terms of its overall explanatory power.
The meaning of Daniel 7
One of the claims which underlies Casey’s point of view is that Daniel 7 is best understood, not as a reference to a particular person, but as a symbol of the elect people of God.16 Therefore, any later messianic reading of this apocalyptic vision (such as became common in Christianity) would be contrary to the intent of the passage itself. But this reading of the text is open to serious scrutiny.17
Daniel 7 opens with a dream-vision in which four beasts are depicted as exerting consecutive rule upon the people of Israel. Though the historical identity of the beasts is open to question,18 it is clear that the fourth beast is of a unique character (7.19), and signifi cance (cf. 7.7-8, 19-21). This beast has ten 16. See
Casey,
Solution, pp. 82–91.
17. Cf. the lucid discussion of Eugen J. Pentiuc, Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 2006), pp. 52–56, including his intriguing etymological suggestions.
18. Cf. discussion in Tremper Longman, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), pp. 176–86; Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB, 23; New York: Doubleday, 1978), pp. 211–14; and John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 85–99. We leave aside here discussions of the date of Daniel.
A second-century BCE setting for the fi nal canonical form of Daniel would by no means preclude the shaping and collection of much earlier material stemming from the memoirs and experiences of an historical Jewish exile named Daniel. Neither does the language of Daniel preclude such a possibility. See Zdravko Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Da
niel in the Light of Old Aramaic (JSOTSup, 129; Sheffi eld: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 1992).
36
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
horns, representing rulers who implement the authority of the kingdom (7.24).
Among the horns sprouts a ‘little one’, who usurps the authority of ‘three of the fi rst horns’ (7.8). We are told in the vision that this horn has eyes ‘like the eyes of a man’, and a boastful mouth (v. 8). This horn, ‘made war with the saints and prevailed over them’ (7.21). Clearly, the little horn represents an individual opponent of God, whose kingdom is destined to be crushed in the end days (cf. 7.24-26). All of this sets the context for the appearance of God’s agent of justice in 7.9-14.
In 7.9-10 the Ancient God takes his seat of judgement (on earth?), attended by his court of countless angels, as ‘the books’ are opened. Dominion has been taken away from the four beasts (v. 12), and the fourth is now burned in the fi re of divine wrath (v. 11). The focus then shifts to an adjacent scene in verses 13-14. Daniel recounts: ‘I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.’ And we are now told, that the kingdom, which was taken from the grip of the little horn, is given to this ‘son of man’
(v. 14), to the end that ‘all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.’
The universal sphere of the little horn’s tyranny, which embraced the whole earth (cf. 7.23), is now placed in the hands of this ‘son of man’.
The most natural way to read this passage is as a description of a transfer of power from one individual (the little horn), to another (the son of man).19
There is no overriding reason to reject the natural sense of the passage, in order to constrict the meaning of the vision to the triumph of elect Israel in the end days.20 It is true that 7.22 speaks of judgement being given ‘for the saints of the most high’, and 7.27 says that the kingdom is given to ‘the people of the saints of the most high’. But if the ‘son of man’ whom Daniel fi rst sees in 7.13
Who Is This Son of Man Page 6
