47. Casey,
Solution, p. 234.
48. Casey goes on to discuss Mt. 16.13, 27-28; 19.28 ( Solution, pp. 235–38). We will not discuss these verses, as they may well be examples of Matthean editorial glosses. The same can be said for Lk. 6.22 (p. 239). Lk. 19.10 is rejected by Casey because of the familiar claim that )#n) rb ‘would not have suffi cient referring power to make clear the reference to Jesus’
(p. 241). Though this may well be a Lukan gloss (with ‘son of man’ being now a common title for Jesus), Casey’s claim itself lacks clear evidence, and is insuffi cient to call into question the basic authenticity of the saying.
49. See
Casey,
Solution, p. 242.
44
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
with his ministry,50 it is not at all clear why Jesus would not have expected the
‘good news’ of that arrival to be proclaimed to the Gentiles.51 As for the claim that the expression ‘son of man’ could not have been derived from Dan. 7.13
and used as a title for God’s agent of eschatological rule, we have already seen this claim to be without foundation.
Casey’s rejection of Mk 14.62 is based on similar grounds: (1) The saying is dependent on Dan. 7.13 and uses ‘son of man’ as a title for Jesus (supposedly impossible in Aramaic). (2) The Greek term Xristo/j, like its Aramaic equivalent ())xy#m, ‘had not yet crystallized into a title’. (3) The Blessed is
‘not attested’ as a circumlocution for God. (4) Jesus said nothing which would have justifi ed the charge of blasphemy attributed to him in Mark’s story. (5) The synoptic gospels always have Jesus refer to the second coming through allusion to Dan. 7.13. But it was ‘not characteristic’ of Jesus to deal with topics in such
‘rigidly scriptural terms’. (6) Since the resurrection and the second coming are not combined in the synoptic sayings material (though they are both forms of vindication), ‘this implies a separate origin for these two groups of sayings’
(with the second coming sayings being the creations of the church).52
In reply, we might suggest: (1) Casey’s claim about the linguistic range of
)#n) rb is lacking in hard evidence. (2) The term ‘Christ’ or ‘Messiah’ draws from a rich Old Testament background, and is used as a vehicle to convey messianic expectation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Psalms of Solomon, and 1 Enoch.53 (3) The title ‘the Blessed’ is attested in 1 Enoch and the Mishnah.54
4) Jesus’ expectation that he would soon be seated on God’s own throne and return with heavenly authority would have been perceived as a blasphemous claim.55 (5) It is absurd to argue that sayings which are overly dependent on biblical quotations could not go back to the historical Jesus. (6) It is far more 50. See C. C. Caragounis, ‘Kingdom of God/Heaven’, in DJG, pp. 417–30 and Dennis C.
Duling, ‘Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven’, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David Noel Freedman; 6 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1992), vol. 4, pp. 62–65.
51. See Scot McKnight, ‘Gentiles’, in DJG, pp. 259–61 and now Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (LNTS, 331; London: T&T Clark, 2006).
52. See
Casey,
Solution, pp. 243–44.
53. See Larry W. Hurtado, ‘Christ’, in DJG, pp. 106–107.
54. See Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), p. 373.
55. See
Bock,
Jesus According to Scripture, pp. 374–75.
2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’
45
likely that the resurrection and the second coming are not combined in the sayings material, simply because of the interval separating the two events.
Ability to explain the son of man sayings
A further problem with Casey’s proposal lies in the explanation he offers for what he regards as authentic ‘son of man’ sayings.56 Because of Casey’s commitment to the generic meaning of the expression, he is forced to adopt somewhat novel interpretations of the meaning of such utterances.57
For example, Mk 10.45 becomes a general maxim for the sake of the disciples that, ‘the purpose of life is service’ (p. 132). Mk 14.21 becomes a general statement condemning traitors (p. 135). Mt. 11.19//Lk. 7.34 becomes an assertion that people must eat and drink in order to live (p. 137). Mt. 12.32//
Lk. 12.10 (cf. Mk 3.28-29) is taken as stemming from an original comparison between the consequences of speaking against men, versus speaking against the Spirit of God (p. 140). Mk 2.10 is reduced to an original assertion that God has given some people the power to heal psychosomatic illnesses (p. 165).
Mt. 8.19-20//Lk. 9.57-58 is understood as a comment upon the diffi cult life of those who accept a migratory ministry (pp. 177–78). Lk. 12.8-9//Mt. 10.32-33
and Mk 8.38 originate as a statement about the role of the heavenly court (which will include humans) in the fi nal judgement (p. 185). Lk. 22.48 is a refl ection upon the human experience of betrayal (p. 198). Mk 8.31 is reduced to the truism that all men must eventually die, but will be raised at the general resurrection (pp. 202–203, 205–206).
For the most part, the incredible glosses Casey puts upon such sayings stand as their own refutation. Why would the early church have bothered to preserve such mundane observations by their founder? Are we really to believe that the historical Jesus simply went about espousing general maxims about the human condition? How then did his message occasion so much controversy and subsequent religious transformation in the lives of his followers? Was Jesus really so utterly unwilling to make statements exclusively about himself, his divine vocation and his unique signifi cance in God’s plan? Why then did Casey’s modest Jesus incur the wrath of the religious and political establishment? And 56. See
Casey,
Solution, pp. 116–211.
57. We will leave aside any discussion here of Mk 2.27-28 and 9.11-13, where Casey’s proposal has some measure of plausibility. See Casey, Solution, pp. 121–25, 125–31.
46
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
why was he crucifi ed as a blasphemer and threat to Roman power in Palestine?
And how much does Casey’s sanitized version of the authentic words of Jesus refl ect his own low Christology and anti-orthodox theological agenda?58
Apocalyptic evidence
Casey is adamant that there is no precedent in fi rst-century Judaism for the messianic interpretation of Dan. 7.13 which the early church invented. This leads him to deny, not only a messianic interpretation of Dan. 7.13, but also any appropriation of Daniel 7 to that end in 1 Enoch 37-71, 4 Ezra 13, and Ezekiel the Tragedian 68-89. His arguments, however, are open to question on several points.
1 Enoch
Casey argues that the usages of the relevant terminology for ‘son of man’ in the Similitudes of Enoch do not refl ect any allusions to a messianic title drawn from Daniel 7,59 but simply refl ect normal Aramaic terminology for ‘man’, referring throughout the document to the person of Enoch himself.60 But his whole explanation is built on a weak foundation. Even if we agree with Casey that Enoch is the ‘son of man’ throughout the Similitudes, it has no bearing on the relevant connection to Daniel 7.61
The fi rst reference to the ‘son of man’ in this section ( 1 Enoch 46.1-4) is quite plainly drawing from the imagery in Daniel’s vision.62 Casey would then have us believe that all subsequent references to a ‘son of man’ within 58. See Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (Louisville: Westminster/
John Knox, 1991).
59. On the date of chapters 37-71 see James H. Charlesworth, ‘Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?’, in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 450–68.
Charlesworth suggests: ‘If the Gospels preserve echoes of Jesus’ own words, and at times accurately preserve them, then ‘the Son of Man’ is most likely
an expression known to some Galilean Jews prior to Jesus’ ministry in Galilee’ (p. 465). Cf. Leslie W. Walck, ‘The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels’, in Messiah Son of Man, pp. 299–337.
60. See
Casey,
Solution, pp. 91–111.
61. As it would simply mean that the text identifi es Enoch (as opposed to Jesus or some other person) as the earthly manifestation of the elect, pre-existent agent of God’s revelation and judgement (i.e. the Messiah). See the discussion of Sabino Chialà, ‘The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression’, in Messiah Son of Man, pp. 153–78 (esp. pp. 159–63).
62. These connections are dismissed by Casey as mere ‘reminiscences’ ( Solution, p. 111).
2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’
47
the text (involving three different Ethiopic expressions),63 are simply alluding to the ‘man’ described in chapter 46, with no attempt to attribute a messianic interpretation to Daniel 7 through that language.64 It strains credulity, in light of the Danielic allusions within 46.1-4, to think that the messianic fi gure who appears would be repeatedly described as a ‘ son of man’ throughout the Similitudes (46.2, 3, 4; 48.2; 62.5; 62.7, 9, 14; 63.11; 69.27; 69.29; 70.1; 71.14; 71.17), with no awareness or intentional development of the terminology used in the very biblical text from which the original description of the ‘son of man’
was drawn.65
4 Ezra
Casey’s discussion of 4 Ezra 13 is very short (p. 112). He basically argues that the original Hebrew wording of the passage probably did not use the term
‘son of man’, but simply ‘man’ (refl ected in the word homo found in the Latin version). But regardless of the original language and terminology (whether Hebrew or Aramaic), it is clear that the imagery and eschatological expectation conveyed in 13.1-13 is drawn out of Daniel 7, and applied to a specifi c messianic fi gure (13.21-56). This is all that is necessary to assert in order to demonstrate that the passage bears witness to an appropriation of Daniel 7
which has some bearing on the son of man concept as a vehicle for messianic expectation in the fi rst century CE.66
Ezekiel the Tragedian 68-89
Casey dismisses this passage in a short paragraph (p. 114), arguing that the date of the text is uncertain (hence it may not refl ect the infl uence of Daniel 7 at all).
63. There are differences among Ethiopic scholars as to the degree to which the three expressions should be viewed as interchangeable translation variations, or rather distinct linguistic expressions with distinguishable ranges of meaning. Cf. Caragounis, The Son of Man, p. 106, n. 115.
64. On the inadequacy of this line of thought, see the detailed refutation of Caragounis, The Son of Man, pp. 104–11.
65. See further Helge S. Kvanig, ‘The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch’, in Messiah Son of Man, pp. 179–215; John J. Collins, ‘Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanig’, in Messiah Son of Man, pp. 216–27; and Klaus Koch, ‘Questions regarding the So-Called Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanig’, in Messiah Son of Man, pp. 228–37.
66. See also Chialà, ‘The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression’, pp. 171–73.
48
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
The text uses the term fw/j for ‘man’, and the ‘man’ is God. The term ‘throne’
is only metaphorical. And ‘son of man’ does not appear in the passage. Casey’s arguments seem to miss the point rather badly. First of all, if the text predates Daniel, it merely sheds light on the meaning of Dan. 7.13, making it all the more likely that it envisions a specifi c human being (like Moses) being exalted to a place of divine rule over all things. If it post-dates Daniel, then it shows how Daniel 7 was understood from a very early period (second century BCE).
Second, the fact that the ‘man’ is God merely strengthens the connection with Daniel 7 (cf. 7.9). Third, to insist that the throne is a metaphor for participation in the divine sovereignty certainly does not help Casey, since it would simply tell us something about the extent to which God is willing to share his rule with certain human beings (including the Messiah). Fourth, the term ‘son of man’
simply does not have to appear in order for the passage to speak to the ways in which Daniel 7 was interpreted messianically and appropriated within Judaism.
Speculative Aramaic reconstructions
One fi nal criticism which can be raised relates to Casey’s method.67 Casey’s project involves attempting to ‘reconstruct’ the original Aramaic lying behind the ‘son of man’ sayings in the Greek gospels. Those sayings which cannot be ‘satisfactorily reconstructed’ (p. 119) into a plausible Aramaic original are to be viewed as of dubious authenticity. Casey acknowledges that the process must also take into account idiomatic expressions and the ‘deliberate editing’
(p. 120) of the gospel writers.
All of this is highly suspect. Simply because the Greek phrase o( ui(oj tou~
a)nqrw/pou lends itself to the supposition of a literal Aramaic expression in
)#n) rb is no basis to presume that recoverable, literal Aramaic expressions must underlie all of the authentic words of Jesus in the Greek gospels. The fact is that we have very little idea of what Aramaic utterances came out of the mouth of Jesus, short of those places where the gospel writers point to them.68
The authors of the gospels made use of numerous oral and written sources, which may have varied in their degree of literalness and accuracy in translating the words of Jesus into Greek. The matter is complicated by the likelihood that 67. Casey offers an overview of his method in Solution, pp. 119–21.
68. See M. O. Wise, ‘Languages of Palestine’, in DJG, pp. 441–43.
2. Problems with Casey’s ‘Solution’
49
Jesus on occasion conversed in Hebrew and possibly Greek.69 Furthermore, the attempt to distinguish between the editorial glosses of the gospel writers and the actual words of Jesus, when working with what must often be translated paraphrases of the original sayings, can never be more than a tentative project.
It is certainly not the stuff out of which one can propose to given any defi nitive
‘solution’ to the son of man ‘problem’.
69. See Wise, ‘Languages of Palestine’, p. 442.
3
RE-SOLVING THE SON OF MAN ‘PROBLEM’ IN ARAMAIC
David Shepherd
Maurice Casey is well-known for arguing that the singular emphatic form
)#n()) rb should be reconstructed as a normal or ordinary way of generically referring to a man in the Aramaic of Jesus’ time. There are some, however, who fi nd Casey’s evidence and arguments less than compelling, particularly given the absence of the singular emphatic expression in Middle Aramaic.1 In recent publications Casey has continued to maintain his position.2
While it is clear that the singular absolute ( 11QarJob 9.9; 26.3; 1QapGen 21.13) plural absolute ( 1QapGen 19.15) and plural emphatic forms ( 11QarJob
[13.9]; 28.2; 4QenAst 23; 1QapGen 6.8-9) of this expression do occur in Middle Aramaic texts from Qumran, it seems equally obvious that the absence of the singular emphatic form (i.e. precisely the form required to explain the Greek) from any Middle Aramaic texts significantly undermines Casey’s argument that the expression was a common or idiomatic way of generically referring to a man in the Aramaic of Jesus’ time.
While the preceding chapter has clarifi ed some ongoing points of disagreement between Casey and the position argued by Paul Owen and me, situating these points against the backdrop of the wider discussion, the following brief 1. See my earlier essay with Paul Owen, ‘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 as well as the preceding chapter in this volume.
2. Maurice Casey, ‘Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd’, JSNT 25 (20
02), pp. 3–32 and The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (London: T&T Clark, 2007).
3. Re-solving the Son of Man ‘Problem’ in Aramaic 51
study is a constructive attempt to extend the search for the singular emphatic form of )#n()) rb in relevant phases of the Aramaic language.
Aware of the absence in Middle Aramaic of the precise form of the expression his argument requires, Casey continues, in his most recent publication, to insist on resorting to later texts in his quest for the singular emphatic
)#n()) rb, and he does so on at least three grounds.
First, Casey continues to argue that Aramaic is a stable language by drawing our attention to a selection of lexical and morphological features drawn from various phases of the history of the language.3 The intended relevance of his discussion becomes clear when he cites a variety of words referring to herbs which do not happen to occur in extant Middle Aramaic texts but must have existed in that phase of the language in order to explain the Aramaic background of Mt. 23.23 and Lk. 11.42. In the same way, Casey argues, the Greek articular form of the expression in the Gospels requires the presence of ())#n()) rb, which he insists is ‘attested in earlier Aramaic’.4 Again, however, it needs to be clarifi ed that what is attested in Qumran Aramaic is the singular absolute and the plural emphatic and absolute forms of the expression. Unfortunately, Casey’s diffi culty is that the one form of this expression which is required to explain the Greek articular form of the expression – the singular emphatic form
)#n()) rb – is the one and only form of the expression which is manifestly not attested in Middle Aramaic. Obviously, the singular emphatic form of the expression need not have been an ordinary or common way of referring to ‘a son of man’ in the Aramaic of Jesus’ time in order to explain the Greek articular title ‘the son of man’. Indeed, as has been clarifi ed in the preceding chapter, there are several other more plausible explanations for Jesus’ use of the singular emphatic )#n()) rb given that this use was apparently anything but ordinary for his fellow speakers of Aramaic.
Who Is This Son of Man Page 8
