Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The Gospel expression ό υίὸς τοῦ άνθρώπου has been a major Christological title for centuries. There is however widespread agreement that it is a translation of the Aramaic term 
and this is a normal expression for ‘man’. One way of viewing the Son of man problem is to suppose that we must account for the transition from in the teaching of Jesus to the title ό υίὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in the Gospels.
1 For an efficient Forschungsbericht of this approach up to 1980, Müller, M., Der Ausdruck ‘Menschensohn’ in den Evangelien. Voraussetzungen und Bedeutung (ATD 17; Leiden: Brill, 1984) 219–32;Google Scholar cf. further Müller, M., ‘The Expression “the Son of Man” as Used by Jesus’, StTh 38 (1984) 47–64.Google Scholar
2 Lietzmann, H., Der Menschensohn. Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen Theologie (Freiburg i.B./Leipzig: Mohr [Siebeck], 1896) 38, 95, 87.Google Scholar
3 Wellhausen, J., Skizzen und Vorarbeiten 6 (Berlin: Reimer, 1899) 197.Google Scholar
4 Discussion of a ‘Son of Man Concept’ cannot be offered here. In particular, a proper response, including discussion of the original text of the Similitudes of Enoch, is required by Collins, J. J., ‘The Son of Man in First Century Judaism’, NTS 38 (1992) 448–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Collins’ comments are too dependent on Knibb's ET of the Ge‘ez translation (probably of the Greek translation) of the long lost text. Consequently, I have not seen reasons to alter my view of the main points of Casey, P. M., ‘The Use of the Term “Son of Man” in the Similitudes of Enoch’, JSJ 7 (1976) 11–29.Google Scholar Cf. Müller, M., ‘Über den Ausdruck “Menschensohn” in den Evangelien’, StTh 31 (1977) 65–82;Google Scholar id., Ausdruck 10–88.
5 G. Vermes, ‘The Use of 
in Jewish Aramaic’, App. E. in Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: OUP, 3rd ed. 1967) 310–28;Google Scholar reprinted in Vermes, G., Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 147–65.Google Scholar Cf. Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973) 160–6;Google ScholarVermes, G., ‘The Present State of the “Son of Man” Debate’, JJS 29 (1978) 123–34;CrossRefGoogle ScholarVermes, G., ‘The “Son of Man” Debate’, JSNT 1 (1978) 19–32.Google Scholar
6 Casey, P. M., ‘The Son of Man Problem’, ZNW 67 (1976) 147–54;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSon of Man. The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1980);Google Scholar‘The Jackals and the Son of Man (Matt. 8.20//Luke 9.58)’, JSNT 23 (1985) 3–22;Google Scholar‘General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term “Son of Man” in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus’, JSNT 29 (1987) 21–56;Google ScholarFrom Jewish Prophet to Gentile God. The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology (The Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham, 1985–1986; Cambridge: James Clarke/Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) 46–56;Google Scholar‘Method in Our Madness, and Madness in Their Methods. Some Approaches to the Son of Man Problem in Recent Scholarship’, JSNT 42 (1991) 17–43;Google Scholar‘The Use of the Term in the Aramaic Translations of the Hebrew Bible’, JSNT 54 (1994) 87–118;Google Scholar ‘; ‘The Development of New Testament Christology, II.4. Son of Man’, ANRW II.26.5 (forthcoming, with bibliography from 1967 to early 1991).
7 Hare, D. R. A., The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 25.Google Scholar
8 Cf. Caragounis, C. C., The Son of Man (WUNT 38; Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986);Google ScholarCollins, A. Y., ‘The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as “Son of Man”’, HThR 80 (1987) 391–407;Google Scholar id., ‘Daniel 7 and Jesus’, Journal of Theology 93 (1989) 5–19;Google Scholar id., ‘Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus’, in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Attridge, H. W., Collins, J. J. and Tobin, T. H.; Lanham/New York/London: University Press of America, 1990) 181–93;Google ScholarRoss, J. M., ‘The Son of Man’, IBS 13 (1991) 186–98;Google ScholarBorsch, F. H., ‘Further Reflections on “The Son of Man”: the Origins and Development of the Title’, THE MESSIAH. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. Charlesworth, J. H.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 130–4, esp. 132–5.Google Scholar
9 I cite section, paragraph and line of paragraph from Saint Éphrem. Commentaire de I'Évangile Concordant. Texte Syriaque (Ms Chester Beatty 709) (ed. L. Leloir; CBM 8; Dublin: Hodges Figgis, 1963).Google Scholar
10 Cited according to the editio princeps of Brock, S. P., ‘A Syriac Verse Homily on Elijah and the Widow of Sarepta’, Le Muston 102 (1989) 99–113.Google Scholar
11 Bauckham, R., ‘The Son of Man: “A Man in My Position” or “Someone”?’, JSNT 23 (1985) 23–33,Google Scholar on which cf. Casey, , ‘General, Generic and Indefinite’, 34–6, 49–50;Google ScholarHampel, V., Menschensohn und historischer Jesus (Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990) 160–4;Google ScholarHare, , Son of Man, 252 n. 105.Google Scholar Cf. also Schwarz, G., Jesus ‘der Menschensohn’ (BWANT 6.19 = 119; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986) 74–7, following Meyer and Vermes.Google Scholar
12 See the works cited supra, n. 5.
13 Vermes, ‘Use’, 327.
14 Cf. further Casey, ‘General, Generic and Indefinite’, 22–3.
15 Cf. further Casey, ‘General, Generic and Indefinite’, 25–6.
16 See further Casey, ‘Use of the Term .
17 Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988–) 2.48.Google Scholar
18 Hooker, M. D., The Gospel according to Saint Mark (London: A. & C. Black, 1991) 92.Google Scholar
19 For detailed discussion, Casey, ‘Jackals’.
20 Hare, , Son of Man; likewise Ross, ‘Son of Man’, 190–3;Google ScholarKümmel, W. G., ‘Jesus der Menschensohn?’, Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 20/3 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1984) 147–88, at 158–9,Google Scholar on which see Casey, ‘Method’, 19–21.
21 Hare, , Son of Man, 249–50;Google Scholar A. Y. Collins, ‘Origin’, at 399 n. 35; id., ‘Daniel 7 and Jesus’, at 14; id., ‘Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus’, at 190; Ross, ‘Son of Man’, 191.
22 Nida, E. A., ‘Rhetoric and Translating’, in Übersetzungswissenschaft. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven (Festschrift f¨r Wilss, W.; ed. Arntz, R. und Thome, G.; Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 354; Tübingen: Narr, 1990) 121–8.Google Scholar
23 Snell-Hornby, M., ‘“Difficile est …”: Philologisches Übersetzen und Berufsübersetzer’, in Arntz and Thome, Übersetzungswissenschaft, 171–83.Google Scholar
24 Cf. Curtis, J.-L., ‘Shakespeare et ses traducteurs français’, in Ballard, M., La traduction plurielle (Lille: Presses universitaires de Lille, 1990) 19–31.Google Scholar The examples cited are discussed at pp. 24–6. For Gide's translation of the whole passage, Shakespeare, W., Œuvres complètes (ed. Fluchère, H.; 2 vols.; Bibliothèque de la Plélade, 50–1; Paris: Gallimard, 1959) 2.1057.Google Scholar Cf. Lambert, J., ‘Shakespeare and French Nineteenth-Century Theatre. A Methodological Discussion’, in Kittel, H., Geschichte, System, literarische Übersetzung: Histories, Systems, Literary Translation (Göttingen Beiträge zur Internationalen Übersetzungsforschung 5; Berlin: Schmidt, 1992) 66–90.Google Scholar
25 Barr, J., The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Bible Translation (NAWG 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979);Google ScholarBrock, S. P., ‘Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity’, GRBS 20 (1979) 69–87;Google Scholar id., ‘Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique’, IIIe Symposium Syriacum (ed. R. Lavenant; OCA 221; 1983) 1–14,Google Scholar reprinted in Brock, S. P., Studies in Syriac Christianity. History, Literature and Theology (London: Variorum 1992);Google ScholarBrock, S. P., ‘Translating the Old Testament’, It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (ed. Carson, D. A. and Williamson, H. G. M.; Cambridge: CUP, 1988) 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 On the complex questions surrounding this rendering, Hyvärinen, K., Die Übersetzung von Aquila (CB; Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell, 1977) 26–9;Google ScholarGrabbe, L. L., ‘Aquila's Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis’, JJS 32 (1982) 527–36;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPaul, A., ‘La Bible grecque d'Aquila et l'ideologie du judäisme ancien’, ANRW II.20.1 (1987) 221–45;Google ScholarZiegler, J., ‘Die Wiedergabe der nota accusativi ’et, ’et mit σύν’, ZAW 100 (1988 Supp) 222–33.Google Scholar
27 Tov, E., ‘Die griechischen Bibelübersetzungen’, ANRW II.20.1 (1987) 121–89;Google ScholarTov, E., ‘The Septuagint’, Mikra (ed. Mulder, M. J. & Sysling, H.; CRINT 2.1; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 161–88.Google Scholar
28 Tov, ‘Septuagint’, 172.
29 Lamy, M., ‘Le Testament de Saint Éphrem le Syrien’, Compte rendu du IVe Congrès Scientifique International des Catholiques. Première Section. Sciences Religieuses (1898) 173–209,Google Scholar at 174; Duval, R., ‘Le Testament de Saint Éphrem’, Journal Asiatique ser 9, 18 (1901) 234–319, at 240.Google Scholar
30 Casey, P. M., ‘Culture and Historicity: the Plucking of the Grain (Mark 2.23–28)’, NTS (1988) 1–23, at 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 For more detailed discussion of the articles, including responses to other criticisms, Casey, Son of Man, 230–1; ‘Jackals’, 14–15; ‘General, Generic and Indefinite’, 31–4; ‘Method’, 40–1.
32 A. Y. Collins, ‘Origins’, 399 n. 35.
33 Tov, ‘Septuagint’, 180.
34 These arguments are not seriously affected by the problems of establishing the original text of the LXX and of its Hebrew Vorlage. Pietersma has noted that P.Bod.24 represents a stage of LXX Psalms with fewer articles, but this is not true of its renderings of 
: Pietersma, A., ‘Articulation in the Greek Psalms: the Evidence of Papyrus Bodmer xxiv’, Tradition of the Text. Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday (ed. Norton, G. J. and Pisano, S.; OBO 109; Friburg: Universität/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 184–202.Google Scholar
35 Hare, , Son of Man, 249;Google ScholarRoss, , ‘Son of Man’, 191–2.Google Scholar A similar assumption appears to underlie the imprecise remarks of Caragounis, Son of Man 27, 29, 248–9: cf. Casey, , ‘Method’, 33–42.Google Scholar
36 For recent research, Schmidt, H., ed., Interferenz in der Translation (Übersetzungswissenschaftliche Beiträge 12; Leipzig: Enzyklopädie, 1989).Google Scholar
37 Neubert, A., Text and Translation (Übersetzungswissenschaftliche Beiträge 8; Leipzig: Enzyklopädie, 1985) 56;Google Scholar cf. id., ‘Interference between Languages and between Texts’, Interferenz (ed. Schmidt) 56–64.
38 Svejcer, A. D., ‘Literal Translation as a Product of Interference’, Interferenz (ed. Schmidt) 39–44.Google Scholar
39 Dodd, C. H., The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935) ch. 2.Google Scholar
40 These figures are taken from Hatch, E. and Redpath, H. A., A Concordance to the Septuagint (3 vols.; 1897–1906; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987),Google Scholar and checked with BHS and Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935).Google Scholar
41 Hare, , Son of Man, 249.Google Scholar
42 Casey, , Son of Man, 231.Google Scholar
43 Hare, , Son of Man, 23–4.Google Scholar
44 Cf. Casey, , Son of Man, 231Google Scholar; ‘Jackals’, 22 n. 31.
45 Hare, , Son of Man, 24; Ross, ‘Son of Man’, 192; Collins, ‘Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus’, 190.Google Scholar
46 Ross, ,‘Son of Man’, 192.Google Scholar
47 Hare, , Son of Man, 25; similarly, Ross, ‘Son of Man’, 191.Google Scholar
48 Casey, , Son of Man, esp. 165,177, 178, 182, 185, 190.Google Scholar
49 Casey, , Son of Man, 213–17.Google Scholar
50 For reconstruction of a very difficult saying, with remarks on method, Casey, P. M., ‘The Original Aramaic Form of Jesus' Interpretation of the Cup’, JThS NS 41 (1990) 1–12.Google Scholar
51 Hare, , Son of Man, 21–6.Google Scholar
52 Most are already presented in Casey, ‘Son of Man Problem’, at 152–4: the rest are scattered throughout the works cited in n. 5 supra. See especially Son of Man, 233–8, with Table 5.
53 This is a feature of my presentation of this theory, and is an important difference from that of Vermes, presupposed e.g. in the presentation of John 9.35 as an example of this idiom by Müller, M., ‘Have You Faith in the Son of Man?’ NTS 37 (1991) 291–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54 This theory must be complemented by a proper explanation of the development of New Testament Christology. I have supplied this in From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God.
55 This point is criticised by Moloney, F. J., ‘The End of the Son of Man?’, Downside Review 98 (1980) 280–90,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 287:1 responded in ‘General, Generic and Indefinite’, 50–1.
56 Hooker, Mark, 92.
