Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§16.3 How Did Jesus See His Own Role?
was used to make statements about a group of people, rather than all people,
among whom the speaker was included, but never in reference to the speaker exclusively.
87 Both views, however, have been vigorously challenged on the ground
that the Aramaic we know from the time of Jesus does not attest such usage. 88
Four observations are appropriate at this point. First, there is some danger
of holding the categories — generic (everyone), indefinite (someone), personal
(everyone/a group including me, someone like me, a man [like me]) — too rigidly
distinct so far as informal speech is concerned. 89 Second, even though
Qumran has transformed our knowledge of Aramaic during the Second Temple
period, the stock of Aramaic from this period is still very small, so that all judgments
on what was possible within first-century CE Aramaic speech have to be
hedged about with that qualification.
Third, there was presumably some continuity of usage from Hebrew into
early Aramaic and on into later Aramaic. 90 In the instances of ben 'adam noted
above (n. 83), there are some interesting examples: Job. 35.8 puts in parallel 'a
87. M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London:
SPCK, 1979) 224-27; also particularly '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. Casey
was followed in turn by B. Lindars, who argued somewhat similarly for an intermediate sense
between the generic (a human being) and personal reference — an idiomatic generic sense ('a
man in my position') (Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the
Gospels (London: SPCK, 1983) 23-24.
88. Dalman already responded to H. Lietzmann's assertion that the term 'son of man'
'does not exist in Aramaic' (Words 239); for a fuller review see Caragounis, Son of Man 16-19.
J. A. Fitzmyer, 'The New Testament Title "Son of Man" Philologically Considered' (1974), A
Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula: Scholars, 1979) 143-60 responded
to Vermes (particularly 152-53); and again 'Another View of the "Son of Man" Debate', JSNT A
(1979) 58-68, in response to G. Vermes, ' "The Son of Man" Debate', JSNT 1 (1978) 19-32. See
now Becker, Jesus of Nazareth 201, citing A. Vögtle, Die 'Gretchenfrage' des Menschensohnproblems
(QD 152; Freiburg: Herder, 1994) 31-64. Most recently P. Owen and D. Shepherd
have reexamined the data and conclude that '"son of man" as a means of idiomatic selfreference,
whether exclusively (Vermes), or inclusively as part of a generic statement (Lindars,
Casey), is not attested ... in any phase of Aramaic pre-dating the time of Jesus' — 'Speaking
Up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar Enasha a Common Term for "Man" in
the Time of Jesus?' JSNT SI (2001) 81-121 (here conclusion 121), with fuller bibliography of
Casey and Lindars (82 n. 7) and further references at this point (84-88).
89. Cf. R. Bauckham, 'The Son of Man: "A Man in My Position" or "Someone"?', JSNT
23 (1985) 23-33, particularly 29 (the possibility of an indefinite sense used as a 'deliberately
oblique or ambiguous self-reference'); Davies and Allison, Matthew 2.46-47. Lindars' treatment
left him vulnerable to Caragounis's critique (Son of Man 28-33). The discussion of Casey
and Lindars by Hare, Son of Man also illustrates the danger of working with too distinct categories
(246-50).
90. Cf. particularly M. Casey, 'The Use of the Term br(')nsh(') in the Aramaic Translations
of the Hebrew Bible', JSNT 54 (1994) 87-118.
727