Son of Man
James Crossley
crossleyjames at hotmail.com
Wed Aug 23 07:13:32 EDT 2000
Apologies for continuing this thread but I felt something needed to be said
concerning Casey's view of the Son of Man problem. Bearing in mind the
warning about moving too far a way from the concerns of biblical Greek I
will restrict the following comments to the effects on the Greek text.
Buth wrote that Casey's view of the Aramaic 'son of man' involves a
reference to 'somebody/anybody'. This is true but we should not overlook
the fact that Casey's view also includes a reference to the speaker. This
can help explain why some of the synoptic sayings can be read as a title in
Greek but without explicit reference to Daniel 7:13, Mt. 8:20/ Lk. 9:58
for example.
Taking Casey's view for the moment, when such Aramaic sayings are
translated into Greek we are already on the way to a title of some sort,
not least because *ho huios tw anthrwpou* does not function as a Greek
idiom. With such a strange saying where better than Scripture to find the
explanation! Daniel 7:13 was perfect for the early church. This can help
explain why texts such as Mark 13:26 include a titular use of *ho huios tw
anthrwpou* with explicit reference to Daniel 7.
This view can does show why there are some synoptic texts with an explicit
reference to Daniel 7 and why there are some without such an explicit
reference yet still managing to fuction as a title in Greek.
I am not claiming that this proves Casey is right (although I do side with
something like the results of Casey and Lindars) but I think that Buth's
criticism of Casey are not decisive. Further research involves the language
spoken by Jesus and his audience. Personally I think the argument for
Aramaic is very strong but that's another question beyond the aims of this
group...
Yours,
James Crossley
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list