Son of Man
ButhFam at compuserve.com
Fri Aug 18 10:42:04 EDT 2000
crossley egrayen peri tou uiou tou anqrwpou:
>Casey has also written several articles on the subject which are
>worth reading e.g. 'General, Generic, and Indefinite: Some Aspects of
>the Son of Man Problem' JSNT, 1987, which mainly discusses Aramaic
>reconstructions of Jesus' sayings, and a dicussion on the state of son of
>man scholarship in 'Method in our Madness and Madness in their Methods'.
Casey's approach has only worked within a restricted Greek-Aramaic
framework. A fuller framework is necessary for 1st century Judaism. Casey's
method and parameters are discussed and reframed within a fuller
perspective in the following:
"A More Complete Semitic Background for bar-enasha 'Son of Man'" in Craig
Evans and James Sanders, eds. The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and
Christian Tradition (JSNT Suppl 154) Sheffield Academic Press, 1998:
Basically, Casey's case requires ignoring Hebrew completely (99+%) for
first century Jewish teachers. The article explains the rationale and
relevance for including Hebrew in the framework for interpreting o uios tou
anqrwpou. The corrolaries are farreaching. The article does not side with
Casey or his targets (e.g. 'their methods') but ends up on a different
plane, or a triangular point.
I would wish that persons writing on the subject would digest this material
before going on, since alot of what is echoed within gospel scholarship on
the linguistic side of 'son of man' turns out to be irrelevant or
incorrect. There is more than one possibility available for fitting current
data together on the son of man position, but some of the
'options'/'positions' presented in academia turn out to be 'unviable'.
Casey's claim that bar-enasha could not be a title is one such 'unviable
Let me state the above in a 'strong statement': Any solution must include
the data in "a More Complete Semtic Background..."
More information about the B-Greek