Son of Man

James Crossley crossleyjames at
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 


James Crossley
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

More information about the B-Greek mailing list