Re: Son of man
- joe baxter wrote:
>You reproduce the first line of C. Aherne's article accurately, Joe. But
> According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
> In the Old Testament "son of man" is always translated in the Septuagint
> without the article as
that author's wording is misleading. The LXX regularly renders Hebrew
*ben Adam* or Aramaic *bar 'nasha* as hUIOS ANQRWPOU. "Anthropou" by
itself is a genitive & therefore cannot stand by itself as subject or
object of a statement. I think what Aherne meant to stress was that the
use of the NT's use of articles in the idiom (hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU) in
sayings ascribed to Jesu was unprecedented in pre-NT Greek. In fact,
apart from citation of sayings of Jesus early Christian writers
generally preferred the anarthous (i.e., article-less) hUIOS ANQRWPOU.
The only exceptions I have found to this are in Luke's report of
Stephen's confession & Epiphanius' report of Jesu's brother's last
words. Both of these writers, however, were obviously familiar with &
influenced by similar sayings that the gospels ascribe to Jesus. So the
use of the article in the idiom seems to be a linguistic peculiarity
associated with Jesu himself.
> The employment of the expression in the Gospels is very remarkable. It isIf memory serves me there are only 36 distinct SofM sayings in the
> used to designate Jesus
> Christ no fewer than eighty-one times -- thirty times in St. Matthew,
> fourteen times in St. Mark,
> twenty-five times in St. Luke, and twelve times in St. John.
synoptics once one eliminates parallel versions.
> Contrary toNot quite. There's a single exception in John 5:27 where the text reads
> what obtains in the
> Septuagint, it appears everywhere with the article, as ho huios tou
hUIOS ANQRWPOU with no article. Translators regularly render this verse
"And he has given him authority to exercise judgment because he is *the*
Son of man" there is no linguistic justification for inserting the
definite article "the" in this context. Jesus is here reported to claim
that he ("the Son") has authority to judge because he is *A* son of man,
i.e., a human. The context of John 5 echoes the use of "son of man" in
Ezekiel (esp., Ezek 22:2 & 37:3-10), where God gives his earthly human
spokesman authority to judge the living & revive the dead.
> Greek scholars areActually, there is no exact colloquial translation of hO hUIOS TOU
> agreed that the correct translation of this is "the son of man", not "the
> son of the man".
ANQRWPOU into English, just conventions inherited from previous
generations of translators. As a student of a scholar with some claim to
a broad detailed knowledge of the Greek language & grammar (Bob Funk) I
learned early on that traditional translations are not always "correct"
in representing the sense of the original. And other competent scholars
(Lindars, Casey, Bauckham, Murphy-O'Connor) have written long learned
articles debating the "correct" meaning of hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU without
reaching any clear consensus other than the conclusion that it was *not*
meant to be a title, which is the impression given by translating it
"the son of man."
> The possible"Never" is correct -- at least in any known extant document. The idiom
> ambiguity may be one of the reasons why it is seldom or never found in the
> early Greek Fathers as a
> title for Christ.
is regularly interpreted as a self-reference by Jesus.
> If I may ask, what exactly does "as ho huios tou" add here?"hO hUIOS" ("the son") points to a specific offspring in Greek. The same
thing is accomplished in Hebrew or Aramaic without use of a definite
article (*ben* or *bar*). When this is qualified by the genitive "TOU"
it has the effect of indicating the person or species from which one has
sprung. hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU indicates a particular offspring of *the*
human being per se. Thus "hO hUIOS TOU..." functions as a pointer ("this
human," "this child of humanity," "this son of Adam."
> What is theMost of the modern debate over the connotations of the idiom in the
> ambiguity? To what is it traced? If this expression ( as ho huios tou
> anthropou) means human being, how is that ambiguous?
sayings of Jesus is over whether the first article (in hO hUIOS)
functions generically or individually. Casey favors a generic reading &
thus declares all sayings that cannot be interpreted generically as
inauthentic. Bauckham favors a watered down indeterminate usage (i.e.,
"someone" or "anyone"). But I think (as does Lindars) that the use of
the *bar 'nasha* idiom & the gospel sayings themselves favor
interpretation as a particular member of the human species. If a purely
generic or indeterminate meaning was intended there would have been no
reason to coin the neo-logism hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU in translating
sayings of Jesus into Greek.
Mahlon H. Smith,
Department of Religion
New Brunswick NJ