Abstract
Larry Hurtado, Professor of New Testament Language, Literature, and Theology at the University of Edinburgh, and Paul Owen, Associate Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies at Montreat College, are the editors of the following monograph which presents a collection of essays aimed at tackling the biblical expression òuìo.j tou/ avnqrw,pou “son of man.” Over the years, there have been a great number of competing solutions regarding this puzzling and enigmatic phrase. Most often, the “son of man” phrase has been examined in conjunction with Aramaic expressions, the Book of Daniel, issues of linguistics, and the historical Jesus research. The aim of their publication, therefore, has been to contribute to the current debate and to shed new light and new perspectives on the ongoing discussion of this idiom.
In the first chapter, Albert Lukaszewski offers a critical review of the extensive scholarship regarding the Aramaic predecessor for “son of man.” In this assessment, Lukaszewski begins by examining the debate which stems all the way back to Tertullian’s allusion to the Book of Daniel during the 2nd century. The debate is overviewed in three parts and brings the reader up to speed with the philological studies of the phrase. Lukaszewski negates the illogical steps taken up by many scholars who hypothesize that, since the phrase does not fit into one ancient language, it must surely fit into Aramaic. The faulty reasoning behind this approach is readily dismissed by the author, who insistently notes that just because “son of man” fails to properly fit in with one particular language this does not mean that it must surely belong to another. In the conclusion, the author offers a series of steps in order to critically evaluate the “son of man” phrase and concludes that, “If all options are exhausted and òuìo.j tou/ avnqrw,pou resonates rightly with no known language, one must say that we cannot know more at the present time, pending further research into the syntax of the languages involved” (26–27).
The following three chapters – written individually by Paul Owen, David Shepherd, and P. J. Williams – are all critiques of the recent scholarship of Maurice Casey. Casey’s recent work on this topic (The Solution to the Son of Man Problem. New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2009) has firmly argued for Aramaic sources behind the “son of man” saying. In the second chapter, Owen carefully dissects Casey’s arguments and simplistic solution to the problem. He points out many of the faults with Casey’s work and notes that distinguishing between the editorial tendencies of the gospel writers and the actual words spoken by Jesus can never be more than a speculative endeavor. According to the author, this type of evidence cannot offer a solution to the problem of the “son of man” phrase.
In the following essay, Shepherd also critically assesses the work of Casey and comes to a similar conclusion to that of Owen as he writes that, “unless or until further evidence is forthcoming, the hypothesis that this expression was either an ordinary or a common way of generically referring to ‘a man’ in the Aramaic of Jesus' time seems utterly bereft of relevant evidence” (60). Both Owen and Shepherd do not see the current biblical evidence as proof of Casey’s solution. More proof is needed before such a fanciful claim can be properly substantiated.
In the subsequent essay, Williams leaves aside much of Casey’s general methodology and also the theory put forth concerning the sayings' development in Greek gospel practices. Instead, Williams' approach in this chapter focuses on Maurice Casey’s explanation of the Aramaic levels of the sayings' tradition and the shift of these sayings into Greek. Again, a similar critique, as in Owen and Shepherd, is put forth concerning the use of Aramaic sources. Casey has used sources which date after the time of Jesus and he has defended this practice by noting that there is not enough earlier Aramaic material; however, Williams points out that scholars must consider the possibility that there is insufficient evidence to reconstruct the sayings of Jesus with any type of confidence. While Casey’s claim that stability in the language is present, Williams responds by sarcastically noting that with such logic even the Modern Hebrew could be used as a reliable source for reconstructing Jesus' language.
Chapter five features Darrell Bock’s paper in which he writes of the prospect that Jesus was drawing from the Son of Man descriptions found in chapter 7 of the Book of Daniel. This type of understanding is relevant for Bock, because it demonstrates that reading texts in a flat manner and attributing all theological and Christological developments to the early church is not always the case: “The roots for the theological innovations within the Jesus movement appear far more likely to be rooted in him than in a nameless and faceless group of followers” (99). In the subsequent chapter, Benjamin Reynolds explores the use of the “son of man” expression in the fourth gospel. There is an absence, according to Reynolds, of scholarship that deals with the Johannine Son of Man and the following essay attempts to fill that void. Reynolds' convincing conviction is that future examinations would do well to consider the “son of man” sayings in John’s gospel since these may prove to be a reliable historical source. In the seventh chapter, Darrell Hannah explores the use of the “son of man” idiom in the Parables of Enoch, specifically in the Parables (1 Enoch chapters 37 to 71). Hannah explores the four main titles of the elect son of man as well as the eschatological role of this figure.
The monograph concludes with a summary by Larry Hurtado, who offers his own insights and observations as well as his own proposal for the origin of “son of man.” After weighing much of the data from previous scholarship and the work put forth from this collection, the editor suggests a scenario whereby the “son of man” phrase was linked to Jesus because this is a phrase he actually used. Since Hurtado sees Jesus' identification with the figure of Daniel (7:13–14) as unlikely, he instead posits that what may have prompted Jesus to devise and deploy such an unusual expression was Jesus' view of himself as having a special mission. Therefore, Jesus' use of the “son of man” served to articulate the sense of being chosen, for a special reason, by God.
Overall, the scope and focus of the book are such that it will be useful to advanced students and academics in the field. While Hurtado notes the limitations of the monograph by stating that it “does not address all matters concerning ‘the son of man’, and will probably not settle all minds on the issues included for discussion in it” the monograph does offer great insights and moves the debate forward (176). Overall, the book is recommended for the advanced readers who are interested in the “son of man” expression and who wish to know more about the competing hypotheses put forth concerning the expression.