The Aram, dialects do diller from one another in details of linguistic usage ; * and though barndsh(a,) is common in the Galila^an dialects of the 3rd or 4th cent. A.D., it may not, as Dalraan points out, liave been equally common in the 1st cent. ; and if usage had not at that time obliterated the distinctive force of the first part of the compound, bar nclsha might have been used by Christ in the sense of 'the Son of man.' It must, however, be allowed that Fiebig [§ 24] has made it probable (pp. 33-36, 59 f.) from quotations in the Jerus. Talm. that bar iKVihid) = ' man ' was current in Galilee in the 2nd cent. A.D.
(2) In the Sin. (Curet.) and Pesh. versions of NT, ' the Son of man ' is, for distinction from the barnd.'ihd which stands for o SLvBpuiro^, alwaj's repre- sented by b'reh d'lidshdf (lit. hii son, that of man, — the pleonasm being an idiom very common in Aram. J), — grammatically (Nbld.) 'a more strongly determined form of harnd.ihd.' If in the Aram, spoken in the time of Christ barncLsh(d) was really in common use in the sense of ' man,' there does not seem to be any sufficient reason why, if our Lord desired to express the idea of ' the Son of man,' He should not have made use of this expres- sion. There would be nothing unsuitable in ita being an unusual and emphatic one ; and that there was some Semitic expression bearing this meaning appears, as Hilgenfeld has pointed out,§ from the fact that in the Gospel ace. to the Hebrews, which Jerome himself translated from Aramaic (or, as he elsewhere says, from Hebrew), there was a saying of Christ, addressed to James, which (in Jerome's tr.) reads, ' Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit ^/w« /wminis a dormientibus.'!!
From a comnumication printed by Dr. Dnimniond.K it appear! that Prof. Noldeke also is disposed to agree with Wellhausen. To differ from Prof. Noldeke on a point of Aramaic or Arabic
* See, for some illustrations, Dalm. Oramm. 34-40.
t B^rSh d'baimdshd 'Son of the son of man' is certainlv ■ ' theological barbarism ' ; it does not, however, occur (as Wellh., by an oversight, says, p. 194n.) in the Pesh., but in the Palest. Lectionary.
} See, e.g., Dalm., Dialektproben, p. 15, 1. 2, [NOT an3 = whos« son? .Tpim an3 = the son of Hezekiah. So Dn 2«> 38- *> rtc, and constantly in Syriac (a-s Mt 1' [thrice)). According to Wellh. 6'rM d'rutsha (on account of the sing. suff. and the following virtual plural) is ' unmoglich ' (p. vi). But svy» is regularly in the Tj,'g. constnicd with a sing. ; and Job 720 14I9 3316, Pesh., are precise /ormn/ parallels (see, further, Fiebig, p. 48 tf.): more- over, if the expression were 'impossible' in Synac, would the Butbi>rs of the Svriac versions of the Gospels have employed it?
? X. f. Wiss. fheol. 1897, 476 (ct. Berl.phUol. Wochenschr. 1897, Heft 4"9) ; ISDO, 150.
i| Jerome, de Virit III. c. 2 eTid (ed. Bened. rv. li. lOi ; ed. Vail. ii. 817; Migne, ii. 613); see Hilgenf. Evangg. sec. Uebr. etc. q\im supersunt (1866), pp. 17 ff., 29. Lietzniann's reply (Theol. Arb. p. 10) is to the effect that even here the title miul be of Greek origin, because it i--^ only in Greek that the con- ditions for its having arisen can be shown to have existed.
1l Joum. 0} Theol. Studies, Apr. 1901, p. 857 1.
SOX OF MAN
SON OF MAN
583
usage would be to court certain error ; but from tbe terms in wiiich he expresses himself, it does not seem that he nieiiiis to pronounce an absolute philolo^cal veto a^^ainst the position tliat Jesuji may have spoken of Himself in Aramaic as * the Son of man.'
(3) No doubt our Lord, as a rule, spoke in Aramaic; but, as I'rof. Sanday has remarked to the jireseiit writer, it is quite jiossihle that He may, ujiOii occasion, have sjioken also in Greek. In this case, which is more than a mere abstract possibility, tlie expression 6 vib^ rov avBptjmov may actually have been sometimes heard upon His lips.
11. Uriqin and meaning of the term as used in ST. — Hero we must lirst consider the question whether the term is used in previous or contem- porary Jewish literature, and, if so, in what sense. In Dn 7", as has been already remarked, the 'one like unto a son of man ' denoted ori^'inally, in all probability, the glorified people of Israel ; but the expression was undoubtedly interpreted at an early date of the Messiah. The most remarkable evi- dence of this is all'iirded by that part of the (composite) Hook of Enoch (ch. 37-7ti), which is commonly known as the 'Similitudes,' and which is attributed sc'^'rally to the 1st cent. B.C. (see vol. i. pp. 707''-708'). Enoch is here represented as carried in his vision into heaven, where he sees the 'Head of Days' (a title of the Almighty sii;:gcsted by Dn 7'') surrounded by an innumer- able company of angels (40'), and beside Him the Messiah, sitting on 'the throne of his glory' (62" '• ' 69-'''-*), and executing judgment upon wicked men and anj^ids. The ^iessiall is often spoken of as tlie ' Elect One' (Is 42') ; but in ch. 4ti he is introduced in terms which more particu- larly concern us here —