2

In the written NT, "the son of man" is "ο γιος του ανθρώπου," with a definite article "ο." This would presumably be a Greek translation of an Aramaic phrase used during the apostolic period (unless a Greek-speaking evangelist invented its usage as a title out of whole cloth), and would have been familiar to first-century Palestinian Jews as a stock phrase heard in readings of the then-oral targums (e.g., Daniel 7:13).

I don't know any Aramaic, but I gather that in Aramaic this is "bar enos," and as far as I can tell from looking at a description of the grammar, the meaning that is conveyed in English or Greek by a definite article is indicated in Aramaic by a suffix "-a."

So if an Aramaic speaker wanted to say "the son of man," would they have said something like "bara enos?" Or would the "-a" go away because of the following vowel or something like that?

The point here is whether there would have been any distinction apparent in oral Aramaic between "[a] son of man" and the title "the Son of Man." (I gather that Koine Greek had definite articles but no indefinite articles.)

Some linguistic information about the phrase in Aramaic: https://www.goarch.org/-/the-aramaic-phrase-bar-enos-son-of-man-dan-7-13-14-revisited

Improve this question
6
  • What evidence do you have that this expression is 'a Greek translation for an Aramaic phrase' ? Koine Greek has 'an article'. It does not have a 'definite article'.
    – Nigel J
    Jan 23, 2021 at 16:29
  • 1
    @NigelJ: Not clear on your question. Are you not convinced that Jesus and his followers all spoke Aramaic to each other? Are you not convinced that Jesus ever referred to himself as "the son of man?"
    – user39728
    Jan 23, 2021 at 17:06
  • Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean region. The apostles would have been fluent in Koine Greek, possibly as their own language or maybe bi-lingual. There is no evidence to suppose that one has to look deeper than the actual words they wrote in order to understand their concepts. To do so, is to undermine the gift of the scriptures to humanity.
    – Nigel J
    Jan 23, 2021 at 20:57
  • . . . in any case, this quiestion is off-topic as it is not focused on a text of scripture but is opening up a topic for debate. Please see the Tour and the Help as to the functioning and purpose of the site and in particular the matter of 'biblical topic' questions being off-topic on an hermeneutic site.
    – Nigel J
    Jan 23, 2021 at 21:32
  • @Ben you can fix the problem with your question by tying it to specific New Testament passages such as John 5:27 and contrasting it with Daniel 7:13.
    – Perry Webb
    Jan 24, 2021 at 2:21

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

In Hebrew and Aramaic a noun in the construct drops the definite article. An example is בֶּן־יִשַׁי֙ ben Jishay "the son of Jesse" in 1 Samuel 20:31. Ben in Hebrew is in construct and translated "the son of" although it has no article because it is construct.

Daniel 7:13 has k-bar eneysh as a/the son of man. The Septuagint (LXX) translates it without the article ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου.

There are two possible reasons a New Testament writer would use the article in Greek.

  1. They interpreted the construct has having the article.

  2. However, especially when alluding to Daniel 7:13, the more likely reason is the article points specifically to "son of man" in Daniel (e.g. John 5:27) as apposed to the meaning any human, or human likeness as in Revelation 1:13

Improve this answer