cheenc03a.pdf

SON OF MAN
mother the Bihl. Arrm. " 2 ~ ,)[?I of D.n.7 I, was rendered
SON OF MAN
ring., rince in the three cases quored it seems to be 31 cullcctive
U~blw. Syr. 'mzker of the hunlvl me,' HC~. D?!? Yyil,
'watcher of mankind,' njv i~8~ljnov; Ilig, 'hope of the
human racc,' Heb. wllx n!p?; 33 ra, 'ears of men,' He!,.
u,w::, s idp&.s.). TL constr,,ction of collectivenouns *r,h
sg. rumxer is very common. I" appearance the iurmr 'am,,*,,
d'estiFn (maker of man), rdrrh Sanrrja (hope of man) and
r+#h ZonZFn (the ear of the man1 look very n,,,ch like k." and
u w u nun ~ (formed u nm, X~N~R~K). he late form
x,sxl,aa, plur. As/=? Mdwah, 198, shows how completely the
first part of the ward was lor, to conrciournesr. ..,y, 'a man;
'anya.e,'~~curronlyiiittttr~~o/~fff. Butthemortcomlnon
expre33ion for 'man' is n,>. cp Nb. Man* Granr. '27, 118
v. Eahylonizn ~ n d Tu1m~dir.-ln Babylonian Talmud~c
,,w,,a war likewise uwd, though nor ro frequently rr H#,K, far
'mm.'
vi. /~&~d;alzct.-AmongtheW.Arrmnicdislccfr(Judasm,
Samaritan, Galil-n, Nabatsm)this idiomstis erpresmonrcemr
to have been lcrr common in the S. than in the N. It does
indeed -cur as early as 165 B.C. in Dm. 7 13. For hcrs Mbzr.
&a"((,.
,,3 means ,like hum." beisg.' Dnhm thinks
that this chapter has been trrnrlrted from a Hebrew original
which had D: i3. Even if thar wnc so, the translator would
not havecho\en b=rnriFin prcArencs to barddzm, exclusively
ured by Onkelor, if, in the rircles where he moved, 6amniiand
bor-ni~,rwcre not more commonly "red. For the plural !,r UrFI
htr '&eiz, nan.2ja 521, or rin'sri, 249 4,s.f 2532 is: cp
Ezra4rx. ha ocmn only in the renre of 'a man,'5i 67 ir
74~12103ro. Thr oldest Targums, ascribed to Onkclui
and Jonathan, are writren in the ume Judsnn dklecr. AS
w,N ,, does nor occur ar in Onkelor-bm lizar being
rendered any-zddar-md only in 1s. il I? 562 JFT. 491833 5040
514, h?ic. 66 for bn ddnrrr in Jola!han. it ir possible that the
word for man, the ind~vldurl, lor:'??", war not i:
vogue, gabre 'man, the male.' and ,inliid, man, the mcc,
beme empluy;d alro to dcnore the member ofthe humrnfamily.
The fact ,ha, .,I OcSurs with greater frequency both in
Onkelm md Jonathan may then show that the ~ 1 rur~iucd ~ ~ ~ 1
longer than the singular for the )ame r?aro?r as in Hebrew.
But the lnRuence of. more exten.lve culrlvaf>on of the ancienr
Hebrew tongue in J~daa, especially am on^ those crp?hleof
acfhg as illt~~prererr. should not be overlooked: and it 1% quite
likely illat the common rpecch of the pcaple war lerr iiflecled by
Hebrairm5 thm, the paraphraser would ruggest.
~ii. senron.fan.-ln the Samaritanversion of the Penrrteuch
the learned rranrlatorr renders the version ie~r trurtworrhy m
this rerpct as a witneis to Samaritan urnge.
viii. Gaiiiva" liin/rrt.-1n rrgsrd to f h Galilean ~ dialect we
posies the iimplert informatiun. I" the freedom of sponrnneaus
utterance and repartee in the Palestinian Talmud thr pcuiiaritie,
of popular ;I bcttcr chance of reveal in^ themxlver
than in the tranrlar~onr, md the hter Targums fullow less
clairlythe Hebrew th~" tha earlier. But even when due weight
is piven to this fact, the eirrao~din~vfrequency of the ldrom no
doubt indicate3 a more extcnrlvs use on the part of ,he people
of Galilee. Dalmin ir inclined to regard it nr ~compan~tlvely
Iau development under the influence of rk Synac, and thinks
that a prron in the 6r3t century n.o. urlng ro strange an expr-ion
u 6ornZr& then would not have ken undcr~tood as
spaking of 'man.' But Flebig ha3 shown that, nor only did
Hoia'ya about -"A,".. uie *>, H.,> for 'a great man'
(shi@r&56), bur Sime'on h. Yochal, about 13-I&*."., used
m , for Imm; ldrr Menriil' (Bemch. 1 i), and pairibly dm
Sime'on b. Gamaliel, hiscontemporrry, ifacerlcxinraying hrrbeen
prelsl-ued more accuralely in Talm. Ilab.. NMfriri 546, Mrtrz
306. The indiRerence to theemphatic rtateporntrto long urrge
even in the fintpartoftherecondcentury. lf ir olfrcmely
difficult foklievethatonlythrsegcner?ilonrearlieran?xpreirion
that had taken such dce roots and is foiind in the hterary re-
~nains ofail Aramaic diaectr, r&ould nor hare been widely used
is> c.1ilem an equi~=lent 01 or Nqin in the ring, and ii is
quite incredible that ro natural and ldlomatlc r dengn=tion of
thc individual of the human rrce rhould not have been under.
rrwd 'man.' but taken to hc an cioreric Mesoand
N. Syria were old centres uf A~smals speech, and
Pt is therefore narura~ that the old term to denote a member of
the hulnpn family should have mainralned lrrelf most stron~ly
there. 01 nw>~, a,> thare is apprrcntly no trace in the
4708