»SIN ČOVJEČJI« U RASPRAVI M. CASEYJA S P. OWENOM I D. SHEPHERDOM
»SON OF MAN« IN THE DEBATE OF M. CASEY WITH P. OWEN AND D. SHEPHERD

Summary/Abstract: The paper deals with a polemic that is part of a very lively contemporary debate about the title ‘Son of Man’, namely the one between Maurice Casey on one side and Paul Owen and David Shepherd on the other. The expression ‘Son of Man’ stands in the Gospels always in the definite form. M. Casey sees the origins of this Greek expression in two Aramaic expressions: in the definite, emphatic form of bar enasha (the son of man), and in the absolute, indefinite and general form of bar enash (a son of man). He undertakes a very comprehensive and complex process of proving that in the Jesus’ Galilean Aramaic language both of these expressions, definite and indefinite, could have indefinite and general meaning, and that they both signify simply a man. According to this, when Jesus spoke of the Son of Man, he never had himself in mind, and the Son of Man would not be a messianic title. The expression would simply be a synonym for the more general term a man.

• Details
• Contents