LITERARY REVIEWS
AN EXAMPLE OF FUTILE INGENUITY
This book is a collaboration by two men who at one time studied with the Christian ministry in view — one, at least, is now a consulting engineer. It represents some years of labor, as is very evident, but it may be said at the outset that its processes of reasoning and its conclusions are so fanciful and preposterous as hardly to claim a reviewer's time. However, it is a type of argument to catch readers of superficial scholarship and radical inclinations respecting the Christian faith, and so may be given some attention. A circular describes it as "the most astounding book of this generation." In a sense this may be true, when the evident sincerity of the authors is seen to be combined with their complacent faith in the credulity of "every candid mind courageously seeking the truth concerning the identification of the Son of Man" and with the hope that this grotesque attempt at scientific investigation can overturn the faith, knowledge, and scholarship of the ages.
The stated purpose is to prove the historical existence of Christ. This is attempted by trying to identify Him with the Jewish patriot of the first century A.D., Simon Bar Giora. The chief points of argument are that the historian Josephus has blackened and slandered the character of this notable leader of his race, while the New Testament writers recognize his noble and patriotic character, yet conceal his identity by cryptic names and devices, for fear of the Romans, so that he is known therein as the Son of Man, as well as by other familiar names traditionally applied to Christ. After the fall of Jerusalem the scattering of the disciples over the world, we are told, led to confused impressions of the great Jewish hero, so that he appears in historical literature as Jesus, St. Stephen, Simon Magus, Valentinus, Appollonius of Tyana, Simon Zelotes, Simon the Tanner, Simon the Leper, and others. Paul turns out to have been the same as Justus of Tiberias, otherwise James the Little, otherwise the brother of the hero of the book. The authors discover that "the writings of 'Paul' are deliberate cryptic history." Some of the other startling pieces of information are, that Calvary was the  Capitoline Hill in Rome, "the demons of the Gospels were the Romans of profane history," Peter was the son of this Simon Bar Giora who led the Jews in their futile struggle against Titus, and Joseph of Arimathaea and Josephus the historian are one and the same.
The argument rests largely upon the supposed cryptic writings, upon the alleged unreliability of Josephus, upon the confusion of homophones — words of similar sound but of dissimilar meaning, and upon the presumed errors of copyists. Opposed utterly to the church's interpretation of the New Testament, the volume opens its preface with the naïve remark: "This book is in no sense a polemical work."
At the time when Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans under Vespasian and Titus there existed within the unfortunate city three rival factions, struggling against each other for supremacy. These internal enemies were destroying not only the lives but also the food that had been accumulated in prevision of a siege, as each hoped to deprive the rival faction of its sustenance, thus greatly increasing the sufferings of the people who had not known "the time of their visitation."
The only historian whose writings are left to inform us at length of those terrible events is Flavius Josephus, himself a witness and participant in many of the happenings which he relates. It is generally conceded that Josephus is, in the main, pretty accurate, and that his better qualities emerge particularly in his Jewish Wars. Indeed, he made a special effort to be fair-minded, for contrasting himself with other historians he says: "They have a mind to demonstrate the greatness of the Romans, while they still diminish and lessen the actions of the Jews: as not discerning how it cannot be that those must appear to be great who have only conquered those who were little. * * * However, I will not go to the other extreme, out of opposition to those men who extol the Romans, nor will I determine to raise the actions of my countrymen too high, but I will prosecute the actions of both parties with accuracy" (Wars of the Jews, Preface, 8, 4).
Any one who has read the Wars knows that Josephus has kept his promise fairly well. He often blames the Romans and their commanders when they are worthy of blame, but he praises  them when praise is due. And he does exactly the same, in the description of his own countrymen. This appears especially in the case of the three principal leaders of the factions that were contending for pre-eminence amidst the ruin of their own country. Perhaps Josephus might have been inclined to paint a little blacker the figure of John of Giscala, a political adversary against whom Josephus had fought when he was himself one of the Jewish leaders. He certainly had no particular reason for grudge against the other two chiefs. Indeed, the authors of the work we are endeavoring to review say: "Josephus has hardly a single good word to say of either John, Eleazar, or Simon Bar Giora who commanded the Jewish forces during the long siege of Jerusalem" (p. 33f.). If their deeds were such as Josephus describes (he is the only witness left, as we have noticed) he could hardly do otherwise. But what the authors add to that statement does not correspond to the facts in the case.
We will have to consider the matter somewhat carefully, since one of the main contentions upon which the book is based depends upon this point. "Joseph Bar Matthias, otherwise Josephus, as might be expected from such a traitor or apostate, does all he can to whitewash the black record of the sanguinary Romans, as he displays equal zeal in besmirching the poor, distracted, disorganized, but brave and passionately patriotic Jews who fought with desperation for their altars and their firesides, * * *. According to Josephus, all the Romans were noble and brave, while all the Jews, excepting himself, were rapacious and cruel cowards" (p. 34).
With respect to such affirmations, it may be noted that one has only to read the account of the barbarities of the Roman procurator, Gessius Florus, which are described by Josephus, in the fourteenth chapter of the second book of the Wars, to persuade himself that he does not represent "all the Romans as noble and brave."
We quote only the last sentences of Josephus' account: "The citizens fled along the narrow lanes, and the soldiers slew those that they caught, and no method of plunder was omitted; they also brought them to Florus, whom he first chastised with stripes and then crucified. Accordingly, the whole number of those that were destroyed that day, with their wives and children (for they  did not spare even the infants themselves) was about three thousand and six hundred. And what made this calamity the heavier, was this new method of Roman barbarity," etc. (book II, ch. 15, sec. 9). Josephus, indeed, tries to show that it was the ferocity of such a government which forced the Jews into the war.
Now, as to Josephus describing "all the Jews, excepting himself" as "rapacious and cruel cowards," this is no more accurate than the previous statement. Josephus does not spare praise to his fellow countrymen, whenever he can do so in harmony with the truth. Thus he praises very highly the virtues of Ananus, son of Ananus, and Jesus, the son of Gamala, whom he calls with the endearing epithet of "the best esteemed of the High Priests" (book IV, ch. 3, sec. 9). Indeed, one cannot read, without emotion, the discourse of Ananus to the people, reported at length in section 10 of the same chapter. Far from describing him as "a coward" Josephus makes him say: "Certainly it had been good for me to die before I had seen the house of God full of so many abominations * * *," and he ends his discourse by saying: "It is a right thing * * * to die before these holy gates, and to spend our very lives, if not for the sake of our children and wives, yet for God's sake, and for the sake of the sanctuary."
And this is the effect of his words upon the people: "So the multitude cried out to him, to lead them on against those whom he had described in his exhortation to them, and every one of them was most readily disposed to run any hazard whatsoever on that account." A strange kind of "cowards" they certainly were! And such instances might be easily multiplied by appropriate quotations. Suffice it to state that Josephus far from describing his personal enemy John of Giscala as a "coward" says of him: "It was known to everybody that he was fond of war;" and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem he says that Titus himself "esteemed the men that were in it so courageous and bold, that even without the consideration of the walls it should be hard to subdue them; for which reason he took care of, and exercised his soldiers beforehand for the work, as they do wrestlers before they begin their undertaking" (book IV, ch. 2, sec. 1).
From this it appears very clearly that the authors of the book under review are starting from absolutely mistaken premises.  These being destroyed we might as well rest here. But it may be asked, What is the authors' contention? Briefly this: Granting that Josephus, the "traitor or apostate," represents all the Jews, excepting himself, as "rapacious and cruel cowards," he has especially done so in the case of one, "Simon Bar Giora." But here again we must call the reader's attention to the fact that this affirmation is no more correct than the previous ones we have examined. Josephus represents him everywhere as a very courageous man, though cruel and violent (book II, ch. 19, sec. 2, etc.). The first mention he makes of him is as having defeated the Romans themselves: "The Jews retired into the city; but still Simon the Son of Giora, fell upon the backs of the Romans, as they were ascending up Beth-horon, and put the hindermost of the army into disorder," etc. (book II, ch. 19, sec. 2). But why should Josephus particularly vent his wrath against Simon Bar Giora rather than against John of Giscala, for instance? Here lies the great secret of the book — Simon Bar Giora happens to have a name which, by proper manipulation and sundry exegesis, may be made to be equivalent to the title "Son of Man." But this title is the one given to the Messiah in the Old Testament, and to "Jesus" in the New. Hence it follows that Simon Bar Giora is the true historical Christ of the Gospels! This is so extraordinary that the authors say:
"It will be difficult for many whose minds have become prejudiced against the great general of the Jews by the scurrility of that arch-traitor, Josephus, to recognize at first glance as the divine hero of the Gospels the caricature silhouetted in the pages of his Jewish Wars * * *. But, nevertheless, here and there a phrase or a sentence stands out which indicates that the Son of Man was not in reality the wan and pallid creature we see in the gray light of the Gospels. The real military character of his mission flashes forth in such sentences as that in Matthew 10:34, in which he is quoted as saying, 'I came not to send peace but the sword.' His real mission is indicated in Luke 22:36, in which with ardor he exclaims, 'He that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword' " (p. 10f.).
The numerous Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek words occurring in these pages are very apt to produce upon the "layman" the impression of profound scholarship. But the explanations of  the words are marvelously original and unique. "Gi'ora is the equivalent of the Aramaic Gibhora, a word which means 'man,' 'power,' 'might.' The aspirated or undageshed b being equivalent to our w, and having no equivalent in Greek, was doubtless omitted in Greek transliteration, as well as it might be, without materially affecting the phonetic value of the word, as compensation for the elided letter was made by the lengthening of the succeeding vowel, in this instance o" (p. 9f.).
Any one who has the least acquaintance with Hebrew and Greek will understand at once the absolute futility of the above affirmation. But since the whole book is based upon such foundations, we will have to consider this matter briefly. It is not true that the "undageshed b" has no equivalent in Greek. We have only to look at the Septuagint to see that the contrary is the case. Whenever an "undageshed b" is found in the Hebrew it is constantly transliterated by β in the Septuagint (and by b in the Latin Vulgate) while the b with "dagesh forte" is constantly transliterated by double b in the Latin Vulgate and by the same β in the Septuagint. This may be seen by the following parallels, which might be multiplied:
Nehemiah 7:25, Bne Gibh'dn=Υἱοὶ Γαβαων (LXX) ; Filii Gabaon (Vulgate). Joshua, 15:57, Gibh'ah=Γαβαὰ (LXX); Gabaa (Vulgate). (Cf. Ezra 2:10; 1 Kings 15:27; Neh. 11:8, in the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Vulgate.)
We notice also that, according to the excellent system of transliteration introduced by Professor C. P. Fagnani of Union Theological Seminary in his Hebrew Primer, the "undageshed b" is conveniently transliterated by the Greek β which indeed it resembles in pronunciation.
The attempt, therefore, to identify the name Giora with the Aramaic Gibhora is perfectly absurd. Furthermore all scholars, both Jewish and Christian, agree that the name indicates "the son of a proselite," and has therefore an entirely different origin from Gibhora. The same convenient method of "accommodation" of words is prevalent all through the book.
Let us take a few illustrations at random, as they abound everywhere. On pages 93, 94 we read: "A close study of the text will show that 'Barabbas' is but another name for the Son of Man. The personality of Barabbas grew out of the indistinct  penmanship of a scribe. In Hebrew the k and the b are very much alike, as there is but a small difference in the formation of the base lines of these letters," etc. And on pages 95, 96: " 'Cyrenian' in Hebrew is 'Kurini.' This is easily mistaken for 'Kirinu' — 'our fortress,' a title not unbefitting the brave defender of the Holy City. Attention should again be called to the fact that the i and the u in Hebrew are similar in form and differ only in length," etc.
But this wonderful system is equally applied to other languages as well. Thus we read on page 98: "Simon Megas would be the Greek equivalent of Simon Gi'ora. Careless orthography coupled with a primitive weakness for the marvellous [the lesson comes from a worthy pulpit!], easily turned the 'Megas' into 'Magos,'" etc.
On page 120: "The phrase usually translated 'Joseph, husband of Mary,' is in Syriac 'Joseph Gi'ora damaria.' The d in Syriac is almost circular while the s is formed by a small circle tangential with a larger one; but changing time or careless copyists could easily alter the letter to a d. In the genealogical table in the Syriac of Luke 3:23, the lengthening of a single line, the prolongation of an l below the base makes of it a g," etc.
Finally we must add that such arguments and explanations as those above outlined run through nearly three hundred pages, while the volume contains also maps and illustrations.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Thanks, David. Have downloaded it, and someday, when I feel in the mood to embrace the weirdness, I may give it a read.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/Simon bar Giora was obviously a radical, with extreme tendencies. Leaving the capital with his followers, he tried to make himself master of the district of Acrabatene, southeast of Samaria, and a well-known center of fierce patriotic sentiment. Here apparently others who shared his views rallied to him. He attacked the wealthy, sacking their houses and molesting their persons, until the provisional government in Jerusalem, headed by the ex-High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (“Ananus” in Josephus), sent an armed force against him. This Spartacist revolt (as we might call it) was put down without much difficulty, but bar Giora was able to escape, with some of his more devoted followers and their womenfolk.
Meanwhile, the survivors of Menahem ben Judah’s sicarii faction had returned after his assassination to the Herodian fortress of Masada, on a cliff overhanging the Dead Sea, where they continued to hold out under Eleazar ben Jair. There were apparently profound differences of outlook between them and the followers of Simon. But they were united by a common antipathy to the Jerusalem government, and were prepared to join hands at least temporarily. To Masada, therefore, Simon led his followers. The two factions did not however coalesce, the newcomers and their womenfolk being allowed only to establish themselves in the lower part of the stronghold and not allowed access to the actual fortress where Eleazar and his sicarii were established.
The two factions did collaborate in a series of raids in which apparently they tried to extend their hold over the territory to the southwest, towards Idumea, where the representatives of the central government found themselves for a time seriously pressed. However, Simon’s plans were more ambitious than those of Eleazar [ben Yair]. The sicarii apparently were content to wait until the central government fell — either from internal dissension or before the Romans — and imagined that then, with the help of God, they would come into their own. Simon, on the other hand, followed an activist policy throughout his known career and hoped to establish his own ascendancy, and that of his ideas, by force of arms.
In the winter of 67—68, the news of events in the capital persuaded him that his hour had come. The disaster in Galilee, where their priest-colleague Josephus had gone over to the Romans after a shameful military debacle, had completely discredited the priestly junta in Jerusalem who had hitherto been at the head of the provisional government. Their position was further undermined by the influx of war refugees from Galilee bearing detailed reports of what had happened there. As the result of a coalition between them [the refugees from Galilee] and the Zealots, assisted by wild Idumean tribesmen whom they summoned to their assistance, the provisional government was overthrown, and many of its leading members (including the ex-High Priest Hanan) were killed in the reign of terror which now followed.2
Simon now considered that his hour had struck. Leaving Masada (probably not wholly amicably: there is some evidence of a violent breach), he advanced westward, operating at first in the hill country. Hitherto, his social program had not been too prominently enunciated. Now it was, clearly and publicly. We have already seen that from the beginning he had attacked the rich; now, he proclaimed liberty for the slaves. We know of this only from a casual sentence of Josephus, but perhaps there is a wider significance in it: for Isaiah had spoken of the function of the Lord’s anointed who was to bring good tidings to the humble, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and to announce the Day of Vengeance for the Lord. (Jesus too had applied this passage to himself [Luke IV. 18]; possibly it was at the time one of the accepted “Messianic” passages.) Hence, the divine vengeance over the Roman enemy had to be accompanied by the freeing of the captives; and he who freed the captives was the one designated by God to achieve victory. Obviously, bar Giora considered himself as more than a partisan leader.
A considerable force of former slaves and other proletarian sympathizers now flocked to join Simon. At one point they were recruited by some 2,000 persons — in the main probably political malcontents arrested by the Zealots — who were released from the prisons when the main body of Idumeans left Jerusalem. Before long he felt strong enough to descend into the plains, and was able to secure again the province of Acrabatene, from which he had been ejected previously, and a considerable district extending hence to the south towards Idumea. He established his capital in a small place in this district called Nain, which he heavily fortified. His troops and stores were concentrated in a valley known as Pheretai (perhaps the present Khurbet Farah, a gorge about six miles north of Jerusalem), where the hillside was honeycombed with caves which could serve as repositories for grain and other supplies. Here he made ready to attack the capital, now controlled by the Zealot faction.
Bar Giora no doubt imagined that the acceptance of his social-religious doctrine by the Jewish people as a whole was the key to victory, and that it was therefore his duty and his destiny to establish his ascendancy in the capital. The Zealots, too, had the same conviction, and an armed clash became inevitable. To forestall attack, they marched out to attack him, but were repulsed with considerable loss.
Had he followed at their heels, Simon might now have occupied the city without great opposition, but he did not yet feel himself strong enough and determined to isolate it first. The Idumeans, now strongly Jewish in sentiment notwithstanding their relatively recent conversion to Judaism, had already once exerted a preponderant force in central affairs, and Simon attempted to neutralize them first of all: Idumea seems, moreover, to have exercised a powerful attraction on him strategically. His first attempt to establish his control here failed after an indecisive battle. A little later he tried again, with stronger forces. The garrison of the fortress of Herodium refused to adhere to him, and his emissary was killed. But he secured the enthusiastic collaboration of one of the high Idumean officers, named Jacob, who not only surrendered his own command but induced his associates to follow his example, partly by persuasion and partly by treachery. Simon was now in command of the entire south of the country, including Hebron, where he found vast stores of wheat. His forces were now reckoned to amount to some 40,000 men, who for some time lived off the country, according to Josephus ravaging it like a plague of locusts.
The events in Jerusalem during these years (as a few scholars such as Joseph Salvador, Solomon Zeitlin, and Joseph Klausner realized) are to be considered in the context, not merely of a revolt against the Empire, but of a revolutionary movement which began with the popular rising against the Roman forces in the year 66 — directed first against the occupying power, then against the ruling classes, then against the bourgeoisie as a whole. This sequence of events may be said to follow exactly the normal pattern of revolution, as defined by Crane Brinton in his remarkable work The Anatomy of Revolution. We may with Professor Brinton’s guidance discern in the classical revolution some five successive stages:
1. It begins as a reformist movement, insisting on its loyalty to the regime but agitating for the removal of administrative abuses. The motive force at this stage is generally financial. There is inevitably some initial success — otherwise the revolution is stifled at the outset. Somewhat tardily, the government may try to become conciliatory, make concessions, and accept, however reluctantly, the revolutionary leaders.
2. The movement now becomes truly revolutionary in the political sense; the former government is repudiated and popular leaders assume control (e.g. the Girondins in France, Kerensky in Russia), adopting a mild program of social reform.
3. The social revolutionary stage now follows. The moderate leaders of the revolution are thrust aside, demagogic elements come to the fore, and an extreme social revolutionary program is started. The moderate revolutionaries who oppose this are suspected of conspiring with the supporters of the former legitimate authority and are stigmatized as counter-revolutionaries. This results in
4. The Reign of Terror, since at a period of such extreme danger it is dangerous to show compassion or to allow justice to take a leisurely course. The danger to the state — sometimes at this stage external — makes further desperate measures necessary, such as entrusting the government into the hands of a single person. Hence we arrive at
5. The dictatorship, exemplified in the towering figures of Oliver Cromwell in England and Napoleon Bonaparte in France. Thus, the face of the revolution is entirely changed. The wheel has gone full circle; and from certain points of view the actual position is not dissimilar from that at the outset.
R. H. Charles, Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (APOT), vol 2 (Pseudepigrapha), pp 174-176:
 But 'the most convincing evidence ... of an Aramaic original is furnished by the Ethiopic translations of the term "Son of Man". They are walda sab'e 46.2,3,4; 48.2; 60.10: walda b'esi 62.5; 69.29a,b; 71.14: and walda 'eguala 'ema hejaw 62.7,9,14; 63.11; 69.26,27; 70.1; 71.17. Of these the last is the most peculiar. Literally it means "the son of the offspring of the mother of the living" ... and is a rendering of οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων and especially of υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου.' Schmidt then proceeds to emphasize the importance of these different renderings in the Parables, whereas in the N.T. it is the last that is uniformly used as a rendering of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, and observes: 'before lxii he uses no other term than walda sab'e, the equivalent of the Aramaic כר נשא . Later he employs four times the phrase walda b'ese which corresponds to the Aramaic ברה דגברא . ... This title is found in the Palestinian Lectionary, the Curetonian Fragments, and the Sinaitic text'. From the above evidence Schmidt concludes that, if the translator had 'a Greek text before him in which the N.T. title ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου was uniformly used', it would be scarcely conceivable that he would have used three distinct Ethiopic expressions to render it, and 'these of such a nature as to correspond exactly to the three different Ethiopic terms'. He holds, therefore, that 'the conclusion seems inevitable that he translated directly from the Aramaic. ... General considerations strengthen this conclusion. If the Parables of Enoch were translated from a Greek text one would certainly expect to find somewhere a quotation from it or a reference to it in early Christian literature'. But Schmidt can find none.
 We have now to consider what Schmidt terms 'the most convincing evidence of an Aramaic original', i.e. the Ethiopic translations of the term 'Son of Man'. The Ethiopic translation was made, as we have just seen, from the Greek. Hence whatever explanation we give of the three forms must be justified by a Greek retranslation. This fact at once discounts any attempt to find a Greek prototype for 'eguala 'emahejaw 'offspring of the mother of the living'. This Ethiopic phrase is used indifferently as a rendering of ἄνθρωπος, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, άνθρωποι, υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἀνήρ. And the full form walda 'eguala 'emahejaw = υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου in Dan. 7.13, Ps. 79.18, in Ezekiel about ninety times, Rev. 1.13, 14.14, and in the Gospels always = ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. In itself the Ethiopic phrase can mean 'son of man' or 'the Son of Man'. But if the translator wished to make it clear that the latter title was used, he could do so by prefixing a demonstrative pronoun as a rendering of the Greek article ὁ. This is done in every instance in the Parables save three. In the course of eight verses in lxxxix. 42-9 the Greek article is so rendered eleven times.
Let us now examine the other two titles walda sab'e and walda b'esi. sab'e distinctively = ἄνθρωπος (though in a few cases it = ἀνήρ). Thus walda sab'e = υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. It can also = ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, but to make this unmistakable the translator could prefix the demonstrative pronoun as the equivalent of ὁ.
Next comes walda b'esi. b'esi = ἀνήρ, generally, but as Dillmann (Lex. 519) puts it, it stands creberrime [Latin - frequently] for ἄνθρωπος. In fact in the Ethiopic Version of our book it is used as a rendering of ἄνθρωπος in 1.2, 15.1 [preserved in surviving Greek fragments of 1 Enoch]. If more of the Greek version had survived we should no doubt find many other instances.
The result of the above examination comes to this. The above three renderings do not presuppose three different forms in the Greek. They most probably presuppose merely one, i.e. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, but walda b'esi may presuppose ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς. But I think the latter improbable. In 62.5 ; 69.29 (bis)·, 71.14 b'esi may be a rendering of ἀνθρώπου as in 1.2; 15.1.
This change of rendering may seem surprising, but we have a perfect parallel in the Curetonian and Sinaitic versions of the Syriac N.T.1 Thus whereas in the Peshitto b'reh de-nasa ( ברה דאנשא ) occurs uniformly as a rendering of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, in the Curetonian version we have b'reh de-gabra ( ברה דנברא ) in Luke 7.34; 9.26; 22.48, and in the Sinaitic version breh de-gabra in Mark 8.38; Luke 7.34; John 13.31, and elsewhere in both these versions b'reh de-nasa. In the Palestinian Lectionary there is still another way of rendering the phrase, but this does not concern us here. We have, however, learnt from these versions that differences in the manner of rendering the title 'Son of Man' in these versions does not imply any difference in the original Greek. Similarly we conclude that the three renderings of this title in the Parables do not presuppose corresponding variations in the Greek, but are due to the translator.
If, then, these variations in the Parables are due to the translator or translators it follows that these translators were Aramaic-speaking Jews, since the phrases walda b'esi and walda sab'e are respectively equivalents of b'reh de gabra and b'reh de-nasa.2
On the above grounds we conclude that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου stood in all cases in the Greek version of the Parables.1 That this Greek phrase represents the Hebrew בךהאדם , we shall further conclude from the evidence given in the next section.
175n1 See Schmidt in Encyc. Bibl. iv. 4714.
175n2 The Aramaisms in the Ethiopic version of the O.T. are probably due to Aramaean missionaries.
176n1 There is just a possibility that two forms stood in the Greek version, i.e. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, and that these were due to the translators, who in this case also would be Aramaic-speaking Jews, but this is highly improbable.
DCHindley wrote:Mr David Charles Hindley,