[1] Lindars, B.–Borgen, P., ‘The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology. Prolegomena and Response’, N.T.S. 23 (1976–1977), 59–75.Google Scholar For a most helpful and comprehensive survey of the whole question, well documented up to 1972, see Smith, D. Moody Jr, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New’, in Efird, J.M. (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (Durham N. C.: Duke University Press, 1972), pp. 3–65. The following paper was given at the New Testament Seminar at the University of Cambridge in January, 1978. Although, as I mention below, some of what follows comes from a previously published article, it seems opportune to present the additional material which has come to my notice, and also to situate it all in the wider discussion created by the theme of the New Testament Seminar: ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New’. I am most grateful to the members of the seminar for their criticism and remarks, especially Dr B. Lindars and Prof. G. W. H. Lampe, whose critical suggestions I have attempted to incorporate into this published version of the paper.Google Scholar

[2] I am taking it for granted throughout this paper that the original psalm was about ‘man’ as the lowly creature of an all powerful God. See, for this interpretation, Kraus, H. J., Psalmen, B.K.A.T. 15 (Neukirchen: Neukirchen Verlag, 1961), pp. 69–71.Google ScholarKraus, writes of v. 7:Google Scholar ‘Hier wird keine “sakrale Königsideologie” entfaltet, sondern hier werden die verborgenen Hintergründe des alltäglichen menschlichen Lebens aufgedeckt’ (pp. 70–1). See also Anderson, A. A., The Book of Psalms, New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1972), Vol. 1, pp. 102–3.Google ScholarBentzen, A., Messias – Moses redivivus – Menschensohn, A.T.A.N.T. (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1948), p. 39, argued that the son of man mentioned in Ps. viii. 5 should be identified with Jewish speculations on the Urmensch of Genesis. For Bentzen (and for some New Testament scholars) this makes the original psalm in some way‘messianic’. Bentzen speaks of Ps. viii. 5 as presenting the Urmensch as the Urkönig.Google Scholar

[3] von Rad, G., Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1970), Vol. II, p. 48.Google Scholar See his whole treatment of the common practice in the Old Testament, from the Exodus onward, of reinterpreting the old sagas and traditions in the light of an anticipated or accomplished, but new salvation event (pp. 319–35). See also Grech, P., ‘Interprophetic Re-interpretation and Old Testament Eschatology’, Augustinianum 9 (1969), 235–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[4] A word of warning. I am no aramaist. This paper had its origins in 1972 when, as a student at the Biblical Institute in Rome, I was working under the direction of Roger Le Déaut, a noted aramaist. The original results were published in Salesianum 37(1975), 326–36 (‘The Targum on Ps. 8 and the New Testament’). In preparing this paper I have had a further look at the material, found some more evidence for my case, and inserted my fmdings into the wider discussion of how and why the New Testament authors use Ps. viii in such an interesting development on the original psalm.Google Scholar

[5] Vermes, G., ‘The Use of br nsh/br nsh' in Jewish Aramaic’, in Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), pp. 310–28.Google Scholar Reproduced in Idem, Post Biblical Jewish Studies, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity VIII (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), pp. 147–65.Google Scholar See also Idem, Jesus the Jew. A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins, 1973), pp. 160–91.Google ScholarIdem, ‘The present State of the “Son of Man” Debate’, J.J.S. 29 (1978), 123–34.Google Scholar Since the submission of this article Vermes' argument has been further refined and thoroughly argued by Maurice, Casey, Son of Man. The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: S.P.C.K., 1979).Google Scholar For my own reactions to Casey's work, see Moloney, F. J., ‘The End of the Son of Man?’, The Downside Review 98 (1980), 280–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[6] Fitzmyer, J. A., Review of M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, in C.B.Q. 30 (1968), 424–8;Google ScholarIdem, ‘The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament’, N.T.S. 20 (1973–1974), 396–7.Google Scholar One should also consult his ‘Methodology in the Study of the Aramaic Substratum of Jesus' Sayings in the New Testament’, in Jésus aux origines de la Christologie, B.E.T.L. XL (Gembloux: Duculot, 1975), pp. 73–102.Google Scholar On the Son of Man question, see pp. 92–4. He also delivered one of his Speaker's Lectures in the Oxford University on the theme of the Son of Man. See, most recently, Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Another View of the “Son of Man” Debate’, J.S.N.T. 4 (1979), 58–68.Google Scholar

[7] This was the main difference between Fitzmyer's Speaker's Lecture on the Son of Man, where he proposed the above interpretation, and his earlier review of Black's book, where he suggested that Ethiopic Enoch was still a possible background. He now doubts the authenticity of the Son of Man sections of Enoch. He is influenced in this by J. T. Milik, who suggests that the so-called Similitudes are a Christian substitution for the Book of the Giants, which is found in the Qumran texts, while the Similitudes are not found there. See Milik, J. T., ‘Turfan et Qumran: livres des géants juif et manichéen’, in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1971), pp. 117–27.Google Scholar Since the Speaker's Lecture (delivered in Trinity Term, 1974) Milik, has produced, under the editorship of Matthew, Black, his long-awaited The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976). On pp. 89–96Google Scholar Milik argues that the Similitudes were written about AD 270 or afterwards. He claims that they are written in the style of the Sibylline Oracles, but that they reflect the anarchy and invasions of the middle of the 3rd Century AD. The important reference to the Parthians and Medes (lvi. 5–7) is a deliberate anachronism, consonant with the stylistic imitation of the Sibylline Oracles. Not all are convinced. See Mearns, C. L., ‘The Parables of Enoch – Origin and Date’, Exp.T. 89 (1978), 118–19.Google ScholarKnibb, M. A., ‘The Dating of the Similitudes of Enoch’, N.T.S. 25 (1978–1979), 345–59.Google Scholar Fitzmyer also has reservations; see ‘Implications of the New Enoch Literature from Qumran’, T.S. 38 (1977), 332–45, esp. 341–5.Google Scholar

[8] Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark (London: S.P.C.K., 1967).CrossRefGoogle ScholarIdem, ‘Is the Son of Man problem really insoluble?’, in Best, E.–Wilson, R. McL. (eds.), Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black (Cambridge: University Press, 1979), pp. 155–68.Google ScholarMoule, C. F. D., ’Neglected Features in the Problem of “the Son of Man”’, in Gnilka, J. (ed.), Neues Testament und Kirche: Für Rudolf Schnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, 1974), pp. 413–28.Google Scholar Most recently, Moule, has again argued his case in considerable detail, in the first chapter of his book The Origins of Christology (Cambridge: University Press, 1977), pp. 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[9] Casey, M., ‘The Use of Term (sic) “Son of Man” in the Similitudes of Enoch’, J.S.J. 7 (1976), 28–9. The article runs from pp. 11–29.Google Scholar

[10] Vermes, C., Jesus the Jew, pp. 160–1. pp.Google Scholar

[11] Matthew uses the LXX. The MT would not have made this point.

[12] See Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, T.H.N.T. 1 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1971), p. 451: ‘Sie fragen Jesus ob er höre, was die Kinder sagen; er bejaht es und bestätigt damit die messianische Qualität seines Handelns.’Google Scholar

[13] For the use of ‘Son of David’ in the early Church, see the fine excursus in Brown, R. E., The Birth of the Messiah. A commentary on the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977), pp. 505–12.Google Scholar

[14] See Swete, H. B., The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1908), pp. 288–9;Google ScholarTaylor, V., The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1953), p. 492.Google Scholar

[15] For a different view, see Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic. The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM Press, 1961), pp. 49–51; 167–9. Lindars argues that Pss. ii and cx are the messianic psalms, and that Ps. viii ‘acquires this character through its usefulness to fill out the meaning of the christology formulated by means of these psalms’ (p. 169).Google Scholar

[16] See, for example, Ubbink, J., ‘De messiaansche Uitlegging van Psalm 8, 5–7 LXX in Hebreën 2, 9,‘ Nieuwe Theologische Studiën 24 (1941), 182, 185;Google ScholarKistermaker, S., The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: Wed. G. van Soest N.V., 1961), p. 29.Google Scholar See especially Buchanan, G. W., To the Hebrews, Anchor Bible 36 (New York: Doubleday, 1972), pp. 27, 39–51. Buchanan insists that the Son of Man title here is messianic, and that it comes from Jewish background. He also points out that scholars, e.g. Michel (see following note), who discount Jewish background, are in error. Although he examines Dan. vii and Enoch in an attempt to find the Jewish background, he does not look for any Jewish reinterpretation of the psalm itself.Google Scholar

[17] See, for example, Schröger, F., Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefs als Schriftsausleger, B.U. 4 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1968), pp. 81–2;Google ScholarMichel, O., Die Brief an die Hebräer, Meyer Kommentar (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1960), pp. 70–1.Google Scholar The most important indication that this is a Christian adaptation of the psalm is its use with Ps. ii. 7 (Heb. 1. 5) and Ps. cx. 1 (Heb. i. 13). Similar combinations are found in 1 Cor. xv and Eph. i. See also Colpe, C., T.D.N.T. 8 (1972), 464.Google Scholar

[18] Against Duhm, B., Die Psalmen, K.H.A.T. XIV (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922), pp. 470–1 and several of the older commentators who maintained that Ps. cxxxxiv. 3–4 was a worthless imitation of Ps. viii. 5.Google Scholar See instead, Kraus, H. J., Psalmen, Vol. 2, p.942Google Scholar and Dahood, M., Psalms III, 101–150, Anchor Bible 17a (New York: Doubleday, 1970), p. 328.Google Scholar

[19] Kee, H. C., Community of the New Age. Studies in Mark's Gospel (London: SCM Press, 1977), p. 72 and p. 194 note 61.Google Scholar

[20] There is a further, less widespread, use of the psalm in the Rabbinic literature which I shall mention below.

[21] For a thorough analysis of this material, see Schäfer, P., Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen. Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung, Studia Judaica VIII (Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975), pp. 85–9; 91–6; 119–21; 161–3; 235.Google Scholar

[22] For a general bibliography on the Targums, including that on Psalms, see Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. A New English Version Revised and Edited by Geza, Vermes and Fergus, Millar (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1973), Vol. I, pp. 105–14.Google Scholar See also the recent publication, Levey, S. H., The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum, Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 2 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974). Levey does not consider Ps. viii in his study of the Targum on Psalms (pp. 105–24).Google Scholar

[23] Sanctorum Bibliorum Quadrilinguium (Antwerp: Ex Prototypographia Regia, 1573), 8 Vols.Google Scholar For Psalms, , see Vol III, pp. 290–593;Google ScholarWalton, B., Sanctissima Biblia Polyglotta (London: Thomas Roycroft, 1657),Google Scholar 7 Vols. For Psalms, , see Vol. III, pp. 88–319;Google Scholarde Lagarde, P. (ed.), Hagiographa Chaldaice (Lipsia: Teubner, 1873).Google Scholar For Psalms, , see pp. 2–85.Google Scholar

[24] Levey, S. H., The Messiah, p. 159. According to bShabbat 115a Gamaliel I banned the Targum on Job, ‘and it is assumed that the Targum to Job and the Targum to Psalms had a common origin’.Google Scholar See, on this, Bacher, W., Art. ‘Targum’, in The Jewish Encyclopaedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901–1908), VoL XII, p. 62.Google Scholar

[25] Déaut, R. Le, Introduction à la littérature Targumique (Rome: Institut Biblique, 1966) 1° Partie, p. 132.Google Scholar See also the remarks of Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Methodology…,’ pp. 100–1.Google Scholar

[26] Fitzmyer, J. A., C.B.Q. 30 (1968), 420. See, however, his warning remarks in ‘Methodology…,’ pp. 99–101.Google Scholar See also Déaut, R. Le, ‘Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation,’ Bib. Theol. Bull. 4 (1974), 243–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[27] Although the RSV uses articles, they are not in the MT.

[28] See Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1950), p. 472.Google Scholar

[29] On this, see Kraus, H. J., Psalmen, pp. xviii–xxx.Google Scholar

[30] See Déaut, R. Le, Introduction, p. 135.Google Scholar

[31] Vermes, G., ‘The Use of br nsh/br nsh,’ p. 316.Google Scholar

[32] In the seminar mentioned above (note 1), B. Lindars objected that the Aramaic translator had no choice. He had to translate both '^enôsh and ben 'ādām with bar nāshā'. However, Vermes (‘The Use…,’ p. 316) mentions that the collective term 'ādām would be translated by b^enê '^enāshā' See this translation of 'enôsh in TargPss. x. 18; lxxiii. 5; xc. 3b; cxxxxiv. 3. The Targumist also translates with g^ebar in TargPss. lv. 14 and lvi. 2. Particularly interesting is TargPs. cxxxxiv. 3, where the Hebrew ādām… ben '^enôsh is translated: bar nāsh… b^enê'^enāshā'.

[33] Fitzmyer, J. A., C.B.Q. 30 (1968), 427.Google Scholar

[34] B. Lindars again argued that this was an over-literal translation of the Aramaic, which should be understood as in the MT. Why, then, did he change the verb from sh^e bat to b^etal? As we will see below, the Regia's reworking of this verse also has to be explained. On the two verbs, see M. Jastrow, A Dictionary, ss.vv. As I will indicate later, there is a hint that the word gazômā' may refer to some sort of eschatological figure, but I can find no proof for this conjecture.

[35] On the Leviathan and its place in Jewish eschatological thought, see the excellent article of K. Kohler-I. Broyde, , ‘Leviathan and Behemoth,’ in The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, pp. 37–9.Google Scholar See also Gaster, T. H., Art. ‘Leviathan,’ in I.D.B. 3, 116.Google Scholar Again B. Lindars objected that too much was being made of this insertion, and suggested that the use of ‘Leviathan’ was a reference to Ps. civ. 26, where it is God's plaything. In the light of Job xxxx. 15-xxxxi. 34 I would think that even Ps. civ. 26 is rather more concerned with the idea of subjection. Whatever may be the solution of that problem, it is clear that the apocalyptic literature and the Rabbis (see bBaba Bathra 74a; bBekhorot 55b; Leviticus Rabbah XIII. 3; Pesikta de Rab Kahana 188b, and all the Targums on Gen. 3. 15) understood the figure in the sense described above.Google Scholar

[36] The Targumist has carefully retained the rich sense of the Hebrew pāqad, in his use of s^e 'ar. See Jastrow, M., A Dictionary, p. 1010.Google Scholar

[37] Translations from Levey, S. H., The Messiah, p. 119.Google Scholar See the important request that TargPs 80 receive more consideration from McNeil, B., ‘The Son of Man and the Messiah: A Footnote’, N.T.S. 26 (1979–1980), 419–21. This important note appeared quite independently from my suggestions, after this article had been submitted.Google Scholar

[38] It is interesting to read S. H. Levey's remarks on Ps. lxxx (ibid., pp. 119–20): ‘Rashi, Ibn Ezra, et al., carefully steer clear of any messianic interpretation. Yet it is clear and unmistakable in the Targum, found both in the critical and uncritical editions. It has never been censored or deleted, in spite of its precarious position theologically.’ This fhal remark is important for the following evaluation of the Regia version of the Targum on Ps. viii.

[39] Although I originally came to this decision on the evidence of the Targum in the Regia, J. A. Fitzmyer has since told me that the Regia is known for these excisions.

[40] At the Cambridge New Testament Seminar, both B. Lindars and G. W. H. Lampe argued that there was not sufficient evidence for my claims in the Targum on Ps. viii. Even if one is able to explain away all the internal evidence which I have tried to produce, one still must give a more satisfactory reason than the one given above for the Regia's treatment of the same Targum.

[41] However, Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1953), pp. 136–7; 244–5 claims that, for the New Testament, Ps. lxxx is the all-important link between the Vine, the Servant and the Son of Man as the ideal Israel of the future. Whether this be true or not, the psalm itself is never cited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[42] As mentioned above (note 37), S. H. Levey, a Jewish scholar, expresses surprise that the Taxgum on Ps. lxxx. 16–18 ‘has never been censored or deleted’ (The Messiah, p. 120). It seems from what we have seen that one of the main criteria for Jewish editing of their own material was the use or non-use (pace Dodd) of that material by Christians.Google Scholar

[43] Borgen, B. Lindars-P., ‘The Place of the Old Testament…,’ p. 75.Google Scholar

[44] See Allegro, J. M., The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970).Google Scholar

[45] See Bultmann, R., “Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandäischen und manichäischen Quellen für das Verständnis des Johannesevangeliums,’ Z.N.W. 24 (1925), 100–46.Google Scholar This article has been reproduced in Dinkler, E. (ed.), Exegetica. Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1967), pp. 55–104.Google Scholar

[46] There is a great deal of reference to this theory in contemporary literature, especially on Mark. See, for example, Weeden, T. J., Mark - Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).Google Scholar These studies go back to the extremely faulty work of Bieler, L., THEIOS ANER. Das Bild des ‘Göttlichen Menschen’ in Spätantike und Frühchristentum (Wien: Oskar Höfels, 1936).Google Scholar

[47] See Goulder, M. D., ‘The Two Roots of the Christian Myth’, in The Myth of God Incarnate, pp. 64–86.Google Scholar