I’ve been watching the bibloblogging debate about Maurice Casey’s Son of Man book since it began.  First was Bird’s review- and then Crossley’s comment and then Casey himself weighed in.  Lastly, Loren the Librarian (not that there’s anything wrong with that) has made a few observations.

What I’ve noticed in this entire debate (and it has been interesting) is a couple of things that raise wider issues, at least for me:

First- and I mean no disrespect to anyone- careful reading seems to have been abandoned by a few of the interlocutors.  Casey makes this point in relation to Bird’s review and I have to say that the thought had already struck my mind as well.  This seems to be a widespread problem these days among some academics; that is, a rather careless and laissez-faire disposition towards what others really say.  Scholars owe it to one another, simply out of respect, to do their best to understand and represent rightly what their opponents say.  Sure, sometimes folk say things that are virtually incomprehensible: but when that isn’t the case- say what the other has said and then tear into it; don’t say what you think they might have said and then demolish a straw man.

Second- and to me the most important issue raised in the current debate- how many of the participants actually read Aramaic?  This language is utterly essential for anyone debating the subject and a failure to have acquired and mastered it and yet speak authoritatively or knowingly about ‘the son of man’ is a bit, how should I put this, silly.  It is the same as a person who pontificates on the meaning of the Hebrew Bible but who neither reads Hebrew nor understands it and yet, taking Strong’s Concordance in hand, assumes familiarity and expertise.

Debates such as the present demand accurate thought and linguistic experience.  Lacking those attributes, interlocutors are simply playing fast and loose with second hand information.