Diogenes the Cynic

This isn't really that difficult. In Hebrew/Aramaic idiom, "son of Adam" (Adam means "man") is just a way to say "human being." Some of the "son of man" sayings attributed to Jesus probably had no titular Messianic connotation in their original context (e.g."...the son of man has no place to rest his head") but were intended as references to mankind in general. Mark read the phrase as titular, and contextualized as such, and there we are.

spin

The Aramaic is actually br-)n$, son of Enosh (=man).

But can you see how one could possibly get a title out of "I saw one like a lion..., one like a bear..., one like a leopard..., one indescribable, and one like a son of man"?


spin

Julian

It is worth noting that Robert M. Price agrees with spin and Diogenes in his book The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man...

Julian

Amaleq13

I understand there is no suggestion of a title in the original passage but I don't understand how you differentiate between obtaining the title through "ignorance" and obtaining the title through creative reinterpretation.

Or do consider there to be no difference between the two?

Diogenes the Cynic

I could see it if the Messianic interpretation of "son of man" in Daniel came first. In that case I could see it evolving from an elliptical allusion (i.e. a sort of esoteric shorthand for a given school or group of insiders) until the allusion became a title in itself...or at least was misunderstood that way by a Greek.

spin

That's a lovely euphemism.


spin

CJD

I don't think we have a problem here. You just think 'creative (re)interpretation' is ignorance. Okay. It's not the story you confess anyway.

Methinks you misunderstood me. The translation ought to be "coming" in the clouds. (I wasn't arguing that it should be "going" in the clouds.) The point is that the author of Mark employs the Danielic reference according to its original meaning, for Daniel too has the one "with the clouds of heaven coming." For both Daniel and Mark, the perspective is heaven, not earth. I don't have to imagine this, since there is no reason — textually or otherwise — to force the now-popular notion of parousia (Jesus literally coming down on literal clouds) on the Markan pericope.

Mark is indeed imagining Jesus' coming, but it is a coming into the throne room of heaven, exalted and vindicated by the Danielic Ancient of Days. Once you consider the context (and not that you're bantering with some blinkered apologist), you will find this to make the most sense of what is being recorded here in Mark (Jesus, an Israelite, talking to his disciples, a bunch of Israelites, about how he will be justified just like it is described in Daniel [also purportedly written by an Israelite, or at least concerned with Israelite religion and politics] if and when the warnings he is giving will take place).

The only reason I can imagine you not seeing this is because you'd rather hold crass literalism up as a Christian trademark in order to show its absurdity. Again, talk about blinkered.

CJD

Notsri

For what it's worth, CJD--and this is equally pertinent to what Spin's been arguing--the traditional rabbinic interpretation does find the son of man (the Messiah, in their view) in Dan. 7:13 coming down to earth on the clouds of heaven. Their reading agrees in that aspect with the Marcan approach (as Spin reads it; and I think I'd agree) to the text of Daniel.

Regards,
Notsri

CJD

You have just got to cite those rabbinic sources, Notsri. I've never read anything (pertinent to the first century) that forces us in this direction. Moreover, spin does not argue (rightly) that the Danielic pericope conceives of the coming from an earth-perspective. It is clearly heaven's perspective in Daniel. So too with Mark. As I've alluded to already, let's not allow modern literalism (a la dispensationalism) to warp the text's original intent.

Best,

CJD

Thomas II

The way I see it the term "Son of Man" means "He who represents Humanity".