Chris Weimer

Unfortunately, the way you see it and the way Hebrew and Aramaic speakers saw it antedating Mark are two totally different things.

spin

Sorry CJD, I just read the tone of one of my previous posts and it seemed a little stronger than necessary.

This is why I also wrote: "Now, as Jesus is telling his disciples that they [and let me add now: or at least those who remain ready] will see the son of man coming, they will obviously be on the earth." This was to head of the claim that it was a perception from heaven.

I also wrote this: "There is nothing here about the disciples going away, but about being ready for the cutting short of days. It is in the context of the appearance of false messiahs and being astute that we come to the coming of the son of man."

As I argued with regard to the subject of the seeing of the son of man, we are dealing with people on the earth, people who Jesus tells to be alert. Immediately after the little apocalypse, Jesus tells his disciples of the coming of the son of man.

Yup, this perspective rules out one from heaven.

Justified?

Daniel has Israel in divine personification taking control of the nations (etc). The day of the lord in which Israel is put into proper perspective.

Naaa, I had already dealt with this.


spin

Notsri

If I'm not mistaken, the earliest of the rabbinic examples comes from the Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 98a (following the Artscroll translation): "R. Alexandri said: 'R. Yehoshua ben Levi noted a contradiction: "[On the one hand] it is written: 'And behold! With the clouds of Heaven, one like a man came' [--which implies that the Messiah will come swiftly.] But [on the other hand] it is written: 'a humble man, riding on a donkey' [--which implies that the Messiah will comes sluggishly. R. Yehoshua ben Levi resolved this contradiction as follows:] If (the Jews) are deserving, [the Messiah will arrive] with the clouds of Heaven. If they are not deserving, [he will come as] a humble man, riding on a donkey."'"

Needless to say, the Talmudic interpretation influenced virtually every subsequent generation of orthodox Jewish exegetes. Throughout the Midrashim, Kabbalistic works like the Zohar, the medieval commentaries (e.g. Rashi’s) etc., Daniel is reportedly referring to the Messiah's advent. The Judaica Press’s The Books of Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah relates the Malbim's (19th c.) views to the effect that, "in contrast with the first vision, in which he saw four beasts ascending from the depth of the storming sea, he now saw the coming of the kingdom of Heaven from the clouds above…the beasts emerged from the great deep, whereas the man who inherits the kingdom of Heaven will emerge from the clouds…"

None of this, of course, necessarily relates to the 1st century; but then, neither did I mean to imply it did in my previous post. What I did mean to highlight, though, is that even rabbinic Jews (at least), and the successors to their doctrine have accepted a descending-to-earth son of man in Daniel. The common reading, in other words, among both Jews and Christians, finds the son of man coming to earth in the text. Now, on the other hand, if Spin's understanding of the Marcan text is correct, as I think it is, then perhaps we might extrapolate from Mark something like a 1st-century Jewish approach to the text in Daniel. The earliest of Christians where of course much more likely to co-opt a Jewish interpretation than the reverse. I can hardly image our example from the Talmud has at its roots a Christian explanation of Dan. 7:13.

Regards,
Notsri

CJD

spin, thanks for your concern. I promise not to take myself too seriously in return.



I follow this line of reasoning; I just don't think it represents the situation as it may have looked from their eyes (so to speak). I'm going to try to lay out my thought more clearly:

1. Jesus is recorded speaking to his disciples about the potential end-result of Israel's current direction (religiously and politically, i.e., their inevitable confrontation with Rome). In short, it will lead to destruction — of both YHWH's holy city and the Temple (which would undoubtedly be understood to mean that YHWH has left that place).

2. The warnings in Mark 13 (and its parallels among the Synoptics) deal with the destruction of the sanctuary at the hands of Gentiles and the cessation of regular sacrifices, and as such clearly relate to the Danielic texts in question.

3. Building up to 13:24–27, as spin has noted, "we are dealing with people on the earth, people who Jesus tells to be alert. Immediately after [this] little apocalypse, Jesus tells his disciples of the coming of the son of man." It is a non-sequitur to suggest that since his disciples were being told to look around with their eyes so as to be wary of false christs, they were also being implicitly told to watch for his literal coming on literal clouds. There is an obvious clue here as to why this cannot be the case.

4. And it begins with verse 24: "But in those days, after that tribulation, 'the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light …,'" etc. Spin, to argue that Mark wants to see a literal figure riding on literal clouds down from heaven is at the same time to demand that they were told to expect seeing the sun literally be darkened, etc. This is not so, as we shall when we look at the actual text being quoted in Mark 13:24–25 (i.e., Isa. 13:10; 34:4).

5. As is typical in writings found in the Neve'im, cataclysmic world events were described in cosmological terms. Isa. 13ff is clearly (and states as such) about judgment on Assyria and its subsequent crown jewel, Babylon. Isa. 34 is likewise about judgment on the nations in general. Once again, what cataclysmic event (to Israelite ears) is Jesus here describing?

6. The fall of Jerusalem and its Temple. Enter Daniel 7:13ff. "And then they shall see 'the son of man coming in clouds' with great power and glory." I gather that just as no Israelite at that time would have expected YHWH to bring about the end of the space-time world, so too they would have understood Jesus' remark here to mean precisely what it meant in Daniel (subsequent Christian and rabbinic sources notwithstanding) — not a literal coming in clouds but a vindication (or justification) of 'Israel' ('in divine personification', as spin noted) and the subsequent authority and dominion given it. (It is my opinion that Jesus is conceived everywhere in the NT as the embodiment of Israel. And this is why I don't see error on Mark's part; I see deliberate and provocative placement. Disagree with it if you must, but let's not accuse him of reading Daniel wrongly.)

7. I think there were various readings of Daniel before and up to the first century (one must take Daniel 2, 7, and 9 into account here, not just Daniel 7:13). Josephus' War 6.312–15; 4 Ezra 11–12; 2 Baruch 35–40; and the non-Christian 1 Enoch 37–71 all give us varied expressions and interpretations of Daniel. But all them share in the same hope — that YHWH would vindicate his people against the Gentile dogs, rescuing her like a human figure from among vicious animals. This is the context of the Markan pericope. This is what Jesus' listeners would have understood. And this is what should direct our reading of Mark's 'son of man' usage. It runs completely against a literalistic line of thought.

8. So here we are: the disciples ask Jesus about the destruction of the Temple, and he tells them there will great tribulation, false messiahs arising, themselves dragged before civil authorities. Importantly, they need to know not to stick around and fight the ensuing destruction of their beloved city; rather, they need to get out while they can. Thus we see cataclysmic events described in cosmic terms: 1) the destruction of Jerusalem as judgment for their rebellion against YHWH; 2) the great deliverance promised in the Neve'im; and 3) the vindication of the prophet who warned of such disaster, as well as his claim that he embodied in himself all that YHWH's holy city and its Temple stood for (i.e., Israel).

In sum, the "coming" of the son of man is metaphorical language to describe precisely what it did in Daniel — the defeat of the enemies of YHWH's true people and the vindication of the true people themselves. Jesus (as supposedly recorded by Mark here) is staking his validity on this oracle. If the Temple remained forever, if his movement petered out (as Gamaliel thought it might, Acts 5:33–39), then he would have been shown to be a liar, blasphemer, and charlatan. On the other hand, if the Temple was destroyed, if indeed the sacrifices were stopped and the stones of the holy city were torn down by the Gentiles; and moreover, if his followers escaped this judgment just as the exiles did from Babylon, then this Jesus would be vindicated, justified, shown to be in the right with YHWH, not only as some soothsayer, but as the very representative of Israel (maybe like the 'son of man'?).

Best,

CJD

CJD

Notsri, thanks for providing the information. It is interesting indeed. However, just as I won't be giving subsequent Christian sources a free pass, I won't be giving rabbinic sources any more weight either.

It is interesting to see how they interpret particular passages, but I am not one to give them more credence simply because their heritage lines up (at least when it's not helpful to my case ).

Yet spin hasn't come close to offering the reasons I have for his following the modern, crass, literalistic interpretation of this passage ( is that dissociative enough?).

Nothing, and I mean nothing, is written in a vacuum. And everything written, thought, etc., is a result of multiple reciprocities. I can imagine anything.

Best,

CJD

Loomis

Maybe Yahweh was a foreign god who belonged to a different religion. Maybe the Israelites tried to assimilate him into their pantheon by portraying him as an adopted son of El. (see Deut 32)

One way to do this would be to invent a prophecy of how one day Yahweh (not necessarily Jesus) would come along and join with, and be accepted by the other divinities. (Chemosh, Milcom, Baal, Qos, etc.)

Has anyone considered the possibility that the “Son of Man� in Numbers 23:19 was Yahweh?


Edit: This might explain a few things – namely, how the myth of Jesus got off the ground (pun intended).

Juliana

"The Son of Man" is a translation for Gaius, Gai-us
Quoting JWC, note #89:

Caius Iulius Caesar was ‘son of Caius’, pronunciation ‘Gaius’. Understood as having the meaning of ‘son of Gaia’, ‘son of Mother Earth’, the name Gaius stood for the concept of ‘man, human’ par excellence to the farmers which the Romans were (cf. the vow of marriage of the Roman woman: Vbi tu Gaius et ego Gaia—‘Where you (will be) man of earth, likewise I (will be), woman of earth’). This is especially the case for Greek ears (In Greek Caius is written Gaios, like Gaia, gê, the earth. Cf. gh', ga' or gai'a—gê, gâ or gaîa—for ‘earth’ and in English ‘geography’; gaihvi>o"—gaiêios—‘born of the earth, coming from the earth’, poetical since Odyssey 7.24; also ghgenhv"—gêgenês—‘born of the earth, son of earth, native, autochthon’),
and—translated—also for Aramaic ears (‘Adam’, name of the first man and ‘man’ in general, is derived from adamâ, ‘earth, arable land’. According to Gn.2:7: ‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground […]’—a play on words; Gn.5:2: ‘Male and female (men) created he them […] and called their name Adam (man)’—both times ‘Adam’. For Christ as ‘the new Adam’ cf. Rom. 5:14; 1Cor.15:45). So Jesus Son of Man can stand for Caius Iulius Cai filius. But because both parts of the name (i.e. Caius Iulius and Cai filius), as demonstrated in the inscriptions, can be easily confused in the Greek—all the more since in those days it was customarily written without a space between the words: GAIONIOULION GAIOUUION, gaionioulion gaiouuion—some of the son of man references could stand for Caius Iulius.
(This would explain the frequent mention of the son of man—82 times in the four Gospels—as well as its use: never as an address.)

If you want to learn more, read here .

Chris Weimer

I don't think I've ever seen more horrible scholarship so detailed. :rolling:

Juliana

Are you sure it's "horrible scholarship"? Who are you to judge that?
Don't forget: He who laughs last laughs best. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Chris Weimer

Just someone who can point at the twisting of words. Gaius has never meant "Son of Man" in any Latin text and furthermore quite deliberately ignores the entire Old Testament usage of Son of Man.