Notsri

Hope this will suffice, yalla; it's from the Strack/Stemberger Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash: Regards,
Notsri

spin

Although the temple is part of the context (and hence so is Israel), the writer extrapolates from there into a universal analysis, "nation against nation... earthquakes in various places", etc. The persecutions reach out into the church world of the time of the gospel's writing, so we are out in the diaspora.

While I accept the clear Daniel connection, Mk 13 is a composite text with accretions that indicate source development. 13:14 comes back to a more Jewish context as a point of reference for the events, ie we are now in a Dan 9:27 timespace, the last half week of years. But the context remains mixed with church and synagogue as well as temple (desolation).

As HB "prophecies" were regularly taken out of context and even textually changed at times (eg Mt 2:5 cf. Mic 5:2), it doesn't really matter what the original text said, implied, or how it functioned in its original context. This means that one cannot impute HB significances onto the gospel text. As the DSS pesharim show reinterpretation was the order of the day and how much easier can that be when you don't refer to the full text but have selected citations?

Was the writer's Jesus reaching a Jewish audience or were the listeners in the text merely representative of the gospel writer's audience, whoever they may have been?

You are assuming the literary use of Jesus's audience reflects the real audience of Jesus's words. Your desired context is improbable in that the gospel writer's audience, those who actually heard the gospel text being read were not Jews, were probably nowhere near Jerusalem or Judea. Appeals to "Israelites" seem to me inappropriate packaging for the text's audience, unless you are simply imputing that any believer in the gospel's theology was an "Israelite". There is no reason to believe that the gospel audience would not accept the notion of the end of the world was meant to be anything but real. I don't think you can assume that the reader has any more knowledge of Daniel than the gospel writer.

If this is the case, there should be no reason for the receiver of this gospel to read into what is heard anything other than some sort of reality, real clouds, real end ("Is this the real end?" - RLJ).

The writer shows no signs of knowing what the text of Daniel says. We just have allusions to two citations, 7:13 and 9:27 and they don't imply any intimacy with the text at all.

If we are out of the Jewish religio-philosophical context, as the fact that the text is written in Greek indicates, as the level of Greek indicates, as the Latinisms in the text indicate, along with the explanation of things Jewish to a non-Jewish audience, then current writings in that religio-philosophical context were probably not available to the writer and one cannot make assumptions on the knowledge in them.

The important thing on the Marcan "son of man" usage is that it simply didn't reflect current Jewish usage as seen in the DSS. There is nothing strange about the DSS usage it function just as the biblical precedents do. We are therefore off into non-Jewish speculation on som.

(Incidentally, I think the Enochic Parables are christian and that they were written later as were 4 Enoch and 2 Baruch.)

The audience are not Jews, nor is the writer interested in the Jews in Mk 13. So, no, there is no interest in such judgment for "their" rebellion against YHWH. They are conspicuously absent. Even the reference to Judea needs to be placed in the context of the gospel writer dealing with believers proclaiming the gospel to the nations. The writer doesn't give a fig about them. The writer is concerned with his diaspora/Mediterranean audience and speaks in universalistic terms, while using fragments of Jewish thought as the imagery of the discourse.

There are no signs in the text that the writer is using imagery rather than being literal, so why should the audience assume so? When they hear of Jesus coming on the clouds, what else can they expect but what the text says?

Mark is writing well after the fall of the temple. His audience needs to understand what the significance of the fall of the temple is and that is that it is merely the beginning.

I don't see that your recourse to the HB and assumptions about the writer and the audience have changed the vision of Jesus coming on the clouds along with any of the vision which closely precedes it or follows it, for it is merely part of the pericope of the end times and belongs in its context of universal -- no longer Jewish -- apocalypse.


spin

John Kesler

I know that you say "as recorded in the Synoptics," but I am curious about your take on Acts 1.

This account indicates that, just as Jesus literally ascended on a literal cloud, "in the same way" he would he return from heaven. What contextual evidence is there that Luke intended this account to be understood in anything but a straightforward, literal manner?

Thomas II

"Son of the earth",...sort of like "Adam"?
"Adam", you know,he who represents humanity...

Elijah

I'll second that.

The Son of Man has always stood against the Rulers of Man.

Mosses with Pharaoh, Elijah with King Ahab and Jesus with Caesar.

"Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out."

John 12:31

Chris Weimer

Yes, but Gaius never represented humanity in Roman literature. Either way your resorting to the Hebrew scriptures to justify the Roman existence which if reversed would make no sense at all. There actually was a son of the earth in Greek mythology. First there was Uranus, and there was also Antaeus. Uranus was the father of the Gods, but not humanity, and Antaeus was the strongest giant around, since he gathered strength from Earth, but was utterly crushed by Hercules. Now, if you wanted to stretch things, Antaeus was the son of God and the son of Earth, but he never was understood as the progenitor of the human race, so then again you're at a dead-end and standing on thin air.

Thomas II

I really would not get into Uranus,Gaius,Antheus,or any of that...
What it is significant is that Jesus wants to be seen as "the Son of Man" with connections to both Daniel 7:13-14 and to Ezekiel 2:1,6...He wants people to entertain the thought " this guy is the Messiah!" but indirectly...
What troubles me is that during the story of the cursing of the fig tree, Jesus is said to have killed a tree because it did not welcome HIM as Messiah by giving fruit EVEN out of season, as it was prophesied...So that shows a little bit of obsessiveness,vindictiveness,arrogance,pride...
So now he says he is the Son of Man that Daniel talked about, and he is about to get dominion of just about everything,as written...
Then he also appears to relate himself with Ezekiel,since Yahweh is said to call Ezekiel "Son of man" constantly, almost repetitively...

Dharma

again, the son of Man as hero "with glory and power" is a reference to the Indo-Germanic legends of Manu the first man and first king -- who was looked upon as legendary hero.

It is not a coincidence that both the book of Daniel and Ezekiel are both very strongly associated with Syria where the Vedic Mitanni ruled and Ezekiel in particular is riding a heavenly chariot.

the term "ben adam" can in no way imply "power and glory"...Adam in many ways was hardly somone worth emulating -- he was kicked out of heaven for lying, had sons bent upon killing one another -- so some of the mystics tried to superimpose the concept of "hero king" of the Vedic people with the concept Adam -- it just doesn't work! It's similar to "Adam Cadmon".

The Roman connection is absolutely ridiculous. :down:

CJD

This is a great question, and you've perceptively found me out. Act 1 purportedly describes an ascension, which certain people actually saw with their eyes. Whatever those people saw, it was not the whole she-bang, for it finishes with Daniel 7. Acts 1:9 is just the beginning of the process, while Daniel 7 records the entire event. In other words, Luke 21's "son of man" corresponds to Daniel 7, just as Acts 1:9 refers to Daniel 7.

Acts 1:11 is another story altogether (the so-called 'second advent'), and one that is rarely mentioned in the writings of the NT.

I'm not particularly convinced that the Acts 1 pericope is to be construed in so literal a fashion. To speak of someone 'going up to heaven' did not mean that the person had become like Doctor Who, only to arrive at another location in the universe. I think the cultural context, which does not conceive of heaven as (primarily) 'up there', is comfortable with using the language of heavenly ascent to mean parallel and interlocking spheres with the divine court on the one hand and the earthly on the other. At least it means this more than it means that god was physically situated a few thousand yards away 'up there'.

The question, in response to your question ("What contextual evidence is there that Luke intended this account to be understood in anything but a straightforward, literal manner?"), is, Why must we treat such a literalistic understanding as the default position? (Surely a linguist, who is familiar with just a smattering of philology, would question whether or not his literal take on such ancient texts is more a result of the medieval use of language than what actually was imagined by first-century Jews, proselytes, and god-fearers.)

For all I know, "in the same way" may refer, not to literal clouds, but with the other aspect (so commonly ignored) — with 'power and great glory'. Even if there is some kind of literal-ness to it, consider:

In Luke 21 (Mark 13, etc.) Jesus is recorded as telling his listeners that he will, like the 'son of man' in Daniel 7, be vindicated after tribulation. Fast-forward to Acts 1, where it is briefly mentioned that this Jesus leaves the scene. From their perspective, he is 'lifted up' (clouds, etc.). But there is more to that perspective, and it is found in Daniel 7, i.e., the throne room of God, where the 'coming in clouds' is essentially a royal coming. Despite spin's suggestion to the contrary, there is every reason to think the recipients of such letters would have had a good understanding of the HB and the allusions, hopes, symbols, etc. therein. Why? It is supposed that by far the majority of Gentile converts to 'the way' were already 'god-fearers' and proselytes to Judaism. There would have been ample opportunity for them to become familiar with this stuff.

I'm not saying no person would have thought of these things in such a literal fashion; I am saying that Israelites of the first century would not have construed these things in this fashion. And, given that 'the way' was virtually a sect of Judaism during its early years, I am thinking that the 'son of man' imagery, with all its full Jewish import, would not have been lost on the readers of Mark, Luke, or Acts.

Think about Romans, which was supposedly written to a predominantly Gentile church in Rome. It employs and relies upon the HB throughout (its retelling of its stories, etc.). Why would its author presume so much upon them?

CJD

Dharma

"the way" is not Jewish and neither is "son of Man"..."The way" generally comes from eastern traditions (The Dharma, The Tao) these are "the way" traditions.

Son of Man "riding on chariots, on the clouds of heaven" is also not Jewish but imagery imported from Vedic religion.

Christianity was an attempt to Hellenize Jewish theology with the other theologies around it to create a mixed religion to satisfy Greek rulers and the major Jewish population it ruled in Antioch, in Syria-- the city where much of the modern version of the bible was written.