LegionOnomaMoi

Nothing whatsoever. But as he is perhaps the leading expert when it comes to the aramaic underlying or influencing Greek of the Gospels (or directly transliterated within them), the fact that he published an entire monography on this issue so recently suggests rather conclusively that, contrary to your statement:
There is indeed a question concerning whether or not the phrase refers to a divine figure. In fact, not only is this questionable, it's something of a controversy.

Rick Sumner

I think you give Casey too much credit and Vermes too little, though I find both of their convictions that they can create primary sources from secondary literate naive and optimistic. Casey's effect is also diminished by his almost ceaseless polemic.

The important qualifier in Earl's statement is "the apocalyptic sense." Important because Casey does not deny that Earl is spot on. Debate centers on how Jesus' words may have developed to this sense, not on what it means in that context.

thief of fire

Could you rephrase what you think Earl was saying in your own words?

Rick Sumner

No. He's saying exactly what it says.

If I'm misrepresenting Earl I'm sure he'll point it out. If you find him unclear, you're welcome to ask him for clarification. In neither case is it appropriate for me to be phrasing his position.

Diogenes the Cynic

How do you when Mark is or is not using the word apocalyptically?

Iskander

What does “the apocalyptic sense” mean to you?

Rick Sumner

Sometimes you don't. But when he cites an apocalypse it's probably a pretty good indication.

In a sense of or pertaining to an apocalypse. There is no "to me" about it.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

Iskander

What importance do you attach to that?

Rick Sumner

What an absurd question.

What it means to me is irrelevant. The question is whether anyone doubts Earl's proposed reading in that context. They do not. Casey questions what Jesus may have meant by the phrase, not what Mark means in this context.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

Iskander

I’m reading it " in that context".

What would I be expected to understand by