Rick Sumner

This has nothing to do with any "importance" I attach to anything. An apocalypse is a type of literature. Daniel and Revelations are probably the best known examples.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

Iskander

Yes indeed it is a type of literature.

The end of the world is nigh




“The End Is Nigh was an annual British fanzine edited by Michael Molcher. It was launched at the Bristol Comic Expo in 2005 and, since becoming a semi-annual publication, each subsequent issue is also launched there.
It deals with the End of the World, each issue dealing with differently themed Apocalypses. The contents range from articles to sequential art, with contributors drawn from both comics and magazines.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_Is_Nigh


Treating the gospels as an ancient foreign magazine of the apocalypse would not make its publicist a mythical man, but only a difficult one to understand.

LegionOnomaMoi

I don't see how. I didn't say Casey was correct and Vermes was wrong, or that, for example, Owen and Shepard (JSNT 81, 2001) who argued both were wrong (and Lindars as well), or actually take a position on the issue at all. I was simply asserting that the statement "there is no question..." concerning the interpretation of the son of man is difficult indeed to support.

I don't see how that is true, unles by "divine" and "apocalyptic" Doherty has moved quite far away from what he wrote in The Jesus Puzzle concerning the son of man and how rooted it is in Daniel. Even in the predictions of his death, Jesus (according to Casey) was not using the phrase to refer to a messianic or "divine" (in the sense used in Daniel) way, but as a generic self/group with self included reference. Nor does Casey argue (as Doherty does) that the origin of the phrase or the usage in the gospel reflect a development within Jewish culture from Daniel. In fact, he argues that the usage in Daniel is unique, while the phrase is a fairly common aramaic idiom. Within the gospels, we get a christological title from an extension of this idiom, from "son of man/"born human" to "THE human" (or, in Casey's words, "the son of humankind" and thus "the most important person on Earth"). Only in a small handful of NT lines (in Mk, 13.26 and 14.62) is there an allusion to Daniel, and the "second coming" of Jesus.

In other words, whereas Doherty seems to see this phrase as having grown out of the use in Daniel, and used in this way throughout the gospels, Casey (among others, including Vermes) argues that the expression was quite indepdendent of Daniel, both outside of and (for the most part) within the NT.

Rick Sumner

You miss my point. I'm suggesting that Vermes, and not Casey, might be the better source for potential Aramaic roots. I'm disputing who "the leading expert" is, though I think both of them are just being imaginative.

You're missing the qualifier again--"in the apocalyptic sense," something observed by Casey himself (eg, p.237). Casey's case is that there is a pre-gospel Aramaic use of the term that is distinct from the later apocalyptic use in the gospels, not that the use in the gospels refers to the Danielic being.

Where you're getting confused is that Earl doesn't care what Jesus may or may not have meant by the term. He cares what the gospel authors meant. Casey, in contrast, is attempting to show what Jesus meant and (in many cases) how the gospel authors misunderstood it.

They're addressing different questions, but both agree that in what survives, the intention is the Danielic, divine son of man (most explicitly in Matthew). Casey's position is that this is a gospel misunderstanding, and does not in fact represent the true root of the term in the career of Jesus.

LegionOnomaMoi

Fair enough. But I did qualify "the leading expert" with "perhaps."




Here, actually, I'm not. I'm well aware that Doherty is concerned with what the gospel authors meant (how could he be concerned with what Jesus, whom he argues had no historical reality, did or did not say?), while Casey is concerned with both. However, Doherty argues (pp. 51-52) that the "son of man" was a concept within Jewish and christian circles of the first century which was "born out of the fevered mind of the author of the book of Daniel." Casey devotes an entire chapter to why this is incorrect, and there was no such concept within first century Jewish circles. Rather, the idiom was metaphorically extended by the early Christians quite independently of Daniel. Thus, while in a few places Daniel is referenced, the gospel authors use the term either in the normal, idiomatic aramaic sense, or extended this idea of "son of man=born human" to "son of man=THE son of mankind= the most important person". In other words, they neither borrowed the phrase directly from Daniel, nor relied on a concept common in the day since Daniel, but even when the phrase is used in a messianic/christological sense, with only a few exceptions it is based not on a "son of man" concept (as Doherty argues) but an extension of the idiom.

That's the key difference. If Doherty is correct (and he is not alone here), and the christian authors were using a son of man concept which was current during the day, then it is that much easier to argue that various currents within first century judaism and it's hellenistic milieu created a context for the creation of the figure Jesus Christ Savior. Casey, among others, provides arguments challenging that notion, and therefore (if he and those who agree are correct) making any argument which uses the notion of a son of man concept to explain the gospel usage problematic.
Casey, in contrast, is attempting to show what Jesus meant and (in many cases) how the gospel authors misunderstood it.

Rick Sumner

This is all well and good, but secondary to the point I've taken issue with. I don't much care if such a concept was common to the milieu or not. I care if the gospel authors, regardless of their reasons or development, are communicating a divine status when they use the term. Earl, Casey and I are all in agreement that they do, we just differ on why.

ETA

To clarify, I'm using apocalyptic in a fairly strict sense, such that it refers to an apocalypse. Where Casey sees Daniel as the source (certainly Matt, somewhat wishy washy on Mark) he agrees. So I should add that he also disagrees on where the apocalyptic sense applies.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

Diogenes the Cynic

What do people mean when they say "divine?" Mark clearly does not think Jesus and God are the same entity, so even if he thinks the son of man is a celestial superhero of some sort, he still thinks it's a created entity, not one identical to (or in Mark's case) even preexistent.

JonA

Even if 'Son of Man' refers to a supernatural, celestial, from-heaven/God character, where is the evidence that being the 'Son of Man' = being 'God'?

Diogenes the Cynic beat me to my reply. I think the discussion of divinity is irrelevant since nowhere in Mark's Gospel is Jesus said to be God. What's more, Mark always references them as separate individuals and indicates they have separate wills.

Jesus and God are not one and the same for Mark.

It's just that simple.

aa5874

Even if you believe Jesus the Son of God in gMark is NOT the same as God has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that gMark's Jesus was called the Son of God.

Up to the mid 2nd century, Justin Martyr, claimed Jesus was SECOND to God.

First Apology It is not logical at all that although Jesus is described as the Son of a God that the character ought NOT to be considered a God.

In antiquity it was believed that there were SEPARATE Myth God entities that were called Sons of God.

LegionOnomaMoi

You aren't all in agreement at all, however. Where in Casey's monograph (or his numerous earlier works) does he argue that Mark, or even the synoptics, used the term to indicate a "divine" status? Messianic/apocalyptic is one thing. Divine is something else altogether, and I can't see where you get the impression that Casey argues or thinks that the synoptic authors, by using this phrase, "are communicating a divine status." Only when discussing John does Casey argue that the author is ascribing to Jesus a divine status. Not in the gospes (plural). Casey makes this quite explicit in the opening to his chapter on John, in which he says that the "Johannine son of man sayings belong for the most part to a different world from those in the synoptic gospels. The Johannine Son of man does not do the earthly things such as come eating and drinking...The Johannine Son of man does unsynoptic things such as descend and ascend....These differences are extreme..." etc.