I was reading through the Last Supper Narrative in Mark and was struck by Chapter 14 Verse 20. Jesus is referring to one of the 12 betraying him. It reads
“It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
I think it is obvious that here Jesus is referring to himself as the Son of Man. How do scholars interpret this passage, and incorporate it into the larger context of the Son of Man debate?
Christian Bouwense said
I was reading through the Last Supper Narrative in Mark and was struck by Chapter 14 Verse 20. Jesus is referring to one of the 12 betraying him. It reads“It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
I think it is obvious that here Jesus is referring to himself as the Son of Man. How do scholars interpret this passage, and incorporate it into the larger context of the Son of Man debate?
Steefen
John Chapter 9
…32Never before has anyone heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33If this man were not from God, He could do no such thing. 34They replied, “You were born in utter sin, and you are instructing us?” And they threw him out.…When Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, He found the man and said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”… 36 “Who is He, Sir? he replied. “Tell me so that I may believe in Him. 37“You have already seen Him,” Jesus answered. “He is the One speaking with you.”…
Steefeb
Now, let’s look at Luke. Chapter 7
…33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ 34The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at this glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!
(Also: Matthew 11: 19 > The Son of Man, Jesus, is friend of tax collectors.)
Robert said
Even those scholars (eg, Bultmann, Ehrman) who believe the historical Jesus referred to the Son of Man as someone other than himself, typically a heavenly or angelic apocalyptic figure who will come to judge the earth, nonetheless agree that the Jesus of the gospels (not the historical Jesus) certainly refers to himself as the Son of Man. So this is not really a matter of dispute.
Can you point me to some literature on the reasoning behind this? Not a scholarly paper but something for a non-scholar to read?
I’m sure it doesn’t pass the Criterion of Dissimilarity, but if Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man is multiply, independently attested it seems reasonable to think that the historical Jesus did claim this. Seems like one must do more mental gymnastics to explain that he didn’t claim this, than he did.
I always assumed these claims would just be in John, but seeing it in Mark really jarred me. Obviously Mark isn’t perfect, but it always seemed to me to be the most “accurate” historically speaking.
Christian Bouwense said
Can you point me to some literature on the reasoning behind this? Not a scholarly paper but something for a non-scholar to read?
I’m sure it doesn’t pass the Criterion of Dissimilarity, but if Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man is multiply, independently attested it seems reasonable to think that the historical Jesus did claim this. Seems like one must do more mental gymnastics to explain that he didn’t claim this, than he did.
I always assumed these claims would just be in John, but seeing it in Mark really jarred me. Obviously Mark isn’t perfect, but it always seemed to me to be the most “accurate” historically speaking.
Bart Ehrman debating Licona says: “But if Mark is accurate and John is not, doesn’t that also show beyond any doubt that the Gospel writers (John in this case) were (sometimes? many times?) more interested in making their theological points about Jesus than in recording history as it actually happened? So, we shouldn’t skip over this example too quickly or shove it aside. It has enormous implications.” (1)
And if John is the case why not Mark? How many times does Mark change the story in ways that we are not able to detect?
(1)
Robert said
Sure. In Chapters 8 & 9 of his book, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, written for a general audience, Bart explains his reasoning for this position. Since the early church believed in Jesus as the Son of Man, those sayings of Jesus in which he refers to himself as the Son of Man need not have originated with Jesus. But it is unlikely that the later tradition would have created the sayings in which Jesus seems to be referring to someone else as the Son of Man. Those sayings do pass the criterion of dissimilarity. It’s not an air-tight argument, and Bart admits that his is a minority position among other scholars. Both types of Son of Man statements independently attested, but the criterion of multiple attestation in and of itself merely points to an earlier tradition, not that such an earlier tradition is necessarily historically accurate. For example, Bart believes that Matthew and Luke independently attest to an earlier tradition about Jesus being born of a virgin, but he does not believe that the virgin birth is actually historical.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense, sounds like a good read. I can definitely imagine the following scenario:
– Jesus prophesizes the coming of the Son of Man, and neither believes nor implies that he is the Son of Man.
– Jesus dies and news spreads of his resurrection. This new divine framing triggers people to interpret his teachings as implying that he in fact is the Son of Man.
– The authors of the gospels accept this interpretation, and write it into their accounts.
janmaru said
Christian Bouwense said
Can you point me to some literature on the reasoning behind this? Not a scholarly paper but something for a non-scholar to read?
I’m sure it doesn’t pass the Criterion of Dissimilarity, but if Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man is multiply, independently attested it seems reasonable to think that the historical Jesus did claim this. Seems like one must do more mental gymnastics to explain that he didn’t claim this, than he did.
I always assumed these claims would just be in John, but seeing it in Mark really jarred me. Obviously Mark isn’t perfect, but it always seemed to me to be the most “accurate” historically speaking.
Bart Ehrman debating Licona says: “But if Mark is accurate and John is not, doesn’t that also show beyond any doubt that the Gospel writers (John in this case) were (sometimes? many times?) more interested in making their theological points about Jesus than in recording history as it actually happened? So, we shouldn’t skip over this example too quickly or shove it aside. It has enormous implications.” (1)
And if John is the case why not Mark? How many times does Mark change the story in ways that we are not able to detect?
(1)
Yeah I am totally of the opinion that the gospel authors changed the historical Jesus to fit a narrative. It just makes me pause when all four gospels (at least, I think that’s true) portray Jesus as the Son of Man. I understand that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and that Mark portrays Jesus as the Son of Man, so it is not necessarily independent. However, I think with something like this, the onus is on the reader to demonatrate that the authors intentionally changed a pivotal teaching of Jesus.
Thanks for the video, I’ll check this out tonight, always love a good Ehrman debate.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)