In Mark, when Jesus refers to the “Son of Man” in the third person, is this a surruptitious way of refferring to himself? By extension, when he uses the phrase “…the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory,” is that a coded way of saying “when the Jewish people rise up in power” in order to keep the apocalyptic plan a secret from authorities? It seems to me, from the apocalyptic perspective, the efforts to recruit converts is a way of recruiting participants in the coming apocalyptic revolution in which the “meek,” (Jews) would come to inherit the Earth, per Daniel 7:27: “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”
I don’t have a citation to hand, but BDE thinks that (at least some) of Jesus’ third-person references to the Son of Man go back to Jesus himself who though the Son of Man was some sort of other angelic power who was to come. Turning Jesus into the Son of Man, rather than just a prophet of the Son of Man, was a Christian development.
Also, BDE does not think that Jesus was fomenting an insurrection or calling for any sort of violent resistance to the authorities. He thinks his message was to wait for the Son of Man who was going to set everything straight.
Not that my opinion matters, but I’m not convinced on that last point–I think it makes an awful lot of sense of the Passion Narrative if we postulate that Jesus was actually, at least, toying with insurrection and if his followers were potentially ready to get violent.
dbgaren
In Mark, when Jesus refers to the “Son of Man” in the third person, is this a surreptitious way of referring to himself?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
There are two parts to the Jesus mission: the happy and inspiring first part and the tragic second part.
Part I
Tell John the Baptist, wait for no one else, I am here.
Part II
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (whatever Jesus was who well pleased the Father, is allowed to be killed by the wicked tenants and the land is given to others)
No, Jesus is NOT surreptitiously referring to himself. Jesus lost his religion.
Notice: Jesus did not later adopt the belief that Enoch was the Son of Man. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants did not take Jesus, the Son of Man and Make Enoch the Son of Man.
dbgaren
By extension, when he uses the phrase “…the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory,” is that a coded way of saying “when the Jewish people rise up in power” in order to keep the apocalyptic plan a secret from authorities?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
No, that is not a coded way of saying when the Jewish people rise up in power.
The Biblical Jesus did not foretell the Jewish people rising up to attack Roman Legion Fulminata XII.
I think it makes an awful lot of sense of the Passion Narrative if we postulate that Jesus was actually, at least, toying with insurrection and if his followers were potentially ready to get violent.
There have been occasional attempts to claim that the all the “peace and love” stuff was secondary to the tradition, a response to the circumstances of the First Revolt perhaps. It would explain why Mark doesn’t seem to know about it. But the so-called “Q” material seems pretty primitive. I’ve often wondered if the apocalyptic view wasn’t peace and love for the community and to hell with everybody else.
I think I’ve made the argument here before, but really really briefly:
Making Jesus a pacifist leading a small peaceful band creates all kinds of problems in the Passion Narrative. The Triumphal entry has to be dismissed, the Cleansing of the temple has to be dismissed, the plot to arrest him in secret makes very little sense; Judas’s betrayal makes very little sense. All the main events–including major events that are found in all four gospels, some of which are major embarrassments for Christians (like the betrayal of Judas) have to be either dismissed or radically revised.
But if Jesus was popular, if his followers (broadly taken) were a credible threat to the local Roman forces, all these events make perfect sense with only the lightest of revisions. Even minor details like the Sanhedrin’s interest in having him executed make sense, (consider Jn 11:50: they knew how an uprising, even if initially successful against the modest local auxiliaries, would end once the legion in Syria had a chance to march down.)
the so-called “Q” material seems pretty primitive. I’ve often wondered if the apocalyptic view wasn’t peace and love for the community and to hell with everybody else.
Yeah, my suspicion is that you are right on this. I suspect that the more militant element of his thought got quickly revised out (though not completely–see Mt 10:34 and Lk 22:36), and the pacifist element highlighted, after that aspect of his mission failed spectacularly; one of the early and crucial steps in the development of Christianity was saying that the crucifixion wasn’t a failure but was part of the plan all along, prophesied in the Scriptures and even by Jesus himself. Q might be primitive, but I don’ think it is so primitive is has to be accurate–I mean, who’s to say the compiler of Q didn’t tweak things a bit. Or even add some sayings that had nothing to do with Jesus (how often do people today attribute to the good book sayings that definitely are not in the bible?)
I think the Jewish uprising was foretold in Daniel. It was the major premise for the apocalyptic world view that Jesus was preaching from his first utterance in Mark: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” The end result would be the Jews reigning over all others in the name of God. Daniel 7:27: “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”
You think the Jewish uprising was foretold in Daniel. The time is fulfilled? The kingdom of God is at hand? et cetera?
The Jewish Tax Revolt of 6 C.E. with Simon in Perea, Athrongeus in Judea, and Judas in Galilee – That uprising failed.
The First Jewish-Roman War – that uprising failed.
The Second Jewish-Roman War – that uprising failed.
I don’t think dbgaren meant that Daniel’s prophecy was accurate, but only that the apocalypticists believed it would prove accurate and on that basis expected a successful Jewish uprising–which of course never came.
I may have misunderstood him though.
As to Dan 7:27–I think BDE would freely agree that Jesus was expecting an earthly kingdom, like Daniel describes, but that he didn’t think it would be established through a human revolt; Jesus (per BDE) thought we needed not to fight to establish the kingdom but to just sit patiently and wait for the Son of Man to come rolling in with the clouds of heaven; he would overthrow the powers that be and hand the kingdom to the just.
I am not persuaded, but I don’t think Dan 7:27 really settles the question one way or the other–it says the kingdom and dominion will be given to them: given to them how? On a silver platter without their doing anything? Or given to them as the divinely ordained result of their own military agency?
Yes, Porphyry! You understand what I am getting at here. The Macabean Revolt (during which Daniel is believed to have been written per chapter 7 of Ehrman’s book “God’s Problem”) failed. The revolt of 66 CE also failed… miserably. ALL subsequent apocalyptic predictions since then have also failed. But that did not, and still does not deter fanatical adherents even today!
Jesus was, no doubt, a pacifist who probably thought God and his army of angels would play the dominant role in vanquishing evil (Romans) from the face of the Earth. He probably thought other more militant groups like the Zealots would take a more active role in concert with the army of angels. Regardless of their role, all were guided by that apocalyptic vision, which was inherently subversive leading to my hypothosis regarding coded language.
Porphyry
I don’t think dbgaren meant that Daniel’s prophecy was accurate,
Steefen
A prophecy that is inaccurate is not good.
So, we have another False Prophet–just what I needed for Easter.
Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist were all false prophets. Let’s extend the falsity of Jewish Apocalypticism to Daniel as well.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)