Approaching 5:1–20 as an Apocalyptic Story

Approaching 13:5–37 as an Apocalyptic Speech

Power according to the Kingdom of God (8:27–10:45)

1. Mark sees the Son of Man as a glorious, heavenly figure who will appear at the eschatological judgment (Mark 8:38; 13:24–27; 14:62). Mark uses the phrase for the first time in 2:10, when Jesus states that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the earth. The origin of the “Son of Man” title is a disputed area of scholarship. Bultmann deduces that the historical Jesus spoke some “Son of Man” sayings in the Gospels in His tory of the Synoptic Tradition, 112, 122, 128, 151–52. Perrin, however, concludes that the title was a creation of the early Church to explain Jesus’ death and convey his vindication. Norman Perrin, Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage: A Disussion with Norman Perrin (ed., Hans Dieter Betz; Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1971), 10–22; repr. from “Mark XIV.62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tra dition?,” NTS 12 (1965–66): 150–55; Perrin, Pilgrimage, 23–40; repr. from “The Son of Man in Ancient Judaism and Primitive Christianity: A Sugges tion,” BR 11 (1966): 17–28; Perrin, Pilgrimage, 57–83; repr. from “The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition,” in BR 13 (1968): 3–25; Perrin, Pilgrim age, 84–93; repr. from “The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark,” USQR 23 (1967–68): 357–65; Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 154–206. For the view that the title is a Markan redaction, see Darrell J. Doughty, “The Authority of the Son of Man (Mk 21–36),” ZNW 74 (1983):164–69; A. Y. Collins, Mark, 189.(edited)
2. By contrast, Robert H. Stein argues that the “Son of Man” saying is likely authentic. He notes that the title occurs in the Gospels eighty-two times, compared with only four times in the rest of the NT, and argues that the early church would have chosen a title like “Christ” or “Lord,” found more frequently in other NT writings, rather than create a mys terious title like “Son of Man.” Robert Stein, Mark, 121. Morna Hooker has analyzed the background of the expression, b uR¹rtoO !mhq~pou in Jewish tra dition and its thirteen uses in Mark, and demonstrated the clear influence of Daniel on Mark’s use of the title, “Son of Man.” Morna Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term: “Son of Man” and its Use in St. Mark’s Gospel (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967), see esp. 190. The meaning of the phrase b uR¹rtoO !mhq~pou is also a contested area of scholarship. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not a Greek idiom, but a trans lation of a Semitic phrase, vn rBor avn rBin Aramaic. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The New Testament Title ‘Son of Man’ Philologically Considered,” in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25; ed. J. A. Fitzmyer; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1979), 143–60. Geza Vermes, “The Use of vn rB/avn rBin Jewish Aramaic,” Appendix E in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by Matthew Black (3rd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 310. Vermes argues that Jesus uses the “Son of Man” expression as a circumlocution for “I,” that is, he simply uses it as an idiomatic expression to refer to himself in the first person singular. Vermes, “The Use of vn rB/avn rB, 310–28.
3. In a response, M. Black affirms Vermes’ basic argument, but rejects his conclusion that the ex pression b uR¹rtoO !mhq~pou “is not suitable for messianic use.” Black argues that the expression is ambiguous, able to be construed as “a man” or as the title “Son of Man” with primary reference to Dan 7. Thus, he concludes that Jesus used the expression to refer to himself as the Danielic Son of Man. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 328–30. Others who challenge Vermes’ argument include Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Another View of the Son of Man Debate,” JSNT 4 (1979): 58–65; and Maurice Casey, “The Son of Man Problem,” ZNW 67 (1976): 147–54.

The Manifestation of Power at the Transfiguration (9:1–8) & the Imminent Parousia