Paul shows that it was a common practice of his day to accuse the Jesus of others as a false manifestation of the
true Jesus.
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
(2 Corinthians 11:4)
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
For that matter, Mark is so allegorical that he may have written even a
''Gospel of Satan'' where
''Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light'' as allegory of the failure of other Christians to understand the truth.
But I note a particular feature of that polemical passage:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
(Galatians 1:8)
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίσηται ὑμῖν παρ’ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
The
''anathema'' is addressed not in direction to
''the angel from Heaven'' and not to a presumed '
'we (i.e. Paul)'', but to the same audience of Paul and his Gospel:
the Galatians themselves.
In other terms, Paul is giving a precise rule of game: who will receive the ''anathema'' is not the cause himself of the heretic Gospel, but his audience.
Therefore Mark, when he did want to condemn the anti-paulinism of the Pillars (and introduce a theodicy for the destruction of Israel in 70 CE), invented an
allegory where the anathematized character is not
''another Jesus'', but his same (allegorical)
audience!
This explains why Mark has apparently no problem with the introduction of
''another Jesus'', a Son of Man
so different from the celestial Son of God hallucinated by Paul:
according to the same Paul, the
''anathema'' is thrown on who sees
''another Jesus'',
not on the same
''another Jesus''. To that extent, Mark could introduce a Son of Man (disliked by Paul) with the function of
eschatological judge of the corrupted Pillars and of a corrupted Israel.
The candidates for the Son of Man figure in Daniel are the following (I'm quoting freely from
here):
1) a heavenly being (usually considered to be the archangel Michael) |
2) an exalted human being such as a king or a messianic figure who fulfills the promises made to David |
3) a collective symbol of the Jewish people |
4) nothing more than a literary device utilized by the author to explain what he saw. In other words, a metaphor to describe the indescribable. |
[td][b][color=#FF0000]5)[/color][/b] a mere son of man, a simple human being.[/td]
In the Enochic tradition the Son of Man is a figure
''who executes the judgement of God among his people.''
I think that Mark, also, meant to use with 'Son of Man' a metaphor to describe the indescribable, by simply meaning it as
''a mere son of man, a simple human being''. My vote is for point
5.
I believe now that who denies this point is a crazy.
Mark did use that figure ''to execute the judgement of God among his people'': a judgement that for Mark is an
''anathema'' thrown on the anti-pauline Christians. The Son of Man and the Son of God show respectively the condemnation (of the Pillars) and the salvation (of Israel).
This is particularly true in Mark 2:1-12:
And when he returned to Caper′naum after some days, it was reported that he was at home.
And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them.
And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.
And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.
And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”
Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts,
“Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question thus in your hearts?
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk’?
But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—
“I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.”
And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”
The
''paralytic carried by four men'' allegorizes all the Jewish people scattered in the four cardinal points but his particular presence before Jesus
inside the house makes him a special ''insider'' (one able to see), against the
''crown'' being
de facto outsiders (blind people). And therefore the
''crowd'', as blind people, is by definition already
condemned (= put in the evil camp, insofar they see the insoluble
contradiction of a Son of Man who acts as God in person).
esoteric knowledge that the Son of Man is really possessed by the Son of God | forgiveness of sins | rising of the paralytic (insider) | allegory of the expiation of sins of Israel on the cross |
Ignorance because of the insoluble paradox of a son of man posing as God | condemnation of sins | threat against the crowd (outsider) | allegory of the destruction of evil Israel on the cross |
Mark isn't denying what the pharisees thought: a mere human being cannot pose as God otherwise he is a blaspheme. But he gives the solution of the enigma under the eyes of blind people:
1) Jesus Nazarene is a mere human being,
a son of man, a guy, who claims,
just as SON OF MAN, the authority to forgive the sins.
2) but only God can forgive the sins, not a mere human being.
3) the points
1 and
2 are in apparent conflict & contradiction.
4) but the son of man is possessed really by the Son of God (and the paralytic
knows it).
5) therefore: the contradiction is seen only by who ''
see but not perceive, and hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.”. A logical paradox becomes symbol of eternal sin.
If you think wrongly that ''Son of Man = celestial or messianic being'' in Mark, then the logical paradox disappears, and with it the same true polemical goal of Mark.
A
real deception is done by Jesus: the Son of God
wants that the 'crowd' thinks wrongly that he is only a mere son of man. This is authentic, deliberate
DIVINE CONSPIRACY.
In pauline terms, the (pauline) Son of God is transformed apparently and deliberately in a (not-pauline) ''Son of Man'' to deceive (and condemn) the Pillars and an evil Israel.
CONCLUSION:
Who says that Son of Man is a mighty celestial figure in Mark is in great error. He suffers of the same
ignorance of the original outsiders for Mark:
he is a crazy and I insult him.
Maurice Casey was right when he did insist that ''son of man'' means only mere human being and no other in Mark. At least to that extent, that scholar wasn't a Christian apologist.
Another strong evidence of my thesis is found in another occurrence of a similar logical paradox (that stops to be one only for insiders):
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am [the Son of God]; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
(Mark 15:61-62)
1) the son of man is a mere human being who claims to come
''at the right of Power''.
2) only a celestial being can be
''seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven''.
3) and moreover, the prophecy of point
1 is not realized, apparently.
4) point
1 is in logical contradiction with points
2 and
3.
5) but the insider
knows : the human being hung up on the cross is truly the
''Lord of Glory'' crucified by demons!