Isayre wrote:
What if instead he rudimentarily was known (while alive) to speak of a coming son of man, but he never even remotely envisioned himself to be this figure? And if it was only at some later date that he was back-projected into such a high Christology as its Christ...
To judge from Mark (which, again, I think could have been written by a follower of Peter, like Papias says), Jesus saw himself as the Son of Man, like in 2:8-12
Mk. 2:5-11:
And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, even God? And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.
If Jesus is only referring to himself as a son of man in the regular guy sense (as some suggest), what is the point of saying "the Son of man hath authority on earth"? Wouldn't that be obvious? And this "authority" is the same word that is used to describe the "authority" that is given to the "one like a son of man" in LXX Dan. 7:14 ("He was given
authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him").
And Mk. 2:24-27:
And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.
And Mk. 8:31-38:
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again ... whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
What is the point of Jesus saying he will be resurrected here if it has nothing to do with the coming of the Son of Man? Note also the reference to the "glory" of the Son of Man, which echoes the "glory" mentioned in Dan. 7:14 above. And he drives the point home again in 9:9:
And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.
And again in 10:45:
For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
I suppose this philosophy could have been attributed to him by others after his death, but that's not the way it is being presented, at least.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.