Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Here I want to raise the question:

when Jesus says:

''whoever says to this mountain, etc...''

is that ''whoever'' another term for ''son of man'' meant as ''a guy'' ? Something as:

''But that you may know that whoever has authority to forgive sins on earth”

I ask any reader of this post if he or she knows about a scholar who argues this about Mark 2:10 ? Thanks in advance.

If Jesus of Mark 2:10 is using ''Son of Man'' as self-reference, then there would be a revolution : not only God, not only John the Baptist, but all the mere sons of men would have the authority to forgive the sins:

the scribes	Jesus
Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can forgive sins?	But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth”

Mark is introducing deliberately a blasphemy: any human being can forgive his sins.

But is it just so?

The text continues:

...he said to the paralytic, “I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home.” He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone.

Is this another case of ''seeing but not seeing'' ?

What all saw	What was really healed
a paralytic carried by four men, '''picked up his mat at once'	All Israel (Judaea + Diaspora)

The ''mat'' can also be meant to signify a military litter: Israel is going to be healed of his evil of war and we know which war is meant.


Is this still acceptable for Paul?

“For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins”

(1 Cor 15:16–17)

The problem is that when Mark 2:10 happens, Jesus called Christ has not been still raised. How could then the mere Son of Man have the authority to remove the sins if he is not still dead, not even raised ?

This is another subtle clue that Christ is already been raised when Mark 2:10 happens.

Only in name of his Spirit-possessor (the Son of God), the Son of Man ''Jesus Nazarene'' can have the right to say the (apparently blaspheme) words of Mark 2:10.

Therefore what remains in the story is the purification of the Son of Man himself, seen as a separate being from the Jesus Christ of Paul (and a rival Jesus to co-opt in the pauline camp). The Son of Man is not forgiven because his repentance thanks to intercession of Adam, but is forgiven by his death on the cross (in 70 CE) ''in Christ''.

By him, the Son of God is healing entirely Israel.

I am intrigued by the suspect of KK that everywhere there is occurrence of (idiot) disciples who see or hear something, then a meaning hidden to them is potentially lurking in Mark, in virtue of the famous dualism insiders vs outsiders of Mark 4.

An example may be the following:

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.” Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us. Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

(Mark 9:38-40)

Robert Price already galvanized me the first time when I read from his book that the independent exorcist is a ''pauline figure'', hated by the Pillars sons of Zebedee.

If Mark is pauline, he should show more simpathy about this exorcist. If I assume my hypothesis that Mark is introducing ''another Jesus'', one disliked by Paul (namely: the Son of Man of the rival Enochic tradition), to deceive the Pillars and purify this same ''another Jesus'' (making him possessed by the true Son of God Christ), then the ''independent exorcist'' would be just Paul preaching the true Christ!!!

Therefore there would be another case of ''seeing but not seeing'':

The son of Zebedee was seeing in action the apostle par excellence of the Son of God: PAUL.

The answer of Jesus :
is not about that independent exorcist, but about the Pillars themselves!!!

In fact, they are in that moment not ''against Jesus'' (and his apostle Paul), but it cannot be said that they are ''with Jesus'' (and his apostle Paul), because they lack of the true knowledge of the true Son of God possessing the Son of Man.
Therefore the Pillars are ''for Jesus'' (and his apostle Paul) insofar they ''see but not see, hear but not hear'', in other terms, because they are following as blind people the person who will lead them to their self-condemnation (to see a mere Son of Man, Israel - and therefore themselves too, crucified in 70 CE).

My analysis of the post above would be reinforced, indeed, if it is possible to find a subtle clue that the two lesthes crucified with Jesus are just them and no others: the same Pillars Sons of Zebedee.
They are (not coincidentially) those who want to be ''at the left and the right'' of the Son of Man (remember: not the true Son of God) in the moment of his glory, ''not knowing what they ask''.

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” He replied, “What do you wish [me] to do for you?” They answered him, “Grant that in your glory (when the Son of Man will arrive in his glory) we may sit one at your right and the other at your left.(when the Son of Man is crucified in his glory)” Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” They said to him, “We can.” (words of self-condemnation) Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink, you will drink (Jesus will lead them to death on the cross), and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized (the baptism of Jesus is that of John the Baptist: Jesus is saying that their death on the cross with the Son of Man will purify their sins); but to sit at my right or at my left is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

(Mark 10:35-40)


But they are also the ''sons of Zebedee''.

He walked along a little farther and saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They too were in a boat mending their nets. Then he called them. So they left their father Zebedee in the boat along with the hired men (τῶν μισθωτῶν: mercenaries) and followed him.

(Mark 1:19-20)



Josephus says us who would be the son of Zebedee par excellence:

[/b][/u]

10. But there was one Achar, (5) the son of Zebedee, of the tribe of Judah; who finding a royal garment woven intirely of gold, and a piece of gold that weighed two hundred shekels; (6) and thinking it a very hard case, that what spoils he, by running some hazzard, had found, he must give away, and offer it to God, who stood in no need of it; while he that wanted it must go without it; made a deep ditch in his own tent, and laid them up therein: as supposing he should not only be concealed from his fellow soldiers, but from God himself also.

...
13. When Joshua saw the army so much afflicted, and possessed with forebodings of evil, as to their whole expedition; he used freedom with God, and said; “We are not come thus far out of any rashness of our own; ... But do thou, O Lord, free us from these suspicions: for thou art able to find a cure for these disorders, by giving us victory; which will both take away the grief we are in at present, and prevent our distrust as to what is to come.”

14. These intercessions Joshua put up to God, as he lay prostrate on his face: whereupon God answered him, “That he should rise up, and purify his host, from the pollution which was got into it, that things consecrated to me have been impudently stolen from me; and that this has been the occasion why this defeat had happened to them; and that when they should search out and punish the offender, he would ever take care they should have the victory over their enemies.” ... so the truth of this wicked action was found to belong to the family of Zachar. And when the enquiry was made man by man, they took Achar. Who upon God’s reducing him to a terrible extremity, could not deny the fact. So he confessed the theft, and produced what he had taken in the midst of them. So this man was immediately put to death: and attained no more than to be buried in the night, in a disgraceful manner; and such as was suitable to a condemned malefactor.

(Antiquities V, 33-34)


Josephus describes the fate of this ''son of Zebedee'' as worthy of the Zealots of his time: ''and attained no more than to be buried in the night, in a disgraceful manner; and such as was suitable to a condemned malefactor.'' No wonder if his corpse was... ...crucified!

At this point, I have little doubt that the two lesthes crucified with Jesus were just the Pillars!!!


Therefore the Son of God (already crucified and risen in heaven) possessed a mere son of man in order to lead the Pillars to the collective crucifixion of all Israel (a historical event happened in 70 CE) and make it resurrected as pauline Israel. This in short the story of Mark.

The presumed ''glory'' of the Son of Man is shown by a negative event: the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Although Davies and Allison state that 'the likening of the eschatological end to an unexpected thief is unattested in ancient Jewish sources', a parallel is to be noted with reference to Obad. 5a: 'If thieves ... came ... to you, if plunderers by night - how you have been destroyed! - would they not steal only what they wanted?' What is of significance here is that the context is not one of eschatological consummation, but rather a very specific threat of military invasion. The book of Obadiah is predominantly composed of an oracle of doom against Edom for her cruelty, or more accurately here disregard towards Judah during the Bbaylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 588-86 BC.
...
[the prophetic description] utilizes the idea of (1) 'theves' and (2) 'night' in the context of (3) military destruction, and presented (4) as part of the divinely exectued retributive process. It is in this light, we suggest, that the Matthean parable of the 'thief in the night' (Mt. 24.42-44) is to be understood. The concluding verse (Mt. 24.44) concerning the Son of Man, 'Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour' (v. 44), coheres (1) remarkably well within this Obadian context, and (2) with the hypothesis that this figure is representative of the invading Roman army against Jerusalem. [This intepretation also resolves those problems noted by commentators ... of associating a negative figure (thief) with the Son of Man.]

(The Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24.15, Michael P. Theophilos, p. 149-151, my bold)

Therefore:

in Mark	in Matthew
the two sons of Zebedee are the two thieves crucified with Jesus	the figure himself of the Son of Man is described as a thief coming by night (to rehabilitate the Pillars)

Luke resolves the problem by replacing ''lesthes'' with ''evildoers'', obviously.

In Mark Jesus is ''another Jesus'' (one rejected by Paul) insofar he is believed in surface as the Jesus of the Pillars.

In Mark Jesus is ''another Jesus'' (one rejected by Paul) insofar he is believed in surface as the Jesus of the Pillars. I started this thread with the hypothesis that Mark invented an earthly Jesus to use him as a tool of self-condemnation for everyone who sees him (a self-condemnation culminating in the crucifixion of the same Pillars with the Son of Man in his glory).

I think that Mark says explicitly this message of self-condemnation :

And as they reclined at table and were eating, Jesus said, “Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.”

(Mark 14:18)

It is not only Judah to fulfill that prophecy, but virtually all who see ''another Jesus'':

He gave strict orders that no one should know this and said that she should be given something to eat.

(5:47)

In pauline allegorical terms, The Jairus’s Daughter is Agar opposed to the Woman with a Hemorrhage (Sarah). So Parvus:

Now it strikes me that this Markan episode easily lends itself to the kind of allegorical interpretation Paul gave to the slave and free women in Galatians. Something along the lines of: “Now this is an allegory. The dying daughter of the leader of a synagogue corresponds to the Twelves’ mission to the Jews. That mission died or nearly died (after 70 CE?). The woman who had bled for twelve years corresponds to the Gentile mission. She is portrayed as bleeding because the Twelve were insisting that Gentile converts be circumcised. Jesus’ action in saving the bleeding woman by faith prefigures Paul’s preaching of salvation by faith and his refusal to allow his Gentile converts to be circumcised. And Jesus’ raising back to life of the daughter of the synagogue leader prefigures Paul’s ultimate saving of the mission to the Jews.”

(my bold)
http://vridar.org/2016/05/05/a-simonian ... llegory-2/

Jesus commands that the daughter of the leader of a synagogue ''is given something to eat'' because in this way allegorizes the future failure of everyone ''who is eating with me'', as opposed to the salvation of who never saw Jesus on earth (the bleeding woman).

Paradoxically, all the numerous people who have eaten with Jesus, just the sinners and the tax collectors of Israel, are condemned. In short: all Israel.

While who is only satisfied with the crumbs - the SyroPhoenician Woman - (and therefore she can not be said that she ate directly at the table ''with Jesus'') will escape the self-condemnation.

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. 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):

[td][b][color=#FF0000]5)[/color][/b] a mere son of man, a simple human being.[/td]

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.

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.
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.

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!

An example of what is a VERY BAD BAD BAD WRONG WRONG WRONG interpretation of Mark's use of 'son of man':

It is possible, however, to take Mark 2:10 (''but that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sin'') as a parenthetical interpretive comment by Mark himself, and some have even suggested that this is true also of Marl 2:28 (''so the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath''). If this is true of either of these cases, it means that Mark himself chooses to especiall yhiglight this way of referring to Jesus, and what he is telling us is that Jesus has divine power and authority not only to forgive sins but also to say what is and is not appropriate behavior on the Sabbath. In other words, the expression ''Son of Man'' connotes for Mark not a mere mortal, a mere human being, but rather something christological and something divine as well.

(New Testament Theology and Ethics, Volume 2, p. 246, Ben Witherington III, my bold)

Very a bad exegesis!

Even Stephan Huller does this great error:

This 'Jewish rabbi' claim is a convenient assertion given that we want to believe that Christianity was 'firmly rooted' in the 'sure bedrock' of a historical individual - preferably one named Jesus. Instead we see in a second section of text from the latter half of the Dialogue a now familiar recycling of איש passages to identify 'Jesus' as been present in the Old Testament narratives:

Justin: But if you knew, Trypho, who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner-Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven;

(my bold)

Very a bad exegesis!

In Ezekiel, for example, the prophet is addressed as son of man 93 times, and the meaning is that of a mere mortal, a human being. Therefore, one possibility is that Mark is using Son of Man in this sense. But the problem arises when the evangelist places the expression in cosmological contexts where human being alone does not fully explain the function of the term.

(Jesus, Disciple of the Kingdom: Mark's Christology for a Community in Crisis, Osvaldo D. Vena,p. 50, my bold)

Very a bad exegesis!


They are all victims of false misconceptions!