When they saw the Son of Man coming in the clouds

25 thoughts on “When they saw the Son of Man coming in the clouds”

1. Well, it could mean what the traditional interpretation takes it to mean – the parousia at the end time when Christ will come with his avenging angels and met out justice on earth. I am not persuaded by the interpretations of Caird or N T Wright. I think Edward Adams makes a good case for the traditional interpretation in his recent book “The stars will fall from heaven”.

   Reply

2. You wrote:
   “Let’s imagine the same author did not call Peter “Satan” because he got his timing wrong over exactly when Jesus would act apocalyptically as in returning with angelic hosts and burning up the old physical world before inaugurating a new cosmic order, but because he was opposed to the very idea root and branch, totally, absolutely. Mark’s Jesus did not tell Peter, “Yes yes, you are right, I will come as a conquering hero, but not just yet — I have to make atonement for sins first, THEN I can do the world-conquering thing, you Satan you!”

   I think you actually got it a bit wrong about why Jesus calls Peter Satan in Mark 8:33. It has nothing to do with Peter getting things wrong about the apocalypse. The context in Mark make it perfectly clear that Jesus is unhappy about Peter´s belief that the messiah is ONLY a powerful miracleworker who will restore Israel. According to Jesus (or actually Mark who is propagating early christian theology here) Peter only got it half right – the Messiah must also suffer, die and resurrect.

   PS. I am glad I happened to find out about your blog today. I am a fellow sceptic from Sweden. But I am not impressed by the arguments by people like Doherty and Verena that Jesus never existed.

   Reply

3. I could also add that I thought you made a great job demolishing Richard Bauckham and his “Jesus and the eyewitnesses”. That they have managed to put it up as compulsory reading here at the religion course at the University of Goteborg just show the rotten standards the confessionals at the theology department think they must feed the students. Bauckham, N T Wright, Ben Witherington – pseudohistorians that make my blood boil.

   Reply

4. Just a quick response to your comment about Bauckham’s book – – – What I find the most astonishing is that so many fundamental logical errors and a complete disregard (even contempt) for historical norms (implying they are some sort of wayward post-enlightenment degeneration of true scholarship) can be found so popular even among scholars. It’s a bit like watching a new fad for astrology or something.

   I was recently in Berlin and was reminded of the time when scholars (not only in Germany) embraced all sorts of race-theory nonsense.

   My recent post on what Josephus might have said about the gospels was mainly intended to be a response to “Bauckhamism” which sees ancient historians as somehow validating the historicity of the gospels.

   Will respond to other comments later.

   Reply

5. Hi Antonio,

   You wrote:

   I think you actually got it a bit wrong about why Jesus calls Peter Satan in Mark 8:33. It has nothing to do with Peter getting things wrong about the apocalypse. The context in Mark make it perfectly clear that Jesus is unhappy about Peter´s belief that the messiah is ONLY a powerful miracleworker who will restore Israel. According to Jesus (or actually Mark who is propagating early christian theology here) Peter only got it half right – the Messiah must also suffer, die and resurrect.

   Is this really so? Maybe, but I’m having doubts. To call Peter Satan because he is only half-right would seem a bit of an over-reaction to me. Elsewhere in the gospel he is depicted as blind and uncomprehending after his fine start. He finishes up denying his Lord, thus facing the condemnation of the Son of Man denying him at his return.

   The messiah’s glory is the cross. The Israel to be restored is the spiritual Israel — through the glory of the cross. Peter failed to spiritually discern the meaning of the miracles. He saw only the physical manifestation, and this was part and parcel of the “physical” messiah who is expected to be seen literally restoring physical Israel. Peter is off the planet, so to speak. Mark’s message is really found in the metaphorical meaning of the miracles. Failing to discern the miracles of the loaves was failing to discern the spiritual meaning. All of the miracles are parables.

   I am suspecting that Peter was Satan because of his total failure to discern Christ, and to see only the physical. If so, it is not so much the problem of getting something only half right, but of “missing the mark” altogether.

   The half-right Peter is, perhaps, a legacy interpretation from the assumption that Mark’s disciples are only redeemed after the resurrection — off-stage. I think they are not redeemed at all (is Satan only half-right and redeemable?). They are ciphers, written in the same tradition of Jewish scripture/Primary history — they are the models of the Israel that started well but failed in the end — the motif that is repeated throughout the Hebrew Bible — as a lesson for the current “new Israel”, the audience.

   I have not read Edward Adams’ “Stars will fall from heaven”, but ouch!, it is very expensive. Do you know of any discussions/reviews of it online?

   I have not had time to catch up with details of Verenna’s ideas yet. (You mean Thomas Verenna?) I actually do like the core of Doherty’s argument. There are areas where I disagree but they relate more to explanations for how the concept of Jesus and the central christian myth arose. But that’s another topic.

   Reply

6. Neil,
   I think you are missing something in Mark´s carefully constructed structure in the gospel. Peter´s confession of Jesus as Messiah is actually the place that divides the two thematical halfes of the gospel. Before 8:29 Mark is presenting Jesus as the powerful miracleworker sent from God. No mention of Jesus suffering and death (except for an allusion in 2:20). It is based on what he has seen of Jesus as miracleworker that Peter confesses him as the Messiah. Jesus does not contradict Peter´s confession but tells him and the other disciples not to tell others about it. Then Jesus goes on to tell his disciples that the Messiah as the Son of Man must ALSO suffer, die and and be resurrected. It is this part of Jesus teaching that Peter rejects (and here Peter stands as a symbol for all Jews and pagans who had problems with the concept of a crucified Messiah). Which is why Jesus rebukes him as Satan because Peter thinks like a human without knowing God´s larger plan, which is to redeem humankind through Jesus death and resurrection.
   When you claim that Mark sees the Messiah´s glory as the cross I think you do the mistake of reading Mark through the lens of John´s gospel. Mark actually has a rather dark view of Jesus death at the cross. Not much glory there. For Mark the true glory is shown at the resurrection and when Jesus returns at the end time (13:24).
   Neither do I quite agree with you that all miracles in GMark are parables. I don´t see much that is parabolic or metaphorical in a miracle scene like the one in Mark 2:1-12. I think Mark meant it to be taken as a pretty straightforward account of one of Jesus many powerful deeds as God´s Messiah. I also agree with scholars like Maurice Casey and James Crossley (actually fellow naturalists like you and me) who see a historic kernel behind stories like the healing of the paralytic. Casey has shown that there is a aramaic substratum behind many of the stories and sayings, and not the least that some of controversies between Jesus and the pharisees in GMark make good sense in a Galilean environment in the 30ies AD and not in the 2nd century when the according to many Jesus mythers the gospels were written. And the blessed bishop NT Wrong is absolutely right when he accuses Jesus mythers like Thomas Thompson of parallellomania.
   You can actually read a recent review of Edward Adams here:
   http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleID=6312

   Adams shows that the apocalyptic worldview of Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and other early christians fit well with similar ideas in contemporary Judaism and its pagan environment.

   Reply

7. Neil,
   you are absolutely right that the kind of scholarship that people like Bauckham (and NT Wright, Witherington and an endless list of exegetes) represent has much in common with pseudosciences like astrology and creationism. I actually made that anology on Loren Rosson´s blog a few days ago.
   I also think a confessional I responded to on another blog is representative of the kind of nonsensical approach people like Bauckham take to history. The confessional wrote:
   “The only problem with the ‘methods of historical study’ is that they are dependent on current philosophical preconceptions – they are subject to changing fashions.”
   And I responded:
   “Maybe the methods some historians use are dependent on “current philosophical preconceptions” but I very much doubt that a good historian does that. It is hardly because of philosophical speculations that an overwhelming majority of modern historians dismiss the miraculous. It is based on observation of the real world out there. It´s not like we haven´t taken a deep look at supposedly miraculous phenomena like glossalia and demonpossession. The closer you look at it the less there is to it…”

   Reply

8. Mark has his Jesus calling Peter Satan because Mark is using Paul as a model for his Gospel. Paul’s dislike of Peter and the Jerusalem church is part of the reason Mark has his Jesus despise Peter at times, while other times making him look foolish. I’m actually writing an article on this for a collection of essays due out next year. Mark certainly appears to have copies of Paul’s letters, or perhaps another collection of letters or poems about Pauline theology that he was using. (Most likely it was Paul’s letters)

   Reply

9. Mark has his Jesus calling Peter Satan because Mark is using Paul as a model for his Gospel. Paul’s dislike of Peter and the Jerusalem church is part of the reason Mark has his Jesus despise Peter at times, while other times making him look foolish. I’m actually writing an article on this for a collection of essays due out next year. Mark certainly appears to have copies of Paul’s letters, or perhaps another collection of letters or poems about Pauline theology that he was using. (Most likely it was Paul’s letters)

   Antonio seems to make his way around the blogsphere doing little else then complain about mythicists. While his complaints may be annoying, I wish he would actually make an argument or present a position. This seems to be the way which detractors of modern mythicists work. First they complain about the arguments, they make up words like “parallelmania” without actually being knowledgeable of how ancient authors authored (If antonio would like to debate this issue, I would be more than willing to take him to task on his ignorance in this regard). Then they attack the scholars or historians who hold the opinion (labeling them as pseudoscientists like McGrath does). Yet, when all is said and done, they have ignored every attempt at clarity, have not adequately presented a case against the ahistoricity arguments, and have only seemed to accomplish making themselves look bitter and arrogant, close-minded and petty.

   I have a gathered list of some 50+ questions that Hambydammit and myself have asked of these historical Jesus proponents which have not only gone unanswered, but need to be answered in order for their positions to make sense. I can understand why these questions have been ignored – when you start with an assumption (i.e. that Jesus existed), it is easy to build a whole case around this assumption. You can even make this stack of cards look like a strong, well-built wall. But the wall is not made of stone, its made of assumptions. And they come tumbling down when examined critically. Anybody disagree? Does anybody want to take the time to answer these questions? Or shall we just hear more complaints?

   Reply

10. Good that Tom Verenna and me can at last agree about something. Yes, Mark is probably a paulinist gospel. But that doesn´t take away the fact that Jesus rebuke of Peter is most propably about his refusal to see that the Messiah must suffer and die. The context make that pretty obvious. And in the scene with Peter´s confession Mark is just using Peter as a foil to indicate a kind of christology that Jesus´ disciples may have had before the death of their leader, a christology they had abandoned after the crucifixion and supposed resurrection. There is nothing to indicate that Paul or Peter had any quarells about the fact that Jesus was crucified according to God´s plan.
    And Tom is most welcome to go on talking to the air. I won´t let myself get dragged into a meaningless discussion abouth wheather Jesus existed or not. Tom will have to find himself other sparring partners on that subject.

    Reply

11. The fact that you consider it meaningless is astonishing. You don’t think his existence, either for or against, could have implications historically on the foundations and origins of Christianity? Are you really going to pretend that this is irrelevant? I think your ignorance is damning if you believe Jesus’ existence is irrelevant and unreasonable to discuss.

    Reply

12. There is nothing to indicate that Paul or Peter had any quarells about the fact that Jesus was crucified according to God´s plan.

    No, your absolutely right. But you’re wrong if you think this holds true for where how and by whom Jesus was crucified, and what exactly God’s plan was to them. Paul clearly did not place Jesus’ crucifixion on earth at the hands of the Romans or the Jews. It was at the hands of the heaven;y archon’s of the aions. It is unknown to us what Peter’s perspective on Jesus actually was since nothing from Peter’s own hands survive. What exactly the dispute between Peter and Paul were cannot be said with any authority and those who wish to pretend they know are deluding themselves.

    But it is clear Paul was unaware of an earthly ministry. I find it interesting that at times best suited to cite Jesus as a source of a saying to quell the discontent among the churches, Paul doesn’t He cites scripture in its place. How very quaint. Paul’s understanding of Christianity–what Paul converted into–is something I have labored hard to determine. I do not like it when people swoop in and make baseless assumptions one Pauline understanding when it is clearly not evident.

    Reply

13. Oh, and one more thing…if you want me to “find another sparring partner” perhaps you should stop bringing up my name. Clearly your grasp of my position is inadequate; stop pretending you know it well enough to be able to represent it to others and I won’t have to keep correcting you.

    Reply

14. Tom,
    your position is just a variation of the hodgepodge that people like Wells, Doherty and Thompson have already presented. That is why I don´t see much use in getting embroiled in a discussion like that.

    peace

    Reply

15. It’s complaints like that will make you look foolish. You can complain all you want, but you look weak when you fail to present an argument.

    Reply

16. I am still in the middle of moving my home and job to a new country and still have not yet had opportunities to read in depth most of the above conversation (was working in Australia Friday last week and started new job in Singapore the following Monday while simultaneously home-hunting!) — but a few interim comments from what I skimmed:

    Antonio, thanks for your comments. There is another way of viewing the 2 halves of Mark’s gospel, and the import of the miracle section. The miracles are not in isolation, but within the context of the “kingdom being at hand”. But you raise other points re the darkness of the cross in Mark, and the “also suffers” element, that I would like to take more time to address in a future post, maybe.

    Secondly, you said that N.T. Wright was absolutely spot on with his claim that TLT is a victim of parallelomania, while appearing to strongly endorse Adam’s argument for reading Mark within the matrix of Stoic and Jewish apocalypticism. I have not read Adams, but did skim the linked review, and it appears that Adams’ case draws heavily on Hebrews, 2 Peter, Revelation, (and avoids Daniel 2) and Stoic and Jewish apocalyptic literature.

    Question: in what way does Adams argument differ in method from T.L.Thompson’s? If TLT is guilty of parallelomania for apparently “seeing parallels” between literatures, on what basis is Mark to be seen, rather, within the context of Stoic and Jewish apocalyptic — if not by “parallels”?

    In what sense are Hebrews, 2 Peter and Revelation relevant, if not by “parallels”?

    Where does “parallelomania” end and “literary matrix/influence” begin?

    Third: Another point re parabolic meaning of miracles. The bookend allusions between the miracle of Mark 2:1-12 and the Passion scenes are legion, as I have discussed elsewhere. There is a very strong case for metaphorical intent here. But will have to discuss more fully when opportunity arrives.

    4. Re Crossley’s arguments on the first century Galilean context of some of Mark’s exchanges, he’s on my “to do a review list” for this blog. But that won’t be done tomorrow. In the meantime there are two online reviewers who fail to be convinced by Crossley’s arguments for the early dating of Mark:

    http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4577_4671.pdf
    http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4577_4907.pdf

    Cheers,
    Neil

    Reply

17. Antonio, can you direct me to N.T. Wright’s parallelomania judgment re Thompson, pls?

    Do you find it ironical that others lay the same charge against Albrightians?

    Thirty years ago there was general agreement in the field of biblical studies, then dominated by the towering figure of W. F. Albright, but with a host of other luminaries, now all deceased, in accord: Theodor Gaster, H. L. Ginsberg, Harry Orlinsky, G. R. Driver, Roland de Vaux, Otto Eissfeldt, Benjamin Mazar, Yigael Yadin, and others. Of that generation of giants, the only one still alive today is my own teacher, Cyrus Gordon . . . .

    True, this group later would come under attack by what their detractors would term “parallelomania,” and true some of these great scholars often went too far in making connections between the Bible and the ancient world. From Rendsburg.

    But I’m particularly interested to learn how Wright distinguishes between parallelomania and genuine literary influences.

    Reply

18. Antonio wrote:

    But that doesn´t take away the fact that Jesus rebuke of Peter is most probably about his refusal to see that the Messiah must suffer and die. The context make that pretty obvious.

    My comment:

    This interpretation has to omit the significance of Mark’s Jesus castigating Peter’s views as culpably “human”. The interpretation of the context needs to give this comment of Mark’s Jesus due significance to be valid. The reason Peter’s “christology” is wrong is because it is a “human” interpretation — it is a mindset “of the things of men”. This is what the context of the passage explains through the words of Jesus. And this point is reinforced elsewhere in the gospel (e.g. “how long must I endure this generation . . .”) It is this “human” factor that Mark interprets as Satanic or opposed by nature to the things of God. And that is what puts the gospel within the literary tradition of the theology underpinning the Jewish scriptures. Hence Thompson’s case. I would go a step further and argue that Mark presents the literal interpretation of both Jesus (his miracles and words) and the Jewish scriptures as “human” — and this includes the literal view of the “christology”. Mark is subverting the human and the obvious by the “spiritual” or allegorical (parabolic??) at every level.

    And in the scene with Peter´s confession Mark is just using Peter as a foil to indicate a kind of christology that Jesus´ disciples may have had before the death of their leader, a christology they had abandoned after the crucifixion and supposed resurrection.

    This is entirely speculative, completely beyond the text of the gospel we are reading. I suspect it relies on drawing “parallels(!)” with other texts that will need to be argued as related on other grounds entirely.

    There is nothing to indicate that Paul or Peter had any quarells about the fact that Jesus was crucified according to God´s plan.

    Agreed. Nor is there anything to indicate that the disciples somehow changed their beliefs about Jesus, and in what direction, after the story closes.

    And Tom is most welcome to go on talking to the air. I won´t let myself get dragged into a meaningless discussion abouth wheather Jesus existed or not. Tom will have to find himself other sparring partners on that subject.

    I wish you would have stayed to cite the passage and location where I could have read Wright’s critique of Thomas Thompson’s “parallelomania”, and to have explained the difference between “parallelomania” and comparing the (um, parallels with) the texts of 1 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation, etc etc to those in Mark.

    Cheers,
    Neil

    Reply

19. Neil,
    sorry for being a bit late in answering, but I happened to be away on a holiday to Turkey and finally got home again.
    1. Did I say N.T Wright complained about Thomas Thompson´s “parallelomania”? If so I was actually talking about his alter ego N.T Wrong. I read it on his blog a while ago. And to give you a friendly advice from one naturalist to another: I think both of us can learn more on biblical matters from bishop Wrong than from Tom Verenna and other Jesus mythers.

    2. I still advise you to read Adams book. It helps clarify the contexts of the cosmology of the NT writers.

    3. Regarding Crossley and Casey. It is worth reading their books too. I do not agree with Crossley´s early dating of Mark´s gospel but that still doesn´t invalidate the conclusions of Crossley and Casey that the gospels contain genuine historical traditions that appear to go back to the early 30ies AD.

    4. Again. The context of Jesus saying in Mark 8:33 make it clear that Jesus is referring to his teaching that he must suffer, die and resurrect and Peter´s denial of this. You really have to read things out of context to conclude that Jesus calls satan because he has not understood the spiritual meaning of Jesus parabolic talk troughout the gospel. And Jesus is taking Peter to task for seeing things through human eyes when he thinks the Messiah has not come to this world to suffer, die and resurrect. From a divine viewpoint (which Jesus sees) God has willed it so that his Messiah must suffer, die and resurrect. Implicit in Mark´s gospel (more clearly spellt out in GMatthew and Luke) is the idea that after the resurrection and the arrival of the holy Spirit to guide the disciples it will be clear that God had laid out his plan all along through the prophets (Servant verses in Isaiah etc) in the OT. After the arival of the Spirit the blind eyes of the disciples will finally be opened and they will see things like the Servant verses in Isaiah in a new light.
    That is my take on things…

    Reply

20. Istanbul, Turkey, Turks (one in particular) are some of my most favourite places/people so your delay is forgiven.

    1. I love Bishop Wrong’s wit, and often find him enlightening. But I also have to note that once or twice I have found myself having to inform him of my disagreement with an argument or point of his (under his other name on another site), however much I enjoy the wit of his original case. I would probably find myself in disagreement with a claim that TLT is a parallelomaniac. I had read much of Thompson’s work prior to his Messiah Myth, and concede that often TLT can be his own worse enemy with a style that takes too much for granted in his readers. I have found TLT to be the most trenchant of critics re the sham “methodologies” of so much of biblical scholarship, and his studies of Mid East literature is not so much a series of parallels but an analysis of cultural themes and motifs informing the cultures and their local variations and adaptations. Long before his Messiah Myth TLT’s challenge to traditionalists that “messiah” was a formal term applied to royals has never been answered, as far as I am aware. And his distinction between the literary/ideological and the historical/biographical is too rarely addressed.

    As for the “Jesus Mythers” epithet, the term leaves me cold. I don’t understand it or it’s point. I am not the least interested in arguing that Jesus was a myth. I don’t see the point of such an argument, if that is what “mythers” are supposed to be doing. What interests me is understanding and learning about the origins of Christianity — and a quick survey of books I have discussed here would show probably not more than one author who holds a mythical Jesus position. I do believe that the evidence best points to the emergence of Jesus as a theological evolution from Second Temple times, and I do not apologize for agreeing with many of Doherty’s arguments. (I think Doherty has too often been unfairly misunderstood and misrepresented, by the way. Though Doherty himself knows I do not agree with some significant parts of his argument.)

    My sources for understanding early Christianity will continue to be wide and varied, with an emphasis on the recent and not so recent scholarship from a number of areas.

    2. I have read much of ancient cosmology, and have no doubts that I will read much more, probably Adams, too. But I wonder if you are assuming I reject the significance of this cosmology for early Christian literature on the basis of what I have said in specifics about Mark. Of course Stoic and other apocalyptic cosmologies etc informed much of the early Christian lit, but Mark raises some unusual questions, and we should not take a default position either way with him in this question. Your comment here is about the impact of cosmology on NT writers. I have never argued against the obvious.

    3. Early traditions do not of course establish historicity. And the term “tradition” is itself laden with presuppositions of a certain model that should be questioned. Besides, some of those “early” “traditions” (rather, debates) were very much alive, perhaps even with more evidence to back this up, in the second century than the first, as so often taken for granted.

    4. This is clearly a discussion that requires its own space. Again, as with the cosmology misunderstanding, I think you are reading too much into what I have said. I certainly do not dismiss the centrality of Jesus’ suffering and death etc, but the matrix within which Mark addresses this is stripped away completely in later gospels to give it a quite different gloss. But this is best seen by interpreting Mark through the literature that has preceded him (bring in TLT again, if you will), not that which has come after (GMatthew, GLuke). Have been looking forward to discussing this in more depth sometime soonish, I hope.

    Reply

21. Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

    Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

    Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

    Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

    Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

    Reply

22. Satana’� of Aramaic origin corresponding to (4566) (with the definite affix)
    Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
    Satanas 7:151,1007
    Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
    sat-an-as’ Noun Masculine

    Definition
    1.adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act), the name given to
    a.the prince of evil spirits, the inveterate adversary of God and Christ
    1.he incites apostasy from God and to sin
    2.circumventing men by his wiles
    3.the worshippers of idols are said to be under his control
    4.by his demons he is able to take possession of men and inflict them with diseases
    5.by God’s assistance he is overcome
    6.on Christ’s return from heaven he will be bound with chains for a thousand years, but when the thousand years are finished he will walk the earth in yet greater power, but shortly after will be given over to eternal punishment
    b.a Satan-like man

    Reply

23. You should know that Tom Verenna is a known plagiarist and liar. Read about it here: http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com

    Reply
24. Pingback: Who Will See “The Kingdom of God Coming with Power” in Mark 9:1? – Vridar
25. Pingback: More Ambiguities in the Gospel of Mark – and How to Account for Them – Vridar

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.