as the teacher and master but as one who models true discipleship. He is a disciple of God, whose primary mission is to embody the values of God’s kingdom to such an extent that suffering and even death will constitute the distinguishing mark of his discipleship. Jesus’ disciples are therefore not those who preserve his teachings only, but also those who are challenged to imitate him even to the point of sharing in his own destiny of suffering and death (Mark 10:38–39). This is hardly what was expected of the disciple of a philosopher. Therefore, Mark utilizes the cultural wrapping of the concept disciple, but reappropriates it by placing it at the service of a higher vision, the soon-to-arrive kingdom of God.
Fourth, Mark is a contemporary of Josephus who, as we said above, referred to the Jewish sects of his time, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots, as philosophical schools. This way of referring to the followers of a given teacher may have become customary in Jewish-Hellenistic circles, for Mark also talks about the disciples of John the Baptist (2:18; 6:29) and the Pharisees (2:18). Therefore, Mark adopts this way of referring to the followers of a prominent leader/teacher, but when it comes to Jesus he modifies it, for Jesus’ disciples are not to be compared to the disciples of other teachers. What they do is even shocking for their contemporaries’ views of discipleship (Mark 2:18–22; 23–28).
Therefore, I propose that Mark is qualifying the Hellenistic idea of discipleship and master-disciple relationship by using Jesus as the supreme example. Unlike the disciples of the philosophers, Jesus’ disciples are not to transmit their teacher’s ideas but rather to commit themselves to the person of Jesus, as he is committed to the God of Israel. They are to obey Jesus to the point of leaving everything and following him, just as Jesus left his home in Galilee to follow the vision initially given him by John the Baptist. They are to suffer as a consequence of their witnessing, as John the Baptist did and as Jesus will. In that sense, discipleship becomes very similar to the work of the prophet, that of denouncing the powers that be in the name of the God of Israel, or, as in the case of the disciples, with the gospel message. In this, Jesus is an example too. The main task of the disciples is to witness to what God is doing in the world through Jesus’ work. As they witness, they are invited to participate in Jesus’ work as co-disciples, following the one who fulfills this role ideally. I believe Mark is intentionally constructing this model because his community was experiencing a time when such a model was either weakening or non-existent.
The Occurrences of the Term “Son of Man” in the NT
In chapter 4 of the present work, I explore in depth Mark’s unique appropriation of the term “Son of Man.” Nevertheless, I believe it is important at this point to attempt to explain its usage in the NT. Even so, our investigation will be brief, given the massive amount of work already done on the subject.86 Scholars still continue to debate the meaning of the expression “Son of Man,” but it is not my intention, nor is this the place, to discuss the intricacies of such debate. I will limit myself to mention the most common ways of explaining the term and opt for one of them as my working hypothesis.
The expression “Son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) occurs almost exclusively in the Synoptic Gospels and John,87 and is practically missing in the rest of the NT. It occurs twice in Revelation (1:13; 14:14), once in Hebrews 2:6, and once in Acts 7:56. In each one of these last four instances, there is an inter-textual connection with either the Hebrew Bible or the Synoptic Gospels, which shows the secondary nature of its use. Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 allude to Daniel 7:13, Hebrews 2:6 is part of a quotation from Psalm 8, and Acts 7:56 refers back to Luke 22:69. Strangely enough, Paul never uses the expression “Son of Man,” although he makes a reference to the παρουσία of Jesus Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 in ways that point unmistakably to Daniel 7:13.88
In terms of chronology, we can be fairly certain that all of these non-Synoptic occurrences come from after 70 CE and, therefore, are later than Mark. I suggest that the chronological order would first be Mark, followed by Matthew, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation. Of course, Mathew and Luke use the logia source Q and therefore some of their Son of Man sayings have to be traced back to that source rather than Mark.89 But at least with the evidence that we have in the NT, it is important to notice that Mark seems to be the first author who introduces the expression “Son of Man” and who puts it on Jesus’ lips. He also introduces the word “disciple,” as we said above, but unlike “Son of Man,” this word is never found on Jesus’ lips. These two expressions are innovative ways of talking about both Jesus and the believers, different at least from the way Paul refers to them. In and of itself, this makes Mark a very creative Christologist.
The fact that the Son of Man sayings appear in other independent sources such as Q, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of the Hebrews90 seems to suggest that this tradition was pretty strong. We have three independent witnesses to the use of this expression in the Jesus tradition. Because of this evidence, many scholars agree that the historical Jesus probably used this expression himself. Now, which of the sayings ought to be traced back to Jesus, and which to the early church, is still a matter of contention. We will not attempt to solve this conundrum here, but rather, take all of the sayings as they appear in the Gospel of Mark and try to make sense out of them as part of the evangelist’s story. That is to say that, in Mark’s story world, Jesus is the Son of Man. Why was it necessary for Mark to stress this aspect of Jesus? Why wasn’t Paul interested in it? Why is this tradition relegated almost exclusively to the Gospels? What does it tell us about the Christology of the evangelists as opposed to that of other NT writers such as Paul, for example? These are some of the questions this book seeks to address.
The fact that the expression “Son of Man” is limited to the Gospels and their sources and to a few other instances in the NT (see above), but is completely missing in Paul’s letters, bespeaks of the Christological diversity of the early church. By that I mean the different and creative ways by which the followers of Jesus of Nazareth tried to explain to themselves and to the world the impact this person had on their communities. In order to do so, they deploy a number of expressions, some of which became later “Christological titles,” for example, Son of God, Son of Man, Lord, etc., whose function was originally descriptive. Relying on the traditions available to them but also on their ethnic and cultural background (Greek, Aramaic, Jewish), these communities appropriated the Jesus traditions so as to suit their need for identity and survival in a world of confusion, dislocation, and death.
But even among the gospel writers, there is Christological diversity. If we assume the Markan priority theory as one way of assessing this diversity, especially when it comes to a particular tradition such as the Son of Man tradition, we must list those passages that parallel Mark and notice any editorial changes made by Matthew and Luke. And we must do the same with those passages that do not parallel Mark, those that come from their common source Q or from their particular materials, and notice how they modify—or not—Mark’s picture.
Uses of Son of Man in Mark and in Parallels
1. The earthly Son of Man.
Mark’s depiction of the Son of Man as one who is to suffer, die, and rise finds an appropriate correlation in Matthew and Luke’s account, which also refer this image to the historical Jesus. The pertinent passages are:
• Mark 8:31 (Luke 9:22)
• Mark 9:9 (Matt 17:9)
• Mark 9:12 (Matt 17:12)
• Mark 9:31 (Matt 17:22; Luke 9:44)
• Mark 10:33 (Matt 20:18; Luke 18:31)
• Mark 10:45 (Matt 20:28)
• Mark 14:21 (Matt 26:24; Luke 22:22)
• Mark 14:41 (Matt 26:45)
In all of these instances, Matthew and Luke follow Mark not only when the
