Throughout the Gospel of Mark we see Jesus repeatedly called "Son of God" and "Son of man", the former appearing a total of eight times in the text, and the latter, being "the most frequent of the Christological images in the Gospel of Mark[1]", a total of fourteen times. Because the author of Mark made such regular use of these expressions, scholars were naturally inclined to delve deeper into them in an attempt to decipher their Christological meaning and ultimate purpose. In this essay, I will seek to support the argument that the expressions "Son of God" and "Son of man" in the Gospel are relatively ambiguous, after examining the multiple ways in which these expressions were used before Mark. It is difficult to assess the extent to which his use of these terms was intended to have theological significance. However, whether intentional or not, there is no denying that these expressions are loaded with potential Christological significance and we can postulate many theories as to how the Gospel author may have used these terms to achieve a effect. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Before embarking on an exploration of the potential theological significance of the phrases "son of God" and "Son of man," it is perhaps worth highlighting some of the ways in which scholars have observed that the expressions were used in contexts independent of the Gospel. As Vermes rightly states, I think, when engaging in the analysis of a phrase, "the preliminary step, as always in this field, must be a careful analysis of its use outside the Gospels[2]”. Looking at its use outside the Gospel undoubtedly sheds some light on its use within the Gospel. I will first begin by examining the historical usage of the term “Son of God.” Broadhead provides an illuminating account of the historical use of the title in his work Naming Jesus; he argues that “the title son of God has a vast and diverse history in the history of religions.” It played a role in Egyptian thought, in Hellenism and in the Roman world. The term is also important in the Old Testament thought world and in Judaism. The Christological use of the Son of God is part of this vast tradition[3].' First, it recognizes the use of the title Son of God in the ancient Near East as a title given to rulers, pharaohs, for example. In a Hellenistic and Roman context, it was used in relation to a wide range of figures, none of whom would be referred to as the literal sons of God: "rulers, mythical heroes, miracle workers, and famous historical figures.[4] ]”. The title seems to have suggested some form of connection with divinity in the form of divine support or favor. Broadhead also points out the tendency in modern scholarship to view the New Testament use of the term as influenced by the Old Testament in which "various angelic figures and members of Yahweh's council were considered sons of God.[5] » ; we can observe such usage in Genesis 6:2, for example: “the sons of God saw that they were beautiful; and they took wives from among all those whom they chose. It is perhaps also worth noting the translation difficulties encountered when trying to understand the use of specific, isolated biblical phrases because often it is difficult to decipher exactly what the biblical phrase would be.naturally translated. For example, the centurion's revelatory confession at 3:39 p.m. is translated as "Verily this man was the son of God", where it is possible that the phrase was intended to read "a son of God", an expression perhaps be more banal given the point raised. Earlier, many biblical figures can be described as sons of God. A similar analysis can be made regarding the phrase “Son of man.” According to Vermes, the phrase is widely accepted among scholars as being of Aramaic origin[6] is often used as a noun ("a man", "the man") and can be used to refer to "someone" indefinitely[7]. Others have also noted that the term "son of man" could perhaps have been used as an "equivocal circumlocution[8]", which would not have been out of place in Aramaic literature. Vermes noted that we might expect this kind of circumlocution in the context of many of Jesus' direct statements; a statement such as "the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins[9]" is softened by the use of "Son of man". Simply saying “I” might have been considered “immodest.”[10] Similarly, when speaking of Jesus' suffering, "...the use of circumlocution is to be expected in such a context rather than a direct prediction of the speaker's violent death[ 11]”. Broadhead concisely summarizes the common linguistic uses of the phrase in four points: first, "as a generic term it would mean 'a human being,'" as previously mentioned it can simply mean 'someone ', it can mean 'I' and, finally, 'as a direct address, it could denote a human figure or someone who is more than human' In a sense, this type of linguistic/historical consideration of[13]. usage of the terms adds an additional dimension of difficulty to the task of interpreting their usage in Mark If these terms were standard terms commonly used in the literature of his time, to what extent can we say that the usage. specific that Mark actually has theological/christological significance? Perhaps Mark is not implying anything new or important by using the expressions "Son of man" and "Son of God". 'man', for example, was simply a noun phrase, so we could potentially run the risk of imposing a Christological interpretation where none is intended. Broadhead alludes to this idea when he states that "the key question raised by these linguistic data is how a term can be generic." an indefinite or indirect reference to a human being can take on the technical theological status found in later writings.[14] However, although it is ultimately impossible to provide a concrete answer to this question, we can certainly analyze Mark by considering that he used these phrases solely for literary purposes and find there without too much difficulty many Christological and theological. As many scholars have suggested, it is perhaps best to read the phrases "Son of Man" and "Son of God" in tandem; both seem to contribute to Mark's portrayal of Jesus as a whole. First, the title “Son of God” is used to establish Jesus’ authority. As mentioned above, the title "Son of God" itself, for a wide range of audiences, would have had at least connotations of a ruling figure. Readers of Mark would be aware of his attempt to suggest that Jesus is an authoritative figure. This theme of authority in relation to the phrase "Son of God" is perhaps further demonstrated by the fact that itis frequently used in connection with an imposing action of Jesus; for example, he casts out demons in 5:7 and 3:11. Furthermore, 9:7 “emphasizes the authority of Jesus’ teaching.”[15] The Son of God also seems to be used in a very revealing sense; this is declared by God Himself in a moment of revelation (9:7), the centurion experiences the sudden realization of Jesus' parentage (15:39), and Jesus powerfully reveals his identity to the High Priest with the phrase “I am,” connecting Jesus entirely to the father through the use of “ego emi.” The grandeur of the contexts in which the phrase Son of God is used perhaps underscores its importance to Mark. He also places it at the very beginning of his Gospel, declaring it a fundamental teaching. Thus far, we can view Jesus' declaration as the Son of God as an important teaching that is frequently reinforced. It is in this spirit that Perrin postulated his theory according to which Mark lays the foundations, so to speak, of his 'Corrective Christology[16]'. He argues that by using the phrase “Son of God,” Mark establishes a “relationship[17]” with his readers, he then “deliberately interprets and gives conceptual content to these titles through the use of “Son of the 'Man', a designation which is not strictly speaking a Christological title but which for all practical purposes becomes one as Mark uses it[18].' Perrin argues that Mark wishes to correct the views of some members of his early church community who maintain a theos aner christology as opposed to his own theology of the cross. Weeden has a similar view regarding this notion of corrective Christology; he argues that the debate between theos aner (christology of the divine man) and theologia crucis raged within Mark's own church community and he used his Gospel to dramatize both sides, with the disciples acting as representatives of the opposition of Mark, the theos aner, and Jesus as the representative of his own point of view. For Perrin, the other theoretical side of the debate is represented by the misinterpretations of the titles "son of God" and "Christ". Mark places the phrase “Son of man” only on Jesus’ lips to emphasize the accuracy of this statement. Christology. I'm not sure about this notion of corrective Christology; although this seems to be a reasonable interpretation of Mark's text and Perrin provides evidence for it, it remains rather speculative. However, I think that Perrin's idea of ​​the title Son of Man acting as an elaboration of the revelation of the Son of God ("Mark uses the Son of Man to correct and give content to a Christological confession of Jesus like Christ[19]") is a sound interpretation and provides a reading of the Gospel that brings clarity. In light of this interpretation, the “Son of Man” is very theologically significant because it reveals the gender of Christ Jesus. This allows for the obvious duality encompassed in Mark's depiction of the Son of Man; he is depicted as both an authoritative figure in 2:10 and 2:28, for example, but associated with great suffering - "the son of man must suffer great suffering and be rejected by the elders, the the chief priests and the scribes.” , and be killed[20]...' The expression 'son of man' seems to be frequently used in connection with the death of Jesus: 'the son of man will be delivered up to the chief priests and to the scribes, and they will condemn him to death[21]', 'the son of man is delivered into the hands of sinners[22]'. He comes “not to be served but to serve[23]” but, in a crucial juxtaposition, he will be “seated at the right hand of power[24]”. This notion. 7