Throughout the Gospel of Mark, we see Jesus referred to as the 'Son of God' and the 'Son of man' on numerous occasions , the former occurring a total of eight times within 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 makes such regular use of these phrases, scholars have naturally been inclined to investigate them further in an attempt to decipher the intended Christological meaning and ultimate purpose. In this essay I will attempt to support the thesis that the phrases "Son of God" and "Son of man" in the Gospel are relatively ambiguous, after considering the multiple ways in which the phrases were used before Mark, it is perhaps difficult to evaluate how much of his use of the terms was intended to be theologically significant. However, whether intentional or not, it is undeniable that the phrases are loaded with potential Christological meaning, and we can postulate numerous theories as to how the Gospel writer might have used the terms to effect. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Before embarking on an exploration of the potential theological meaning of the phrases "son of God" and "Son of man," it is perhaps worth outlining some of the ways in which scholars have observed the use of the phrases in contexts independent of the Gospel. As it seems to me rightly stated by Vermes, when tackling 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]". Interest in its use outside of the Gospel probably sheds a lot of light on its use within the Gospel. I will begin, first, by examining the historical use of the term “Son of God.” Broadhead provides an illuminating account of the historical use of the title in his Naming Jesus; he maintains that «the title of son of God has a broad and diversified background in the history of religions. It played a role in the thought of Egypt, Hellenism, and the Roman world. The term is also important in the world of Old Testament thought and within Judaism. Within this wide-ranging tradition lies the Christological use of Son of God[3]". First, it recognizes the use of the title Son of God in the ancient Near East as a title bestowed on rulers, for example Pharaohs. In a Hellenistic and Roman context, it was used in relation to a wide range of characters, none of whom would be designated a literal son of God: "rulers, mythical heroes, miracle workers, and famous historical figures[4]". The title seems to suggest some form of connection with divinity in the form of divine support or favor. Broadhead also highlights the tendency of modern scholars to see the term's use in the New Testament as influenced by the Old Testament in which "various angelic figures and members of Yahweh's council were seen as sons of God[5]"; we can observe a similar usage in Genesis 6:2, for example: 'the sons of God saw that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves from among all that they chose.' Perhaps it is also worth noting the translation difficulties encountered when attempting to understand the use of specific, isolated biblical phrases because, often, it is difficult to decipher exactly how the biblical phrase would naturally be translated. For example, the centurion's revelatory confession at 3:39 is translated as "Truly this man was a son of God" where there is the possibility that the phrase was intended to read "a son of God", a phrase perhaps more trivial considering the point made before numerous biblical figures can be called children ofGod. 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", "man") and can be used to denote "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 authority on earth to forgive sins[9]” is softened by the use of “son of man.” Simply saying "I" would perhaps have been considered "immodest[10]". Similarly, when speaking of Jesus' suffering, '...the use of a circumlocution in such a context is to be expected rather than a direct prediction of the speaker's violent death[11]'. Broadhead succinctly summarizes the common linguistic uses of the phrase in four points: first, 'as a generic term it would mean 'a human being[12]', as mentioned above, it can mean simply 'someone', it can mean 'I' and , finally, 'as a direct address it could indicate a human or more-than-human figure[13].' In a sense, this type of linguistic/historical consideration of the use of terms adds an additional dimension of difficulty to the task of interpreting their use in Mark. If these terms were standard terms commonly used in the literature of his time, to what extent can we say that Mark's specific use of them has a theological/Christological significance? Mark may not be implying anything new or important with his use of the phrases “Son of man” and “Son of God.” If “the son of man,” for example, were simply a noun phrase, then we might run the risk of imposing a Christological interpretation where none was intended. Broadhead alludes to this idea when he states that "the key question raised by this linguistic data is how generic a term is." the indefinite or deviated reference to a human being can assume the technical theological status found in subsequent writings[14]". However, even if it is ultimately impossible to provide a concrete answer to this problem, we can certainly analyze Mark considering that he used the phrases exclusively for literary purposes and without too much difficulty finding numerous Christological and theological messages contained in them. As suggested by many scholars, the phrases "Son of man" and "Son of God" are perhaps best read together; both seem to contribute to Mark's portrayal of Jesus as a whole. First, the title “Son of God” is used to establish the authority of Jesus. As previously mentioned, the title “Son of God” in itself, for a wide range of audiences, would have had connotations of a dominant figure if nothing else. Readers of Mark would be aware of his attempt to suggest that Jesus is an authority figure. This theme of authority in connection with the phrase "Son of God" is perhaps further demonstrated by the fact that it is often used in connection with a commanding action by Jesus; for example, he casts out demons in 5:7 and 3:11. Furthermore, 9.7 'indicates the authority of Jesus' teaching[15]'. The Son of God also seems to be used in a very revealing sense; is declared by God himself in a moment of revelation (9.7), the centurion experiences the sudden realization of Jesus' sonship (15.39) and Jesus forcefully reveals his identity to the High Priest with the phrase "I am" , binding Jesus entirely to the Father through the use of 'ego hemi'. The grandeur of the settings in which the phrase is usedof the Son of God perhaps underlines its importance for Mark. He also places it at the beginning of his Gospel declaring it a fundamental teaching. So far, then, we can see the declaration of Jesus as the Son of God as an important teaching that is often reinforced. With this in mind, Perrin postulated his theory that Mark is laying the groundwork, so to speak, for his 'corrective Christology[16]'. He argues that through the use of the phrase “Son of God,” Mark is establishing a “relationship[17]” with his readers, then “interprets and deliberately gives conceptual content to these titles through the use of “Son of God.” man", a designation which is not strictly a Christological title but which to all intents and purposes becomes one only when Mark uses it[18].' Perrin argues that Mark wishes to correct the views of some members of his early church community who hold a theos aner Christology at odds with his own theology of the cross. Weeden has a similar view regarding this notion of corrective Christology; argues that the debate between theos aner (Christology of the divine man) and theologia crucis raged within Mark's early church community and used his Gospel to dramatize the two sides, the disciples acting as representatives of Mark's opposition, the theos aner, and Jesus as representative of his point of view. For Perrin, the theotic side of the debate is represented by the incorrect interpretations of the titles "son of God" and "Christ", Mark places the phrase "Son of man" exclusively on the lips of Jesus to underline the correctness of this phrase. Christology. I'm not sure about this notion of corrective Christology; although it seems like a reasonable interpretation of Mark's text and Perrin provides evidence, it is still quite speculative. However, I think 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 as the Christ[ 19]") is a sound interpretation and provides a reading of the Gospel in which clarity is achieved. In light of this interpretation, the "Son of Man" is very significant from a theological point of view since it reveals the type of Christ Jesus. This takes into account the evident duality contained in Mark's representation of the Son of Man; he is depicted as an authority figure in 2:10 and 2:28, for example, but connected to great suffering: "the son of man must suffer great suffering and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes." , and be killed[20]...' The phrase 'son of man' seems to be used frequently in relation to the death of Jesus: 'the son of man will be delivered into the hands of the chief priests and the scribes, and they will will condemn to death[21]", "the son of man will be 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 of the suffering Messiah could potentially attempt to appeal to Mark's ecclesial community; under the weight of constant persecution, they would probably be able to identify with Jesus' suffering and relate his struggle, in a sense, to their own. This suffering discipleship is what Mark would most likely want to encourage. Jesus' suffering humanizes him and allows him to become more relatable than if he were simply depicted as a divine ruler. Some have also noted the importance of Jesus' suffering for the fulfillment of the Scriptures; as Hooker argues: 'the necessity of his sufferings might best be understood in terms of the fulfillment of the Old Testament scriptures; only the future, the 7