They were all writing theology. The Synoptics have a common perspective, whereas John wrote a complementary 'spiritual gospel' which sets aside the chronological narrative and the parables and offers a reader - response presentation of Christ's encounters. `These are written so that you may believe' (John 20: 31).
Yes, but John was writing theology even more than the others,* especially with regard to the conversations attributed to Jesus (see the long Supper discourse and prayer), and this is as much as admitted in John 14:25-26 and 15:26-27 and 16:13-14. <snip>
(My emphasis) There’s no ‘but’ about it. The verses you quote affirm that more is to come from the Holy Spirit, but that is not the same as suggesting that the reported words of Jesus don’t substantially represent what he actually said.
No, BroJames, the flesh and blood Jesus never said all those words that the author of John quotes him as saying at, for example, the Last Supper. No one was sitting there writing all that down, and no one would possibly have remembered all that. The synoptics, especially Mark and Matthew, are based much more simply and genuinely memory.
It is far better to understand that for the most part (not always!) John intended his reported words of Jesus to convey what Jesus actually means -- his theological significance as inspirationally understood by the gospel's author many years after the crucifixion.
I came to this thread, which had gone entirely inactive after July 7, because I wanted us to deal here with the following: I have frequently expressed my opinion that the Gethsemane scene in Mark is historical, and indicates that Jesus expected to die a death willed by God, and that he was probably influenced by Isaiah 53 in thinking that, for in Isaiah 53 it is said that it was Yahweh's will or even pleasure that the servant should undergo punishment/chastisement for the sake of many, bearing their sin(s) and being wounded so that they might be healed.
I have been asked why I am so convinced that Isaiah 53 stands behind much of Jesus' thinking or is connected to his struggle in Gethsemane.
I now want to deal with that, and would appreciate help from everyone, including especially @Barnabas62 in doing it.
They were all writing theology. The Synoptics have a common perspective, whereas John wrote a complementary 'spiritual gospel' which sets aside the chronological narrative and the parables and offers a reader - response presentation of Christ's encounters. `These are written so that you may believe' (John 20: 31).
Yes, but John was writing theology even more than the others,* especially with regard to the conversations attributed to Jesus (see the long Supper discourse and prayer), and this is as much as admitted in John 14:25-26 and 15:26-27 and 16:13-14. <snip>
(My emphasis) There’s no ‘but’ about it. The verses you quote affirm that more is to come from the Holy Spirit, but that is not the same as suggesting that the reported words of Jesus don’t substantially represent what he actually said.
No, BroJames, the flesh and blood Jesus never said all those words that the author of John quotes him as saying at, for example, the Last Supper. No one was sitting there writing all that down, and no one would possibly have remembered all that. <snip>
In a strictly literalistic sense I agree with what you say in your first sentence - not least because Jesus was probably not speaking in Greek.
I also agree with the first part of your second sentence.
I half agree that no one would have remembered ‘all that’ (although there’s little enough in all honesty). But I think it’s highly likely that the eleven talked over more than once what Jesus had said that last evening and that some of the things Jesus said that evening were, or were similar to, things he had said more than once before. There are probably other factors too, but I don’t think it at all improbable that we have the substance of what Jesus said sufficiently accurately within our literary conventions to be reported as indirect speech.
But before we start on this historical quest concerning Jesus and Isaiah 53, I will grant Martin a point:
There is nothing much more misleading than the phase "the historical Jesus." One must immediately ask,whosehistorical Jesus. Marcus Borg's? Joachim Jeremias' ? Rudolph Bultman's? Albert Schweitzer's? Herman Samuel Reimarus'? Dale C. Allison's? Stephen Patterson's? John Dominic Crossan's? etc., etc. etc.
Every good historical Jesus scholar attempts to posit a historical understanding of Jesus based on the strictest methods of historical research, but the results all differ to varying degrees. But there are also wide confluences of agreement.
Two instances:
Many, perhaps most such scholars, are convinced by their research that Jesus was into apocalyptic eschatological thinking. Others think not.
I side with the former.
Many, indeed most* such scholars, are convinced by their research that Jesus did not expect he would have to die and saw no kind of redemptive significance in having to die.
I disagree.
So tomorrow we shall go looking.
__________
*This applies primarily to those historical Jesus scholars recognized as genuinely competent by the better universites, seminaries, and scholarly guilds.
@BroJames
I appreciate the tone and argument of your last post, but notice this:
Compare the Sermon on the Mount with almost any passages attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John. How often does Jesus in John talk the way he does in the synoptics? How often is he telling us how to live in anticipation of the coming Kingdom? Is not John's Jesus mostly focused more specifically on an already spiritually available relationship with him, and having faith in him? In short, is not the theology of John's Jesus pretty much exclusively Johannine?
I think it is much more important that two phrases that Jesus used repeatedly and in unusual ways are "The Kingdom of God" and "the Son of Man," neither are found significantly or word for word in the Hebrew scriptures but there is a long section of Daniel, chapters 2-7, that is actually in Aramaic and I think Jesus as a very young boy could read that passage with special ease (it was in his Mother tongue!) and was deeply influenced, especially by chapter 2 which contains the only place I know of in ancient scripture where God establishes a kingdom that destroys all others and fills all the earth and will last forever, and chapter 7 where a "one like a son of man" comes with clouds of heaven to be served by all nations and peoples of all languages.
Lawks, what a sentence. Anyway, how on earth would a very young boy get access to a rare and precious artifact such as a scroll of the prophets? There weren't scroll shops on every corner hawking the things. The only people likely to have them are the nascent Rabbi class, and the priestly class.
As a young boy Jesus would have learned His faith from His parents. The Magnificat is a reflection on OT scripture, especially the Prayer of Hannah. Of course, this Canticle may be Luke's theological reflection on his birth narratives.
I'd agree that the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man are distinctive phrases used by the historical Jesus. And the Parables of the Kingdom represent His original theology. If you read a red letter Bible which highlights the words of Jesus that can bring you closer to the oral tradition. However, some conversations such as John's dialogue between Pilate and Jesus are probably more influenced by the gospel writers theology.
A claim is being made that an historical quest is being made. If by historical quest it is meant a quest known from history, many of which are bizarre, shrouded in error, confusion, tragedy and farce, then yes. Astronomy, alchemy, atomic physics are prime examples. Like the quest for an historical Jesus (who apparently historistically used distinctive phrases) to somehow validate faith, which fails as history and faith although may yield useful truths by accident as alchemy did.
@Martin54 your apology is noted, but this is formal notice that you've used up our seventy times seven™ levels of indulgence of your recent bad behaviour. If you repeat offend, you can expect extended shore leave without further notice.
Wander Martin54,
Wander in your randomness.
Make your words obscure before my face.
For it you Martin54 only,
That maketh me dwell in mystification on this thread.
Lawks, what a sentence. Anyway, how on earth would a very young boy get access to a rare and precious artifact such as a scroll of the prophets? There weren't scroll shops on every corner hawking the things. The only people likely to have them are the nascent Rabbi class, and the priestly class.
I suppose @mousethief somehow knows that there was no Scroll of Daniel* in the Nazareth synagogue where the young Yeshu was educated, studied, and worshiped. [Apparently there was a Scroll of Isaiah there (Luke 4:16-17)].
________
*Which, by the way, Josephus says was a very popular book in those times.
@Rublev
I am going to have to break away for a week or more, but I want to come back to THIS thread eventually ask you to help me try to do this, and make it interesting:
Audaciously and creatively explore what may have caused the historical Jesus to think that Isaiah 53 pointed him in the direction of a redeeming death.
Lawks, what a sentence. Anyway, how on earth would a very young boy get access to a rare and precious artifact such as a scroll of the prophets? There weren't scroll shops on every corner hawking the things. The only people likely to have them are the nascent Rabbi class, and the priestly class.
I suppose @mousethief somehow knows that there was no Scroll of Daniel* in the Nazareth synagogue where the young Yeshu was educated, studied, and worshiped. [Apparently there was a Scroll of Isaiah there (Luke 4:16-17)].
________
*Which, by the way, Josephus says was a very popular book in those times.
Could we do without the nasty abusive tone? Thanks.
I'm happy to discuss Is 53 in the NT, but I'm not yet convinced that it was the self understanding of the historical Jesus.
It is the Ethiopian eunuch who asks the key question about the identity of the suffering servant - was it the prophet Isaiah or someone else? (Acts 8: 32-33; Is 53: 7-8).
John seems to be connecting the theology of this text to Jesus in his gospel ('lamb of God' (1: 29); trial before Pilate, crucifixion): 'He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth' (Is 53: 7-8).
Luke portrays Jesus quoting Is 53: 12 prior to His arrest (Luke 22: 37).
But Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man rather than the Suffering Servant. I think Isaiah 53 is a retrospective understanding in the gospels of the passion and crucifixion of Jesus, and the explicit exposition of it occurs in Acts 8.
There may be an allusion being made in Mark's theology of the cross: 'The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many' (Mark 10: 45). But I think that is Mark's theological understanding of Jesus as the Messiah.
@mousthief
First, my remark regarding Martin is meant very sincerely. He really should try to avoid what he has been doing, as a Host and an administrator have pointed out and for which he himself apologized.
Lawks, what a sentence. Anyway, how on earth would a very young boy get access to a rare and precious artifact such as a scroll of the prophets? There weren't scroll shops on every corner hawking the things. The only people likely to have them are the nascent Rabbi class, and the priestly class.
I think my reply was fitting. But if you wish further to defend your thesis, go ahead.
I think the Words of Institution are the way in which Jesus is reinterpreting the theological meaning of the Passover meal and applying it to Himself (Mark 14: 22-24).
Is your point that the Last Supper is not a retrospective understanding by Mark? But Jesus knew the danger of coming to Jerusalem. He could have been arrested at any time during the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the Temple or even just for teaching in the Temple (Mark 11: 1-33). The apostles Peter and John were arrested almost immediately (Acts 4: 3). The only thing that stopped the authorities was that 'they feared the people' (Mark 12: 12).
@Bishops Finger
Because if they had said the Baptizer was not a prophet authorized by God, that would have been a very unpopular thing to say at the time.
I think the Words of Institution are the way in which Jesus is reinterpreting the theological meaning of the Passover meal and applying it to Himself (Mark 14: 22-24).
Is your point that the Last Supper is not a retrospective understanding by Mark? But Jesus knew the danger of coming to Jerusalem. He could have been arrested at any time during the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the Temple or even just for teaching in the Temple (Mark 11: 1-33). The apostles Peter and John were arrested almost immediately (Acts 4: 3). The only thing that stopped the authorities was that 'they feared the people' (Mark 12: 12).
But why would Jesus specifically give the twelve bread and cup as his body and blood?
Does that not imply as a redemptive sacrifice?
And if he himself did not say,
"The Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"
mustn't we assume that he also did he not say
"This is my blood of the covenant poured out for many"?
Sacrifice? ransom? blood? covenant*?
The Lord's Supper is the only place in all the gospels
where Jesus speaks the word "covenant."
In Isaiah 53 the servant dies as "an offering for sin."
Now I come to think of it the crowds play quite an important role in the gospels. They protect Jesus from arrest during key moments in His ministry such as the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the Temple and teaching in the Temple. Jesus points this out to those who come to arrest Him quietly at night (Mark 14: 49). And it is the crowd who finally seal the fate of Jesus by shouting, 'Crucify' to Pilate (Mark 15: 13-16).
Rublev: There may be an allusion being made in Mark's theology of the cross: 'The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many' (Mark 10: 45).
I think you need to unpack at least a couple of ideas in the above quotation:
A. What do you understand by Son of Man.
B. What is the ransom to which you refer. To whom is it paid? And what is it paid for?
and then: How does this relate to Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah and/or Messiah?
Now I really must break away for a week.
I very much look forward to more intriguing discussion.
Oh, and my "feared the people" answer was in relation to Mark 11:32 and the Baptizer.
Mark 12:12 makes it clear that they also feared the people too much to try to condemn Jesus for telling the Parable of the Wicked Tenants against them.
I think 'Son of Man' is Jesus identifying Himself with the OT prophetic tradition - as John the Baptist does with 'the Voice crying aloud in the wilderness.' It is an ambiguous term, but it is the first clue to his Messianic identity for those who have 'eyes to see and ears to hear.'
The term appears in both Ezekiel and Daniel, but it is used in different ways. In Ezekiel 'Son of Man' means 'I' or 'human' and is used in reference to the prophet (Ez 2: 1; 3: 1; 3: 16 etc). So that is a perfectly neutral term.
But in Daniel 7: 13-14 it is used as a reference to the Messiah. The clouds of heaven are a reference to the presence of God. And when Jesus quotes the full text to the high priest it leads to Him being condemned for blasphemy and ultimately to his death (Mark 14: 61-64).
So this is why Jesus does not quote it at the start of His ministry. He depends upon His identity being spiritually revealed to His listeners by His words and actions. He says to Peter that his Confession of Him as Christ was revealed to him by God (Matt 16: 17).
@Rublev
Here is a gentle critique of what you just said about the Son of Man.
I agree that Jesus' use of "the Son of Man" hinges mostly on Daniel 7:13-14, and that he himself must have regarded it as messianic, whether it was so meant in Daniel or not: The Scroll of Daniel never mentions "messiah" and uses "the one like a son of man" phrase to refer to the people of God who appear after all the horrible beasts representing wicked empires have emerged from a sea and been destroyed. Then "one like a son of man" (representing "the people of the Most High" --Dan. 7:18,22,27) comes with clouds of heaven to receive from God everlasting dominion, power, kingdom, etc. (Dan. 7:14).
That the term was connected with the Messiah in many minds is true, and I think Jesus paradoxically connected it messianically along with the suffering servant passages of Isaiah. (Both the "one like a son of man" and the Isaian servant are ultimately exalted to the heights, but first the Son of Man paradoxically has "no place to lay his head," is severely reviled as "a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of sinners" deserving death by stoning (Deut. 21:20-21), and will ultimately "give his life as a ransom for many.")
When Jesus is taken before the High Priest He is challenged to say whether He is the Messiah, the Son of God. And Jesus answers by quoting the words of Daniel 7: 13-14 and claiming them for Himself. The reaction of the chief priest is to tear his robes, accuse Jesus of blasphemy and condemn Him to death (Mark 14: 61-64; Matt 26: 62-66; Luke 22: 66-71).
So it is clear that this text was a recognised Messianic prophecy at the time of Jesus.
Maybe an "offering for sin"
or "guilt offering"
or "sacrifice to bring forgiveness"
or "restitution offering"
or "sacrifice for our wrongdoings"
or "offering for atonement"
or "soul offering for atonement/sin"
or "life laid down for sin"
(all translations of Isaiah 53:10);
or "payment" -- as in Paul's "you were bought with a price" as in 1 Corinthians 6:20
or atoning sacrifice as in Romans 3:25;
or sacrificial offering as in Mark 13:24 /Matthew 26:28
or a deep, deep mystery as is in 2 Corinthians 5:21
or... or... or...
@Rublev
You said, "So it is clear that this text was a recognised Messianic prophecy at the time of Jesus."
_____________
Not necessarily. See what follows.
You also asked, "Would these have triggered an incendiary reaction from the high priest?"
_____________
The answer to both:
The high priest's reaction was not due to Jesus' combined use of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14, but due to the fact that these were part of his direct reply to the high priest's question,
"Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?"
It was Jesus' unambiguous* "I am" that caused the high priest to cry out blasphemy and tear his garments and call for Jesus' condemnation.
_________
*and the answer was unambiguous, regardless of whether Jesus said, "I am",
as the best attested textual evidence of Mark has his answer,
or said, "You say I am"
as less attested texts of Mark have his answer,
or said, "You have said so,"
as the text of Matthew has his answer,
or said, 'You say that I am"
as the text of Luke has his answer.
___________
In all the synoptics, the only thing that Jesus could have said that would have made it difficult for the high priest to call for his condemnation would have been,
"No, I am not the Messiah, and you have no witnesses who can say that I ever said I was."
(Instead, he made the "good confession" that he later also made before Pilate (1 Timothy 6:12-13).
Comments
No, BroJames, the flesh and blood Jesus never said all those words that the author of John quotes him as saying at, for example, the Last Supper. No one was sitting there writing all that down, and no one would possibly have remembered all that. The synoptics, especially Mark and Matthew, are based much more simply and genuinely memory.
It is far better to understand that for the most part (not always!) John intended his reported words of Jesus to convey what Jesus actually means -- his theological significance as inspirationally understood by the gospel's author many years after the crucifixion.
Even Clement could see and understand that.
"Director's" hat on.
Please allow me not to set us in another direction
I have been asked why I am so convinced that Isaiah 53 stands behind much of Jesus' thinking or is connected to his struggle in Gethsemane.
I now want to deal with that, and would appreciate help from everyone, including especially @Barnabas62 in doing it.
More to come.
What caused the historical Jesus to think that Isaiah 53 pointed him in the direction of a redeeming death? Or is that not historical?
"Your opinion as to it being history isn't worth spit. It is not. That is a matter of fact."
Now, now Martin. That's not nice. Calm down. We shall see if it's worth more than spit.
More to come.
I also agree with the first part of your second sentence.
I half agree that no one would have remembered ‘all that’ (although there’s little enough in all honesty). But I think it’s highly likely that the eleven talked over more than once what Jesus had said that last evening and that some of the things Jesus said that evening were, or were similar to, things he had said more than once before. There are probably other factors too, but I don’t think it at all improbable that we have the substance of what Jesus said sufficiently accurately within our literary conventions to be reported as indirect speech.
We shan't. More what?
There is nothing much more misleading than the phase "the historical Jesus." One must immediately ask, whose historical Jesus. Marcus Borg's? Joachim Jeremias' ? Rudolph Bultman's? Albert Schweitzer's? Herman Samuel Reimarus'? Dale C. Allison's? Stephen Patterson's? John Dominic Crossan's? etc., etc. etc.
Every good historical Jesus scholar attempts to posit a historical understanding of Jesus based on the strictest methods of historical research, but the results all differ to varying degrees. But there are also wide confluences of agreement.
Two instances:
Many, perhaps most such scholars, are convinced by their research that Jesus was into apocalyptic eschatological thinking. Others think not.
I side with the former.
Many, indeed most* such scholars, are convinced by their research that Jesus did not expect he would have to die and saw no kind of redemptive significance in having to die.
I disagree.
So tomorrow we shall go looking.
__________
*This applies primarily to those historical Jesus scholars recognized as genuinely competent by the better universites, seminaries, and scholarly guilds.
I appreciate the tone and argument of your last post, but notice this:
Compare the Sermon on the Mount with almost any passages attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John. How often does Jesus in John talk the way he does in the synoptics? How often is he telling us how to live in anticipation of the coming Kingdom? Is not John's Jesus mostly focused more specifically on an already spiritually available relationship with him, and having faith in him? In short, is not the theology of John's Jesus pretty much exclusively Johannine?
That's strange. I'm on one.
See y'all tomorrow.
You are doing it again. It's your job to actively not be a jerk. You know better.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Lawks, what a sentence. Anyway, how on earth would a very young boy get access to a rare and precious artifact such as a scroll of the prophets? There weren't scroll shops on every corner hawking the things. The only people likely to have them are the nascent Rabbi class, and the priestly class.
I'd agree that the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man are distinctive phrases used by the historical Jesus. And the Parables of the Kingdom represent His original theology. If you read a red letter Bible which highlights the words of Jesus that can bring you closer to the oral tradition. However, some conversations such as John's dialogue between Pilate and Jesus are probably more influenced by the gospel writers theology.
A claim is being made that an historical quest is being made. If by historical quest it is meant a quest known from history, many of which are bizarre, shrouded in error, confusion, tragedy and farce, then yes. Astronomy, alchemy, atomic physics are prime examples. Like the quest for an historical Jesus (who apparently historistically used distinctive phrases) to somehow validate faith, which fails as history and faith although may yield useful truths by accident as alchemy did.
@Martin54 your apology is noted, but this is formal notice that you've used up our seventy times seven™ levels of indulgence of your recent bad behaviour. If you repeat offend, you can expect extended shore leave without further notice.
/admin mode
Wander in your randomness.
Make your words obscure before my face.
For it you Martin54 only,
That maketh me dwell in mystification on this thread.
I would prefer that Martin try harder to be more simple and basic and direct and less obscure in his comments.
I suppose @mousethief somehow knows that there was no Scroll of Daniel* in the Nazareth synagogue where the young Yeshu was educated, studied, and worshiped. [Apparently there was a Scroll of Isaiah there (Luke 4:16-17)].
________
*Which, by the way, Josephus says was a very popular book in those times.
I am going to have to break away for a week or more, but I want to come back to THIS thread eventually ask you to help me try to do this, and make it interesting:
Audaciously and creatively explore what may have caused the historical Jesus to think that Isaiah 53 pointed him in the direction of a redeeming death.
Could we do without the nasty abusive tone? Thanks.
I'm happy to discuss Is 53 in the NT, but I'm not yet convinced that it was the self understanding of the historical Jesus.
It is the Ethiopian eunuch who asks the key question about the identity of the suffering servant - was it the prophet Isaiah or someone else? (Acts 8: 32-33; Is 53: 7-8).
John seems to be connecting the theology of this text to Jesus in his gospel ('lamb of God' (1: 29); trial before Pilate, crucifixion): 'He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth' (Is 53: 7-8).
Luke portrays Jesus quoting Is 53: 12 prior to His arrest (Luke 22: 37).
But Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man rather than the Suffering Servant. I think Isaiah 53 is a retrospective understanding in the gospels of the passion and crucifixion of Jesus, and the explicit exposition of it occurs in Acts 8.
There may be an allusion being made in Mark's theology of the cross: 'The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many' (Mark 10: 45). But I think that is Mark's theological understanding of Jesus as the Messiah.
First, my remark regarding Martin is meant very sincerely. He really should try to avoid what he has been doing, as a Host and an administrator have pointed out and for which he himself apologized.
Second, look at what you yourself said:
I think my reply was fitting. But if you wish further to defend your thesis, go ahead.
So do you think Mark also invented 14:22-24 to undergird his theological understanding of Jesus as the Messiah?
Is your point that the Last Supper is not a retrospective understanding by Mark? But Jesus knew the danger of coming to Jerusalem. He could have been arrested at any time during the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the Temple or even just for teaching in the Temple (Mark 11: 1-33). The apostles Peter and John were arrested almost immediately (Acts 4: 3). The only thing that stopped the authorities was that 'they feared the people' (Mark 12: 12).
What do you think is meant by that? IOW, why did they 'fear the people'?
Because if they had said the Baptizer was not a prophet authorized by God, that would have been a very unpopular thing to say at the time.
But why would Jesus specifically give the twelve bread and cup as his body and blood?
Does that not imply as a redemptive sacrifice?
And if he himself did not say,
"The Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"
mustn't we assume that he also did he not say
"This is my blood of the covenant poured out for many"?
Sacrifice? ransom? blood? covenant*?
The Lord's Supper is the only place in all the gospels
where Jesus speaks the word "covenant."
In Isaiah 53 the servant dies as "an offering for sin."
What, if any, are the connections?
Isaiah 42:6.
I think you need to unpack at least a couple of ideas in the above quotation:
A. What do you understand by Son of Man.
B. What is the ransom to which you refer. To whom is it paid? And what is it paid for?
and then: How does this relate to Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah and/or Messiah?
I very much look forward to more intriguing discussion.
Oh, and my "feared the people" answer was in relation to Mark 11:32 and the Baptizer.
Mark 12:12 makes it clear that they also feared the people too much to try to condemn Jesus for telling the Parable of the Wicked Tenants against them.
Still, enjoy your break. We await your return, with bated breath!
I think 'Son of Man' is Jesus identifying Himself with the OT prophetic tradition - as John the Baptist does with 'the Voice crying aloud in the wilderness.' It is an ambiguous term, but it is the first clue to his Messianic identity for those who have 'eyes to see and ears to hear.'
The term appears in both Ezekiel and Daniel, but it is used in different ways. In Ezekiel 'Son of Man' means 'I' or 'human' and is used in reference to the prophet (Ez 2: 1; 3: 1; 3: 16 etc). So that is a perfectly neutral term.
But in Daniel 7: 13-14 it is used as a reference to the Messiah. The clouds of heaven are a reference to the presence of God. And when Jesus quotes the full text to the high priest it leads to Him being condemned for blasphemy and ultimately to his death (Mark 14: 61-64).
So this is why Jesus does not quote it at the start of His ministry. He depends upon His identity being spiritually revealed to His listeners by His words and actions. He says to Peter that his Confession of Him as Christ was revealed to him by God (Matt 16: 17).
* What a wonderful compliment for both of us!
** Don't turn blue in the face; you might receive mouth to mouth.
Here is a gentle critique of what you just said about the Son of Man.
I agree that Jesus' use of "the Son of Man" hinges mostly on Daniel 7:13-14, and that he himself must have regarded it as messianic, whether it was so meant in Daniel or not: The Scroll of Daniel never mentions "messiah" and uses "the one like a son of man" phrase to refer to the people of God who appear after all the horrible beasts representing wicked empires have emerged from a sea and been destroyed. Then "one like a son of man" (representing "the people of the Most High" --Dan. 7:18,22,27) comes with clouds of heaven to receive from God everlasting dominion, power, kingdom, etc. (Dan. 7:14).
That the term was connected with the Messiah in many minds is true, and I think Jesus paradoxically connected it messianically along with the suffering servant passages of Isaiah. (Both the "one like a son of man" and the Isaian servant are ultimately exalted to the heights, but first the Son of Man paradoxically has "no place to lay his head," is severely reviled as "a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of sinners" deserving death by stoning (Deut. 21:20-21), and will ultimately "give his life as a ransom for many.")
Meaning?
When Jesus is taken before the High Priest He is challenged to say whether He is the Messiah, the Son of God. And Jesus answers by quoting the words of Daniel 7: 13-14 and claiming them for Himself. The reaction of the chief priest is to tear his robes, accuse Jesus of blasphemy and condemn Him to death (Mark 14: 61-64; Matt 26: 62-66; Luke 22: 66-71).
So it is clear that this text was a recognised Messianic prophecy at the time of Jesus.
or "guilt offering"
or "sacrifice to bring forgiveness"
or "restitution offering"
or "sacrifice for our wrongdoings"
or "offering for atonement"
or "soul offering for atonement/sin"
or "life laid down for sin"
(all translations of Isaiah 53:10);
or "payment" -- as in Paul's "you were bought with a price" as in 1 Corinthians 6:20
or atoning sacrifice as in Romans 3:25;
or sacrificial offering as in Mark 13:24 /Matthew 26:28
or a deep, deep mystery as is in 2 Corinthians 5:21
or... or... or...
@Rublev
You said, "So it is clear that this text was a recognised Messianic prophecy at the time of Jesus."
_____________
Not necessarily. See what follows.
You also asked, "Would these have triggered an incendiary reaction from the high priest?"
_____________
The answer to both:
The high priest's reaction was not due to Jesus' combined use of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14, but due to the fact that these were part of his direct reply to the high priest's question,
"Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?"
It was Jesus' unambiguous* "I am" that caused the high priest to cry out blasphemy and tear his garments and call for Jesus' condemnation.
_________
*and the answer was unambiguous, regardless of whether Jesus said, "I am",
as the best attested textual evidence of Mark has his answer,
or said, "You say I am"
as less attested texts of Mark have his answer,
or said, "You have said so,"
as the text of Matthew has his answer,
or said, 'You say that I am"
as the text of Luke has his answer.
___________
In all the synoptics, the only thing that Jesus could have said that would have made it difficult for the high priest to call for his condemnation would have been,
"No, I am not the Messiah, and you have no witnesses who can say that I ever said I was."
(Instead, he made the "good confession" that he later also made before Pilate (1 Timothy 6:12-13).