Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

c. The Major Options
THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING §16.3
The possibility of different roots for the son of man usage of the Jesus tradition
and the interweaving of the various issues have inevitably given rise to a variety
of interpretations of the confusing data. 116
(1) One line of interpretation goes like this. The philological root is the primary
source of Jesus' own usage: Jesus did speak of himself as the 'son of man',
equivalent to 'a man like me', 'one'. The influence of Dan. 7.13 is secondary: it
entered the Jesus tradition after Easter. The clearest evidence of this is Mark
14.62, where Dan. 7.13 has been amalgamated with Ps. 110.1, since the latter
was one of the primary proof-texts in early Christian apologetic. 117 As the first
Christians scoured the Scriptures to make sense (in terms of their own sacred
writings) of what had happened to Jesus, they lighted on Ps. 110.1; and subsequently
Dan. 7.13 was drawn in. In so doing they gave bar ' e nasa a titular sense
('the Son of Man'); and in due course this resulted in the non-titular usage ('the
son of man') being transformed likewise into a title.
This view was overwhelmed during the first two-thirds of the twentieth
century by the influence of Weiss and Schweitzer. Only with the restatement of
Vermes has it regained prominence, 118 winning substantial support among
English-speaking scholars. 119 It is also the view strongly promoted within the Jesus
Seminar, including Borg and Crossan. 120
(2) A second line of interpretation goes like this. The eschatological root is
primary. Jesus was dependent on already current apocalyptic reflections on Dan.
7.13, in which the 'one like a son of man' was already understood as a heavenly
figure. Jesus referred to this figure in expressing his confidence that God would
vindicate his mission and his words — 'the Son of Man' as a heavenly A. N.
116. For a similar analysis and much fuller documentation see Burkett, Son of Man Debate
43-56.
117. Influential has been N. Perrin, 'Mark 14.62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher
Tradition?', NTS 12 (1965-66) 150-55, reprinted with a postscript in A Modern Pilgrimage in
New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 1-22; also Rediscovering 175-81.
118. Vermes, Jesus the Jew ch. 7.
119. Apart from Casey and Lindars, already documented, note particularly R. Leivestad,
'Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man', NTS 18 (1971-72) 243-67; D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis:
Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1988) 151-70; Hare, Son of Man (though see above, n. 89). In German scholarship note
particularly H. Bietenhard, ' "Der Menschensohn" — ho huios ton anthröpou. Sprachliche und
religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Begriff der synoptischen Evangelien',
ANRWH..25A (1982) 265-350 (here 266-313).
120. Borg, Conflict 221-27; also Jesus 51-53, 84-86; Crossan, Historical Jesus 238-59;
Funk, Five Gospels 4; but Funk is confusing: 'an oblique reference to himself; 'undoubtedly
referred to any human being' (Funk, Honest 91, 210).
734