P. Derek Overfield PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

There certainly is evidence to connect Ps 109:1
with the Son of Man title, as in Mk 14:62 for example,
where obviously the title owes its being to the
presence of Dan 7:13.
But the situation is not as
clear as it is sometimes assumed to be.
There are
in all just six passages in early Christian literature
which connect Ps 109:1 with the Son of Man title:
Mk 14:62 = Mt 26:64 = Lk 22:69; Acts 7:56; Barn 12:10f;
and in Hegesippus as recorded by Eusebius EH 2:23,13. 168
We can immediately omit Barn 12:10£; here Ps 109:1
is reckoned as Biblical basis for the Son of God title
and, furthermore, it is unlikely even that the Son of
Man phrase is here intended to be understood in titular
fashion;
if this is indeed so then we must assume
that the title is used in a manner quite opposite to
th - at 0 f · - 1 169
~he gospe s. The text in Eusebius certainly
elllphasises the title but the section seems to have
been based or even modelled on both Mt 26:64 and
Acts 7. 170
Lk 22:69 does not follow Mk 14:62 in
citing the text of Dan 7:13 but does of course retain
the Son of Man title.
The citation from Daniel has
no place in Luke's understanding of the glorification
of Jesus as beginning from the resurrection. 171
According to N. Perrin 172 Acts 7:56 (and Mk 14:62)
represents the remnant of a christian exegetical
tradition in which the original interpretation of
the resurrection in terms of Ps 109:1 was expounded
-81-