The institutionalization of Jesus ' charismatic authority : " Son of Man " as case studyl

This article argues that Jesus used the expression "son of 11Uln" not in a titular way, but generically, meaning "hu11Ulnkind". This use l!f "son of 11Uln" developed into a titular usage in which Jesus is identified with "Son of Man". The study shows that Jesus' use of the expression "son of11Uln" should be understood in the context of the "little tradition" which was reinterpreted in terms of the "great tradition" in a titular way. It is argued that this transitionfrom "little tradition" to "great tradition" can be seen as "false attribution". After Jesus' thath whe" his followers reorganized themselves into a cubic community, they gave Jesus the position "founder of the cult". They did this by making use of honorary titles. The use of the title "Son of Man" for Jesus is interpreted in terms of the social theory of the institutionalization of charismatic authority. The focus is on the title "Son of Man" as it appears in legal sayings or church rules, wisdom sayings and prophetic and apocalyptic sayings. 1. ''SON OF MAN" THE INDEFINITE GENERIC FORM AND THE DEFINITE TITULAR FORM The interests of post-Easter "Christianity" clearly played a role in the transmission of the Jesus tradition from its oral to its written form. Ernst Kiisemann (1960:162-185) took it as point of departure for his article, "Die Anflinge christlicher Theologie". Kiisemann (1960: 180, 182, 184) articulates this point of departure as follows: I This article is based on the doctoral dissertation "Insitutionalization of authority and titles used for Jesus". This dissertation. with Prof Dr A G van Aarde as supervisor, was submitted and accepted as part of the requirements of the PhD degree (2000), Faculty of Theology. University of Pretoria.


''SON OF MAN" -THE INDEFINITE GENERIC FORM AND THE DEFINITE TITULAR FORM
The interests of post-Easter "Christianity" clearly played a role in the transmission of the Jesus tradition from its oral to its written form.Ernst Kiisemann (1960:162-185) took it as point of departure for his article, "Die Anflinge christlicher Theologie".Kiisemann (1960: 180, 182, 184) articulates this point of departure as follows: Rudolf Bultmann's ([1921Bultmann's ([ ] 1931:117, 129, 163) :117, 129, 163) rather challenging point of view on the use of the title Son of Man is that Jesus used the title Son of Man referring prophetically to someone who was still to come and not to himself.The followers of Jesus, however, identified this Son of Man figure with Jesus.Norman Perrin (1965Perrin ( -1966:105-155;:105-155;1966:17-28), Philip Vielhauer (1975:124-147) and J Dominic Crossan (1991:238-255) argue that Jesus never used "son of man" as a title.However, according to Crossan Jesus did refer to the figure "son of man" mentioned in Daniel 7:11-14, but not as a self-reference.In this passage the expression is not used as a title.Later Jesus' followers also made use of Daniel 7:11-14, but understood "son of man" as a title and identified Jesus with this fig.ure.According to Crossan, the use of the title Kyrios as a reference to a coming "apocalyptic judge" (cf Cullmann [1955] 1958:153; Duling & Perrin P974] 1994:223) by Hellenistic-Judean followers of Jesus facilitated the identification of Jesus Messiah with Jesus, Son of Man.It is Vielhauer's (1975:124-147) opinion that the earliest Jesus faction in Jerusalem used the title Son of Man to describe Jesus on account of their experience of Easter.Perrin's point of view is similar to that of Vielhauer.He also sees the use of the title Son of Man as an attempt by Jesus followers to make sense of the death of Jesus.By identifying Jesus with the Son of Man the Jesus followers expressed their faith that Jesus was vindicated by his victory over death.Hans Conzelmann's (1969:135-136) evaluation of the evidence shows a somewhat different nuance.He is of the opinion that Jesus did not refer to the figure "son of man" at all.
According to Conzelmann, scholars who state that he did (e g Sanders 1985Sanders , 1993;;Boring 1982;Higgins 1980), incorrectly identify Jesus' sayings of the Kingdom of God Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services YolandaDn,er with sayings on the Son of Man in the gospel tradition.The concept "Kingdom of God" and the title Son of Man refer to two entirely different matters.
Bultmann' perspective on Jesus as apocalyptic prophet forms the background of his opinion that Jesus did refer to a "son of man" figure.J D Crossan (1983) in his work on the parables and Leif Vaage (1994) in his work on the Q tradition both concluded, however, that Jesus was not an apocalyptic figure.The Jesus Seminar (see Miller 2000: 1-18;Schmidt 2000:19-38), building on this work, confirmed their results and demonstrated that Jesus' perspective on the Kingdom of God was that of a present reality and not as a future entity.They illustrated the socio-cultural and socio-political consequences of Jesus' view on the Kingdom of God as a present reality over against a type of kingdom that is represented and embodied by an emperor.
This study follows the work of Adela Collins (1996: 139-158) in her contention that Jesus used the expression "son of man" not in a titular way but generically, meaning "humankind".Collins clearly indicates how this use of "son of man" developed into a titular usage in which Jesus is identified with Son of Man.Collins has not, however, conceded that Jesus conceptualized from an apocalyptic perspective.This study shows that Jesus' use of the expression "son of man" should be understood in the context of the "little tradition" which was reinterpreted in terms of the "great tradition" in a titular way.
The study argues that this transition from "little tradition" to "great tradition" (Fiensy 1991:2;1999:8 note 16;Redfield 1956:68-84;Scott 1977:16-20) can be seen as false attribution, which can be understood against the background of the dispossession of land and the breaking up of the extendedfamily.The disruption of land and family meant that the lives of peasants were severely affected.The sayings and deeds of Jesus as the "founder" of the "Christian cult" should be understood in the context of peasant culture.
Jesus' sayings and deeds have their oral history within the "little tradition".After Jesus' death when his followers reorganized themselves into a cultic community, they gave Jesus the position of "founder of the cult".This they did by making use of honorary titles.At this stage the "little tradition" was reconceptualized in terms of the "great tradition".
The Greek idiom used for "son of man" in the gospel tradition is 0 ui6s-TOU cXVepulTTOU.In terms of first century Greek, it could be literally translated as "the son of Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Th. instiIlIIionalization of Jesus' cluuismaJic awhoriJy: "Son of Man" as cas.study the man", meaning nothing more than "the man's son".Although it later became an idiom on account of its usage as a title, the expression would not normally be used in Greek.On account of the fact that the phrase is found in Daniel 7:11-14, it has been thought that the Greek phrase might be an incorrect translation of the Hebrew t:l'~i1 1 ~ (ben hadam) or the Aramaic ~tm~ '~~tv:J ,~ (bar 'noshalbar' nosha).Because this expression is rarely found in the definite form in Hebrew or Aramaic, the indefinite forms t:l,~ 1~ (ben 'dam) and tm,~ (bar nosh) were also investigated.Vermes (1967:310;1973:160-191) found that the use of the expression in the literature of normative Judaism (Talmud Jerushalmi, targumim and midrashim) can shed light on the meaning of the expression in formative Judaism and in the New Testament.Researchers such as Veilhauer (1975:124-147), Perrin (1965:150-155) and Ttkit ([1959] 1965) agree with Vermes and this is also the chosen approach for this study (Fitzmyer [1968:426-427] however disagrees.) Vielhauer and Ttkit found 74 Son of Man sayings in the New Testament and one that is relevant in the Gospel of Thomas (cf Schwartz 1986:11-12).Some of the sayings represent a (post-Easter) reflection by Jesus on his coming, paSsion, death and resurrection (cf Bultmann 1931:161-179).Other Son of Man sayings are categorized by Bultmann as "legendary sayings": "in denen die Person Jesu eine wesentliche Rolle spielt, und die ich a parte potiori Ich-Worte nenne" (Bultmann 1931:163).Collins (1996:145) i~ of the opinion that these sayings could contain early traditions, but she finds categories (see Bultmann 1931 :73) such as "legal sayings and church rules", "wisdom sayings" and "prohetic and apocalyptic sayings" more helpful (Collins 1996: 146-148, 148-151, 151-152).The following discussion of examples from these categories will demonstrate the institutionalization of charismatic authority.

LEGAL SAYINGS OR CHURCH RULES
According to Bultmann (1931:138-161)  Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services YoklndIJ Dnyer also takes the form of a controversy dialogue.In the narrative structure of Mark the controversy began when Jesus taught in the synagogue in Capernaum (e6i6aoKEv) (Mk 1:22).It was a controversy between Jesus and the scribes (oi ypa~j.laTEis')(Mk 1:22) and was caused by Jesus' teaching (i) 616aXTl).From a social-scientific perspective the controversy can be seen as a challenge-riposte about honour.The dispute is about the nature of Jesus' authority (Mk 1:27): "What is this?A new teaching -and with what authority!" (Ti eOTlv TOUTO; 616axn Kalvi, KaT' e~ovoiav).The story of Jesus healing the paralytic (Mk 2:1-12) is, in a way, an extension of this controversy in Capernaum in the narrative structure of Mark (cf Mk 2: 1 where it is expressly stated that the healing of the man with the evil spirit also took place in Capernaum).In the second story (Mk 2: 1-12) Jesus' honour is expressed with a title just as it was in the first story (Mkl:21-28).In the first story the title is the Holy One of God (0 aY10S TOU 8EOU) (Mk 1:24) and in the second it is the Son of Man (0 vios TOU aV8pc..lTToV) (Mk 2:10).
In another contribution (Dreyer 2000a:697-722) I compared the Wurdepriidikation "the Holy One of God" with the title "Son of the Mighty One" (vios TOO U"'IOTOV) in the story of the healing of the Gerasene demonic (Mk 5:1-20).The expression "Holy One" (0 aYloc) was understood as an acknowledgement that Jesus was a sage with divine authority.Such an explanation is congruent with a controversy Geza Vermes (1973:163-168) is of the opinion that here "son of man" is an expression of a self-awareness of authority.Jeremias (1967:165 note 9), Fitzmyer (1968: 426-427), Borsch (1967:23 note 4), Colpe (1972:403-404), andCasey (1976:147-154) do not agree, but rather see this as a titular use of Son of Man.To me this to be an example of the institutionalization of charismatic authority.A development of the tradition can be clearly seen.Firstly, Jesus used the expression "son of man" in a generic way (indefinite Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services The instiJutiolUllivllion of Jesus' charismatic authority: "Son of Man" as case study form) (cf Vermes 1967:311-319).It referred to Jesus as a wisdom teacher with charismatic authority.Traces of this early tradition can be seen in the story of the healing of the man with the evil spirit (Mk 1:21-28).The wisdom teaching of Jesus as charismatic figure subverted the conventional wisdom/order according to which only priests had the authority to facilitate reconciliation for people's sins in order to receive forgiveness (see Num 15:25).John the Baptist also circumvented the structures of the temple when he encouraged people to let themselves be baptized in order for their sins to be forgiven (K'lPUOOCAlV ~aTTTlo~a ~ETavolas eis cXcpeolv a~apTlc.lv)(Mk 1:4).By using the generic forms ben 'dam (Ci~ 1:J) or bar nosh (~ i:J) Jesus taught that any person could forgive the sins of another."In no case is the speaker set off from other human beings as distinctive in any way.If Mark 2:10, therefore, represents an older Semitic saying, it would have meant 'human beings have authority on earth to forgive sins'" (Collins 1996:147).According to Casey (1976:46) the "son of man" in this verse only refers to healers.If this were the case, however, John the Baptist who was not a healer, would be excluded from baptizing and forgiving sins.Jesus obviously went along with what John the Baptist did, since he himself came to be baptized (for the authenticity of this story see Funk 1999:11).Colpe (1972:430-431) is of the opinion that the authority (E~ouoia) to forgive sins could only belong to Jesus.Such authority would no longer be auctoritas, but, on account of its exclusivity, would have become potestas.
"Power" in this sense of the word indicates inequality, in which case conflict can be expected.This can be seen in the narrative structure of the Gospel of Mark where the healing of the paralytic is transformed into a controversy dialogue between scribes.This Sitl.im Leben is no longer similar to that of the historical Jesus.In the aftermath of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, "Christian scribes" find themselves in controversy with "Judean scribes" in Galilee.
In the context of such scribal activity it can be expected that there would be dispute as to the interpretation of Numbers 15:25: "the priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the people of Israel, and they shall be forgiven" (RSV).In a post-Easter "Christian" cultic setting it can be expected that Jesus would be presented as the This pronouncement of judgement is probably a post-Easter projection back to Jesus of the conflict that was experienced in post-Easter times, and was directed at the opponents in their post-Easter situation.Jesus, honoured with the title Son of Man, functions as a judge.This power (potestas) of Jesus is already reflected in the story of the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2:1-12 when Jesus is given the authority to forgive sins.We can conclude, therefore, that the use of the title Son of Man in Mark 2:10 is an illustration of the institutionalization of charismatic authority: Jesus as wisdom teacher subverted conventional wisdom by taking the power to forgive sins from the priests and giving this authority to any person (0 ui6s TOU cXv8pc.urrou in an indefinite generic form).
In a post-Easter "Christian" cui tic setting Jesus was honoured with the title Son of Man and the power that he took from the priests was given to him as the ''ultimate'' kingpriest!
A similar development can be seen in Q 12:10 (another example of a "legal saying" or "church rule" -cf also Klisemann 1954-55:248-260).The development here is also from the Sitz im Leben Jesu to a Sitz im Leben ecclesiae.Q 12: 10 reads as follows: "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" blasphemies will be forgiven the sons of men (TOIS viOlS TCUV eXV9pc.lTTCUV),as many as they commit; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not have forgiveness forever" (RSY).According to Collins (1996:148) the similar variant in Didache 11:7b is an indication "that the Markan form is not idiosyncratic".This earlier tradition behind Mark (and Didache) also places the following on the lips of Jesus: "if a human sins against another human, forgiveness is available ... " (Collins 1996:148;my italics).If this logion can traced back to the formative stratum of the Q tradition, it represents a similar kind of subversive wisdom as discussed earlier: the act of forgiveness is a general human matter and not limited to priests.In the context of Q2, and even more so in ~, it can be expected that this type of teaching would be subjected to the interpretation of the Scriptures since Q2 and Q3 (and Mark and Mathew) probably originated in the context of scribal activity and the controversy between "Christian" scribes and Pharisaic scribes.Collins (1996: 148) is of the opinion that 1 Samuel 2:25 could have played a role in this regard: "If a man [ben 'dam] sins against another man [ben 'dam], God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who will intercede for him?"(RSY).If Mark 3:28-29 reflects an earlier (Q) tradition, the expression "sons of men" was used in the indefinite generic form and not as a titular reference to Jesus.Q3 (= Lk 12:10) which has a synagogica/ controversy as Sitl.im Leben, draws the /ogion into a context of whether or not Jesus' teaching could be acknowledged.In this context Jesus is honoured with the title Son of Man.Casey (1976:147-154; cf 1979:229; Bauckham [1985] 1995:245-255) concludes that the "original" form of the logion in Aramaic had "two levels of meaning" Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services It is possible that Jesus spoke such a saying, using the generic or indefinite Semitic idiom, and that it gave rise to the variants.But this reconstruction leaves unanswered the question why someone who handed on the saying made a shift from speaking about humans or men in general to speaking of Jesus as the human or the Son of Man.Was the shift due to a mistake in translation?Did some oral performer or scribe simply not know Hebrew or Aramaic very well?Such an explanation is conceivable, but resorting to it seems desperate, tendentious, or both.
Another possible explanation of the use of the title Son of Man in Q3 could be the previously mentioned probability that a subversive wisdom saying of Jesus developed into the titular false attribution of honouring (OJ,JOAOyEc:..J) or renouncing «XTropvEoJ,JOt) Jesus as Son of Man (Lk 12:8).Jesus' generic use of sins against people in general that can be forgiven by God (according to 1 Sam 2:25) is, in the context of scribal activity, applied in such a way that Son of Man (as God's "mediator") could forgive sins committed against him (Jesus as the Son of Man), but not sins against God (substituted by TO aytOV TTVEUJ,JO).

WISDOM SAYINGS
Two of the 74 Son of Man sayings belong to the category "proverbs" (see Collins 1996:148-151).Bultmann (1931:73) discusses these sayings under the heading Logien (Jesu als Weisheitslehrer).One of them can be found in the Marcan (and parallels) controversy dialogue about Sabbath observance (Mk 2:23-28) and the other is a Q aphorism (Lk 9:58/1Mt 8:20).In the controversy dialogue the challenge-riposte between Jesus and the Pharisees is decided with a Son of Man log ion which is a reference to Scriptures: "The sabbath came into being for the sake of TOV clv6pc:..JTTOV [the man] and not 0 clv6pc:..JTTOS [the man] for the sake of the sabbath; so 0 uios TOU aV6pc.lTTOUDigitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services The institutionalization 0/ Jesus' charismatic authority: "Son 0/ Man" as case study narrative at a relatively late date, could itself be early, even a saying of Jesus" (my italics).I choose for the argument that the "indefinite generic form" of the expression "son of man" can be traced back to Jesus, but that the titular use of Son of Man in connection with Jesus was false attribution on account of post-Easter scribal activity.
This process can be understood in the light of the influence of Easter on the Jesus tradition and also in the light of the process of institutionalization of charismatic authority seen against the background of conflict.Collins (1996:149) probably has a point when she says: If Jesus said something like Mark 2:27-28, using an Aramaic phrase like tm ~, [bar nosh], he probably used it in the generic sense.We thus arrive at a point similar to the conclusion of the discussion of the saying about the word spoken against the Son of Man.There is a gap between Jesus' generic use of an Aramaic term and the Gospels' quasi-titular use of a corresponding Greek term.
One of the authentic elements in the life of the historical Jesus was his repudiation of regulations regarding the observance of the sabbath (see Bultmann [1960Bultmann [ ] 1965:11):11).It is possible that Jesus based his point of view on the observance of the sabbath on the Genesis motif (Gen 2:2-3).Another possibility is that the scriptural reference to Genesis first appeared when Jesus' teachings were contextualized by scribes in a post-Easter setting with a controversy dialogue as Sitz im Leben.Be that as it may, the notion that the sabbath originated at a certain stage of human history, is an allusion to Genesis 2:2-3.
When the story of creation (as told in Gen 2) is remembered, the Greek word for the "first human being" (0 civ8pCUTT05) is, at the same time, a generic indication for humanity in general (O'~ 1::1).To be KUPl05 of the sabbath is a reference to God's command in Genesis 1:28 to rule over creation (see Collins 1996:149).Bultmann (1931: 112) points out that a similar saying was known to normative Judaism, namely that the sabbath was given for people and not people for the sabbath.It can be deduced, therefore, that the expression that Jesus as Son of Man Another example of a wisdom saying that underwent a similar process, is Q 9:58: "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but 0 ui6s TOU cXV8pc.lTTOUhas nowhere to lay his head" (translation by Collins 1996:150).An aphorism with similar content can also be found in the Gospel of Thomas (log ion 86) where it is introduced with the formula: "Jesus said".In Q3 (also used by Luke and Matthew), this logion concludes a short narrative (confirmed by the similarity between Matthew and Luke).
The biographical framework that can be found in Q should be seen as a post-Easter addition to the Q tradition (see Robinson 1971;Burridge 1999:18, 248;Kloppenborg 2000:344).Here, too, there is evidence of an earlier Jesus tradition, also indicated by the parallel in the Gospel of Thomas.Multiple independent witnesses confirm the authenticity of the Jesus log ion (see Funk 1999:23) which was later placed in a biographical framework.The uncomplicated introduction to the log ion in Thomas 86 indicates an earlier aphoristic form.
Bultmann (for the Greek, see Bultmann 1931:102 note 2) points out a parallel saying in Plutarch's Life of Tiberius.It is a speech about land reform which argues that soldiers of the emperor had the right to receive land that was taken from others.Tiberius was the emperor when the teachings of the historical Jesus were heard.Fiensy (1991 :21-73;cf Kippenberg 1978;Crossan 1998:153-157) argued the relevance of the issue of the dispossession of land for the understanding of the conflict between the peasants and the elite.Tiberius declared: ''The wild beasts inhabiting Italy have holes, their places of rest and refuge, but those who fight and die for Italy have no share in it except air and light and are forced to wander unsettled with their wives and children" (see Collins 1996: 150).
This saying of Tiberius was probably well-known among the peasants during the time of HTS 56(4) 2000 1067 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services The institutionalization of Jesus' cluuismatic authority: "Son of Man" as case study Jesus.Antagonism towards Roman and Herodian authorities on account of the dispossession of land and the resulting disintegration of families, was to be expected (see Fiensy 1991:21).One cannot know whether Jesus had the saying of Tiberius in mind, however.
It is possible that a similar wisdom saying of Jesus could have been taken over in the Q tradition and only later, when placed in a biographical context, made to resonate with the saying of Tiberius.Bultmann (1931: 102) is of the opinion that the Jesus saying reflected a type of folk-pessimism, such as for example Job 3:25-26 and Ecclesiastes 3:19.The latter reads as follows: "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other.They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity" (RSY -my italics).
This wisdom saying subverts the conventional wisdom that human beings were given a higher position in the hierarchy than animals in the order of creation.Another reason for this higher position, according to conventional wisdom, is that human beings find meaningful existence in diadic relationships with other relatives in a household.
"Subversive wisdom" could be expected from the historical Jesus who was a wandering sage without family ties.According to Collins (1996:150)  Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services The institutiontJ/ivlJion of Jesus' cluuismatic authority: "Son of Man" as case study reference to the generic human being was transformed into a reference to Jesus as a particular individual who is without an abode for a specific reason: his sense of vocation, a lifestyle which was a prophetic symbolic action, or the result of hostility to his person or work.At the latest, this transformation occurred when the saying was placed in a pronouncement story concerning discipleship, such as the one preserved in Q.In this context, the life of the disciple is to be homeless in imitation of Jesus' life (Collins 1996:150-151).

PROPHETIC AND APOCALYPTIC SAYINGS
Sixteen of the 74 Son of Man sayings in the gospel tradition belong to the group of "prophetic and apocalyptic sayings" (Collins 1996:151) This article is based on the doctoral dissertation "Insitutionalization of authority and titles used for Jesus".This dissertation.with Prof Dr A G van Aarde as supervisor, was submitted and accepted as part of the requirements of the PhD degree (2000), Faculty of Theology.University of Pretoria.HTS 56(4) 2000 1057 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services The instiJutiotudiz.alion of Jesus' charismatic authority: "Son of Man" as case study Die Apokalyptik ist -da man die Predigt Jesu nicht eigentlich als Theologie bezeichnen kann -die Mutter aller christlichen Theologie gewesen ... Mitte urchristlicher Apokalyptik ist nach der Johannes-Apokalypse wie nach den Synoptikem die Thronbesteigung Gottes und seines Christus als des eschatologischen Menschensohnes, die auch als Erweis der Gerechtigkeit Gottes bezeichnet werden kann ... Ihr Zentralmotiv war die Hoffnung auf die Epiphanie des zu seiner Inthronisation kommenden Menschensohnes (my italics).
dialogue.The Sitz im Leben of the story of the healing of the Gerasene Demonic (Mk 5:1-20) is not the conflict between Jesus' teaching and the teachings of other scribes, but rather the conflict between Jesus as Son of the Mighty One and the Roman legion as the representatives of their gods.The Sitz im Leben in which the title Son of Man functions in Mark 2:1-12 is also one of conflict.This logion is found in Mark 2:10: "But that you may know that the Son of Man [0 viOs-TOU av8pc..lTTov] has authority [e~ovolaJ on earth to forgive sins ....He [Jesus] said .... "

"
ultimate priest".Examples from Qumran (11 QMelchizedek) indicate that a royal figure who is simultaneously represented as the priest of "God Most High" was known in the 1062 HTS56(4) 2000 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Yolanda Dreyer context of first-century scribal activity (see Kobelski 1981).This theme can also be found in Psalm 11O:4b: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."In Mark 12:35-38 Jesus is identified with this royal priestly figure and his teaching (n oloaXTi)(Mk 12:35) is contrasted with that of the scribes (oi ypa~~aTilS') who wear "royal" robes (oToAai) (Mk 12:38) and go around the (Graeco-Roman) agoras in order that they could be greeted and receive honour: "Watch out for the teachers of the law.They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the market-places, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at banquets.They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers.Such men will be punished most severely".

(
see Collins 1996: 148 note 35).According to him the saying refers to sins against people in general in the first place, and in the second place to sins against Jesus as the Son of Man.Casey supposes that the Greek translators were unaware of this ambivalence in the Aramaic and interpreted it solely as a reference to Jesus as the Son ofMan.Collins   (1996: 148) asks why such a "shift" from the generic use of the expression "son of man" to Jesus as the Son of Man would have taken place:1064HTS 56(4) 2000 [the Son of Man] is lord [KUptOs-] even of the sabbath" (Mk 2:27-28); translation by Collins 1996:149; my additions).Collins (1996: 149) describes the Sitz im Leben of this saying in the context of the Gospel of Mark as follows: "The controversy dialogue itself probably was composed in a post-Easter situation in which followers of Jesus claimed his authority in order to settle disputes over sabbath observance.The Son of Man saying, although attached to the HTS 56(4) 2000 1065 (0 Ui05 TOU cXV8pvJTTOU is ruler over the sabbath (Mk 2:27-28) reflects a similar context of scribal activity.In my opinion 1066 HTS 56(4) 2000 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Yolllndll Dreyer this is another instance of the institutionalization of charismatic authority.Jesus, the sage, subverted the conventional order regarding the regulations for observing the sabbath.When his followers at a much later stage find themselves in a dispute concerning the Scriptural grounding of Jesus' wisdom, they change Jesus' reference to the "son of man" in the indefinite generic form to a log ion in which Jesus is honoured with the title Son of Man.This titular use of the expression in a conflict situation gives Jesus the potestas to be KUPIOS' over the sabbath and to change the regulations according to his wisdom.
the following wisdom saying from Job 3:25-26 can be seen as a reflection of the kind of wisdom that can be expected from Jesus: "For the thing that I fear comes upon me, and what I dread befalls me.I am not at ease, nor am I quiet; J have no rest; but trouble comes" (RSY -my italics).The version of Thomas 86 of this Jesus saying is: "But the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head and rest."The version in Q 9:58 ("Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man [0 ui6s TOU cXV8pc.JTTOU] has nowhere to lay his head") suggests a differentiation between human beings and animals.A development can clearly be traced from a wisdom saying in which Jesus as charismatic figure refers to humanity in general, to Q3 which identifies the Son of Man with Jesus.Possibly Q2 already contained this transition, but if so, the tradition was either unknown to Mark or he chose not to take it over.It is possible that such a tradition could have been transmitted and interpreted in various ways during the process of the development of the tradition.Collins (1996: 150)  formulates it as follows: "Such folk pessimism could easily be adapted to a philosophically dualistic, apocalyptic or gnostic perspective, in which humanity has no home or rest in this world, but does find such in 1068HTS 56(4) 2000Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services the heavenly world."It is also possible that this tradition could have been taken over in circumstances where poverty was the result of, among other things, the dispossession of land and where the disintegration of families could have been a dire problem.A comparison could be drawn between the saying of Jesus (the "little tradition" of the peasant culture) and the saying of Tiberius.In the formative stratum of the Q tradition themes such as poverty, discipleship and Jesus' vision of an alternate kingdom were integrated (seeJacobson 1992:50).As Jesus sayings became further removed from the "little tradition" and were increasingly domesticated in the "great tradition" of school, temple and scribal activity, the attribution of titles to Jesus is to be expected.This is probably what happened with the saying in Q 9:58.In a discussion of the history of the Q traditions (see Dreyer 2000b), I argued that Q2 originated in a context of conflict with the Second Temple ideology and Q3 in the Galilean/Syrian region in a more Hellenistic context after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CEo At this stage of the tradition history the Q community defines its own identity and orientation as "wandering itinerants" (cfCrossan 1997:21-53).At this time opposing Judean oriented scribes in places such as Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin were also judged by means of apocalyptic woes (see Lk 10:13-15).It is therefore understandable that Jesus sayings about, for example, discipleship, were associated with homeless itinerancy.By drawing Jesus into their context they gave their own ideology greater authority.By reinterpreting the logia of Jesus as though the Son of Man said them, they anticipated their own vindication.After all, it would be the victorious Son of Man figure who would eventually triumph over suffering and judge the "enemies".Luke took over this Q3 tradition and gave it a functional position at the beginning of his travel narrative.Imitatio Jesu is the theme with which Luke calls upon the followers of Jesus to travel with him to Jerusalem.The disciples are asked.to count the cost of their discipleship (see Lk 9:57-62; 14:25-35).It could be that his fate would become their fate: "As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, 'I will follow you wherever you go.' Jesus replied: 'Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head'" (NIV -my italics).In any case, if the saying goes back to Jesus, it most likely referred to human beings in general, or to Jesus' experience as typical of humanity.At some point, the HTS 56(4) 2000 1069

(
1975:124-147) sees no convincing argument either for or against any of the titular references to the Son of Man originating with Jesus.Such an argument does not take the 1070 HTS 56(4) 2000 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services yolandtz Dreyer indefinite generic form of some "son of man" references as possibly authentic Jesus sayings, into account.I agree that there is no strong argument for Jesus using the title Son of Man in his "little tradition".On the other hand, seeing the "prophetic and apocalyptic" sayings as articulation of the "great tradition" and as examples of the institutionalization of Jesus' charismatic authority, provides a sociological explanation for the conflict situation of the post-Easter followers of Jesus.This is the case especially when the use of "Christological titles" for Jesus is demystified from a postmodern perspective.The title of RagnarLeivestad's (1968) article, "Der apokalyptische Menschensohn: Ein theologisches Phantom" is rather telling, but to see no "grounds" in the Jesus tradition why the post-Easter followers of Jesus institutionalized his charismatic authority, is taking the argument too far.It is possible to argue that 'n similar process could have taken place in the Judean-Hellenistic context where the expression Son of Man could have been used as a title (cf Casey's 1976 discussion of the use of "Son of Man" in the Similitudes of Enoch).It would, however, lie beyond the scope of this study."It is well known that the community at Qumran and at least some early followers of Jesus believed that the scriptures were written for their benefit and prophesied events which they were experiencing and other events they expected to occur in the near future"(Collins 1996:154my italics).The early followers of Jesus believed that his authority which they acknowledged, came from God.The Son of Man title is expression of the belief that he would appear on the clouds along with holy angels: "he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels" (Mk 8:38b).The process of the institutionalization of charismatic authority was not limited to Jesus, however.It also happened with other figures, such as Moses.An author of tragedies called Ezekiel (c.200 BeE) (see Snell 1971:1.292)writing about the Exodus, described a dream of Moses.He saw a "man" sitting on a throne on Mount Sinai.This man beckoned to Moses and gave him a crown and a sceptre after which he disappeared from the scene.Moses' authority was institutionalized by God and the place of God as acting subject was taken by the "institute".This is similar to what happened when Jesus became Son of Man on account of God's intervention when Jesus triumphed over death by means of the resurrection.
two of the 74 Son of Man sayings can, in ~ir (Gemeinderegeln)(cf Collins 1996:146).One of these logia can be found in the story of the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2: 1-12 and another in Q 12: 10.In Mark this story 1060 HTS 56(4) 2000 It is generally accepted that Luke was more conservative than Matthew in the use of the source material of the second recension of Q (Q3) (see Kloppenhorg 2000:88).Synagogical controversy (see Lk 12:11) will then more likely be the setting in which lhe Sayings Gospel Q interpreted the Son of Man log ion than Matthew's (apocalyptic) Beelzebub discourse (see Mt 12:22-37).
The discussion of Luke 12:10 as a Q tradition argued that Jesus probably did not have the title Son of Man in mind for himself, but that the later Q tradition attributed ''titular authority" to Jesus.When Luke took over Q 12:10 and added verses 8-9 as introduction, he took it for granted that Jesus was the Son of Man.The titular references to the Son of Man in Luke 12:8-9 need not be traced back to Jesus.They could simply be the addition of the evangelist.A similar case can be argued for Mark 8:38.Vielhauer . "Four of these could well have been formulated by the author of the Gospel in which they appear; three byMatthew   (16:28; 24:30a; 25:31)and one byLuke (17:22).Another four are older than the Gospels in which they appear, but are probably post-Easter formulations (Mt 10:23; Mk 14:21 par; Lk 6:22; 21:36).The origin of the remaining eight is ambiguous"(Collins   1996:151).According toBultmann (1931:117, 129, 163) some of the "prophetic and apocalyptic" Son of Man sayings could have originated with Jesus, for instance Luke 12:8-9; Mark 8:38 par.; Matthew 24:27 par.Bultmann (1931:163)is uncertain whether Matthew 24:37-39 par.and24:43-44par.shouldbeincluded.It has been posited earlier that Bultmann([1949] 1956:90-110) saw these logia of Jesus as a "prophet" referring to someone else as the apocalyptic Son of Man, while Jesus' followers identified him with the Son of Man figure.This can especially be seen in Mark 8:38 par.and Luke 12:8-9.