Abstract:
In his thesis I apply a narratological and structuralist methodology to the son of man sayings in the Gospel of Matthew. I conclude that almost all of the son of man sayings can be read corporately, as a designation not of Jesus but of a Jewish community which perceived itself to be suffering yet faithful to the commands of God.
I conclude that a corporate reading of the son of man sayings — the kind of hypothesis proposed by TW Manson, Morna Hooker and CFD Moule — is the most coherent interpretation of the evidence of the Gospel, especially since it makes sense of all categories of son of man sayings: the present, suffering and future sayings.
I conclude that through the son of man sayings, Jesus designated his community as homeless, with the authority to forgive sins, as lord of the Sabbath, as one who currently suffers at the hands of the Jewish leaders, and who will be raised up by God to life and to glory.
Jesus probably believed this to be in fulfilment of Daniel 7, which was a prophecy not of a coming Messiah but of the suffering but soon to be glorified community of God's people, and of Hosea 6.1-2, where the rising up of God's people on the third day was prophesied.
We must reject previous attempts to interpret the son of man sayings as a messianic self-designation, or as the designation of a coming supernatural figure apart from Jesus, or as an Aramaic idiom for "I" or "someone" or "mankind." None of these theories are substantiated by the evidence, and none can explain all the son of man sayings in the Gospels, and therefore depend upon the theory that one or more of the categories of son of man sayings are secondary and unauthentic.
I conclude that "the son of man" is probably not a Christological title, even though this is how Matthew understood the term. It is most probably an allusion to Daniel 7 and to the interpretation of the vision, where reference is made to "the people of the saints of the Most High," who for Jesus was the eschatological community he led and was advocate for in their conflict with the Jewish leaders of the early first century.
