“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ 62 And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mark 14:61–62; cf. Matt 26:63–64 and Luke 22:69).Many scholars see this passage as a creation of the early church due to the fact that Psalm 110 was the principle text associated with the church’s emerging Christology. Yet, despite the psalm’s popularity in early Christianity, such a conclusion is unwarranted. Let’s look at the evidence.
First, since both the Davidic psalms and Daniel 7 were interpreted eschatologically in ancient Judaism, there is no reason to suppose Jesus, understanding himself as the messiah, could not have seen these texts as referring to himself.
Second and more devastating to the view which sees the conflation as a product of the early church’s theology is the fact that that one rabbinic source specifically links the two passages:
“And in one place in the Writings it is written, ‘The Lord said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand’ [Ps 110:1],’ and it is also written: ‘Behold, one came with the clouds of heaven, as a son of man’ [Dan 7:13] (Midr. Ps. 2.9 [on 2:7]; cf. 18.29 [on 18:36]).If non-Christian Jewish rabbis could tie the two passages together there is no reason to insist Jesus could not have.
Moreover, scholars have also pointed out that the depiction of the “son of man” sitting next to God on a “throne of glory” in the Similitudes (1 En. 45:3; 55:4; 62:5) also seems indebted to a combination of imagery from Daniel 7 and Psalm 110.
Suffice it to say, there is no reason to believe Jesus could not have spoken thus. Indeed, texts which we have seen are likely authentic demonstrate that Jesus similarly combined other passages (cf. e.g., Matt 11:5//Luke 7:22; Matt 21:13//Mark 11:17//Luke 19:46).
 More than any other passage, this psalm is used by writers of New Testament books to explain Jesus’ identity and role (cf. e.g., Acts 2:34–35; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12). In particular the language here finds a close similarities with those attributed to the earliest Christian martyr, Stephen, in Acts 7:56: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” However, an interpretation which sees the statement made by Jesus as a re-working of Stephen’s speech, it should be pointed out that Stephen’s language lacks the Semitic flavor of Jesus’ words (i.e., the reverential circumlocution for God, “the Power” / τῆς δυνάμεως). This would seem to make it more difficult to see Stephen’s saying as more ancient than Mark 14:62 and par.
 Cited from Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries, 419.
 That 1 Enoch links Psalm 110 to the eschatological figure is recognized by many. See, e.g., Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, 98; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 260–61; Hengel, Studien zur Christologie, 334–35; Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent Son, 206. In addition, Schaper (Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 101–7) has made a compelling case that the LXX exhibits an eschatological reading of the MT, a view recently endorsed by Lee (From Messiah to Preexistent Son, 207). See also James L. Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 94–98; 119–27. Luz (Matthäus, 3:89) also raises another possibility that merits consideration: “Da Ps 110 für das Urchristentum, insbesondere für die Interpretation der Erhöhung Jesu und sein ‘Sitzen zur Rechten Gottes’ seit sehr früher Zeit außerordentlich wichtig war und als einziger christologischer Text aus der Bibel bis in die altkirchlichen Credo-Formulierungen nachwirkte, ist es denkbar―aber nicht beweisbar―, daß alte messianische Auslegungen im jüdischen Überlieferungsprozeß unterdrückt wurden, weil Ps 110 im Christentum eine so große Rolle spielte.” See also Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent Son, 206, who also favors this option: “. . . after the return from the exile, when there was a new temple under the religious and political leadership of the Aaronide priests―without the ark of the covenant and without any king in Jerusalem―the original meaning of Ps 110 (i.e., the king ruling with the honour and authority given by God) would have been lost with time. In later times the Jews would have been left with only two possibilities: a figurative application of the psalm either to a historical person such as Abraham and Hezekiah, or to an eschatological-messianic figure. The evidence from Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament period suggests that the latter possibility was the most likely. If this is correct, the argument that anti-Christian polemic led to non-messianic interpretations in rabbinic sources, especially those in the Tannaitic period, gains force.”
 Other charges also leveled against the historicity of this episode have also been dealt with by others, most effectively by Bock, Blasphemy and exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus, 209–33. For example, some have made the claim that the passage cannot be historical because the charge of blasphemy depends upon Christological implications of Jesus claim which were produced by the early Church, e.g., “the Messiah” is linked with “Son of God” language. See, e.g., Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 54. However, as Betz has demonstrated, the language here also closely mirrors 2 Samuel 7 and 4Q174. See Otto Betz, “Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu,” NovT 6 (1963) 20–48; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:531.