Wellhausen would have such a remark understood, however, may be commodiously learned from his section on " the Jewish and the Chris- tian Messiah " in the closing pages of his Einleitung in die drei ersten E'vangelien (1905). The Christian conception of the Messiah, such as lies on the pages of Mark, for example — that paradoxical contradiction of the gallows-Messiah, formed on the basis of the actual crucifixion of Jesus — is of course the product of the time subsequent to the death of Jesus; but its existence would be inexplicable without the assumption that Jesus was supposed by His followers to be the Messiah, although of course in His life-time it was not this Christian conception but the ordinary Jewish conception of the Messiah which they attributed to Him. The attitude of Jesus Himself to this ascription of Messiahship to Him Wellhausen finds it somewhat difficult to determine (p. 92). He is certain that Jesus did not follow the method of the Pseudochrists and openly proclaim Himself Messiah; but he thinks that there are indications that He did not repel the notion when applied to Him — though, of course, this involved an " accommodation," as He was by no means prepared to meet the expectations connected with the title. It was no doubt, then, as a religious regenerator, not as a political restorer, that He accepted the title; but this remained at least so far within Jewish limits as not to involve that complete renunciation of Judaism which " lies in the conception of the gallows-Messiah, of the Messiah rejected by the Jews," of the writers of the New Testament.
Mark's Conception of Our Lord 55
It may be very easy to do less than justice to the Mes- sianic ideal current among the Jewish people at the time of our Lord, centering as it did in the hope of the establishment of an external kingdom endowed with the irresistible might of God. Of course this Kingdom of God was conceived as a kingdom of righteousness; and it may be possible to show that most of the items that enter into the Old Testament predictions, including that of redemption from sin, were not wholly neglected In one or another form of Its expression. The difference between it and the Messianic conception developed by Jesus and His fol- lowers may thus almost be represented as merely a difference of emphasis.^^ But a difference of emphasis may be far from a small difference; and the effect of the difference In this case certainly amounted to a difference In kind. This new Messianic ideal Is un- mistakably apparent In Mark's conception and In the conception of Jesus as represented by Mark's record of His sayings. We can trace In Mark's record the Influence of factors recalling the Righteous Serv- ant (10^^ 9^^ 14^^ i^^) and the Divine Redeemer (i^) as well as the Danielle Son of Man.^^ But these fac-
25 On this general subject see two or three very strong pages in Dalman, Words, pp. 295-299: cf. Stanton, 134.
28 Speaking of the conception embodied in the title ' Son of Man ' by our Lord as reported in the Gospels, Charles {The Book of Enoch, pp. 312-317) argues that it included in it all the ideas suggested by the Servant of Jehovah of Isaiah, and therefore so far commends Bartlet's construction {Expositor, Dec. 1892). Says Charles (p. 316): "This transformed conception of the Son of Man is thus permeated through- out by the Isaian conception of the Servant of Jehovah ; but though the Enochic conception is fundamentally transformed, the transcendent claims underlying it are not for a moment forgotten." If we may be permitted to find the preadumbration of the " transcendent " element of
56 The Designations of Our Lord
tors attain fuller expression in the records of the other evangelists. So that here too we find them bringing out Into clearness what already lies In Mark rather than adding anything really new to his presentation.
this conception, not in Enoch but in the O. T. representation of the Advent of Jehovah, Charles' conception of the Messianic ideal of our Lord, for the expression of which He chose the term ' Son of Man,' seems to us generally just. It is — for whatever reason — essentially a synthesis of the three lines of prediction embodied in the Isaianic " Servant of Jehovah," the Danielle " Son of Man," and the general O. T. " Advent of Jehovah," along with which the other lines of prophecy — such as those embodied in the " Davidic King " — also find their place.
THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN MATTHEW
When we turn to Matthew's Gospel, and observe the designations applied in it to our Lord, what chiefly strikes us is that it runs in this matter on precisely the same lines with Mark, with only this difference, that what is more or less latent in Mark becomes fully patent In Matthew.
The narrative name of our Lord is in Matthew
(as in Mark) the simple * Jesus '; which (as in Mark)
The Narrative never occurs as other than the narra-
Name, and tive name, with the single exception