Upon Ihia view the second art. {raZ) is pcncric or collective (Winer, 8 27. 1 ; Gn G6 ' v:i' V\ 2 S 7'», Ml< 2-1, Jn 2!»), Uie flist ftrt, (o) sjiecilies the individual of the gniHg meant (Weiss, § 10/*).
18. This opinion, that the title, viz., even though it may have been siiqrjested by Dn 7", was never- theless intended, ami even intended primarily, to express in some manner the relation of .lesus to humanity, has been largely held (see § 20 ; and the lefeiences in Hollzm. pp. 2'A, '255). It has, however, been objected to it that if the title denoted the 'ideal' or 'representative' man, the predicjitcs alliniied of it could be only tlio.se which were involved in the idea itself, — i.e., to speak technically, were the predicates of analytical, not of Hj-ntlietical judgments, which obviously is not the ca.se with the predicates allirmed of the ' Son of man ' in the Gospels. This would, no doubt, he true if the title were understood to be a designa- tion of the ' ideal ' man, but not if (abandoning this abstract expression) it be understood to dcsig-
• The views of Bruce. Kingdom o/ (Iml 2 (1890). 172-78, and of Steiens, XT Tlttul. (Is'.IO), 61-53, while siuiiiwlmt diSercntl)' put, do not differ materially from that of Weiss.
nate a pnrtinihtr, inifivirlual man, embodying in their highest perfection the attributes of hum.anity. And this is the sense in which Weiss and West- cott (§ '20), for instance, understand the title. There will then be no diilicultj' in understanding the predicates allirmed of the ' Son of man ' as synthetical judgments : they will result, in other word.s, not from an analysis of the idea of ' man,' but from the experience, |)i'esent or future, of the particular individual actually denoted by the term. As Holtzmann, though himself preferring the other view, writes (p. 2.">-l), 'The ])ossibility is by no means excluded that the conception of the Messiah was rooted in the idea of man, and that Jesus, in choosing this designation, instead of others that were open to Him, intended theiebj- to express His relationship to humanity.'
The fact just mentioned has been made the ground of a further objection to the same opinion. As has just been shown, if we start from the idea of ' man,' none of the predicates apjilied in the Gospels to the ' Son of man ' can be obtained from an analysis of that idea. Hut if we start from the e(|u,'ition (given by Dn 7") ' Son of man' = ' Messiah,' then all these predicates become analytical judg- ments ; they are, it is s.iid, derivable, at least largely, from the idea of ' Messiah ' itself ; they are expressions, not of Jesus' conception of ' man,' but of His conception of His Messiahship.* And hence it is concluded that the term was used by Him as properly and primarily signifying ' Messiah.' It may be doubted if this conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If the term denoted Jesus primarily as a Man above other men, a Man with a unique position and mission, tins jiosition and mission would, from another ])oiiit of view, be also those of the ' Messiah ' ; and the juedicates describing dill'erent aspects of His work and ministry would accordinglj' be those belonging to Him as 'Messiah.' Tlie offices and functions ascribed to the ' Son of man ' in the Gospels are deduced by Weiss, starting from the idea of ' man,' not less naturallj' than by Holtzmann, starting from the idea of ' Messiah.
I'J. Two questions, intimately connected, remain to be considered, which also, as will appear, have a bearing njion the question of the origin of the title. At what period in His ministry did our Lord first use the title ? And in what sense was it understood by those who heard it? Or, to put the possible alternatives unambiguously, did it veil or reveal His Messiahship'; It is clear that our Lord only declared His ^lessiahshi[) gradually. The question put by Him to the discijiles at (^a'sarea Philiiq>i, and I'eter's reply (Mt l(i'»-"' = Mk 8-'--» = Lk l'J'"'-°), jiarticularly when taken in connexion with our Lord's comment in Mt IG", make it evident that up to that time He had not openly declarcil Himself as the Messiah ; and the prohibi- tions in Mt l(i-" = Mk 8»" = Lk 9-', and Mt 17" = Mk 9", cf. Lk 9*', show that He still did not wish the fact to be known to the pco[ile generally. In the .Synoptic Gosjiels there are, however (.see the Table, § 3), 9 passages in Matthew, 2 in Mark, and 4 in Luke, in which the title 'Son of man' is ascribed to our Lord before the occasion at t^icsarea I'hilippi. If, then, the title was a current Mess. title, or even if His hearers, when He used it, were likely at once to perceive a reference to Dn 7", it is clear that He must, by His use of it, have revealed His Messiahslii]), from virtually the begin- ning of His ministry, both to His di.sciples and to the people at large. This, however, as we have just seen, was inconsistent with His avowed l)urpose. Hence those who believe that it was a current Mess, title are obliged to get rid of those passages in the Gospels which represent our Lord * Unlnten ({ 10. Ill, |>p. 30-39 ; cf. LieUniaim, 14, 15, 24.