12. Baldensperger iha« SHbAtbf.umsslgein Je^it im lAchte der iloi. Hofnunijen geiner Zeit-, l!j92) emphasizes strongly the prevalence of apocalyptic conceptions in the time of Christ. He rejects emphatically the opinion that the title concealed Jesus' Messiahship, and also the view that it was intended to express any aspect of His humanity. It was (through the influence of Daniel and Enoch) a known Mess, title in the time of (Christ; and Jesus adopted it with the express object of proclaiming His .>fessiahship. It was a triumphant designation of the Messiah ; and .lesus connected it with declarations respecting His humiliation and sufiferings for the express purpose of show- ing (in opposition to current Jewish iJeaw) that these were integral elements in His conception of the Messiah. As, how- ever, it was an open proclamation of His Messiahship, He cannot have used it before Peter's confession at Cajsarea Philippi : the passages in the Gospels which imply that He did this must be chronologically misplaced. Baldensperger closes with a severe criticism of Holsten for admitting in again * by a back-door' (see above, No. 11) any reference in the title to the humanity of Jesus, which he had himself shown to be out of the question, as well as unnecessary, in view of the direct derivation of the title from Dn 718 (pp. 182-189) ; and of Wendt for dis- covering in the expression anything of the nature of creaturely weakness or humilitv (pp. lS'j-192).
13. J. V. Bartlet (Vi.c;)o«., Deo. 1892, 427^43). The title may have been suggested by Dn 713; but as used by Jesus it denotes Him as the ideal representative, partly of humanity in general, partly of the Kingdom of God in particular, especially under those aspects of character which belong to the suffering servant in Dcutern-Isaiah.
14. Dalnian(i)i« (Forts ./fsu. 1898, 191-219; cf. Exp. Titnm, X. 438-443). Not a current iless. title, but adopted bj* Jesus from Dn 718, and very probably also with the thouglit of Ps b^r. at the same time, because He was the destined .Messiah. It veiled His Messiahship behind a name which emiihasized the humanity of its bearer. It implied that He was in some sense a man ' above other men,' but not that He was the * ideal ' man — a conception foreign to Jewish thought, and not at all sug- gested bv the teaching of Jesus. Ho avoided the term '.Messiah on account of the false ideas associated with it i>y the Jews : the ' son of man ' in Daniel, on the other hand, was one who was not to win the kingdom by his own strength, but to receive it at the hands of God, and might have to do this through suffering ond death : Jesus thus assumed the title as* ' a frail child of man, whom God would make Lord of the world.' Probably not used before Peter's confession ; the jiassages in the Gosjiels which imply that it was, being chronologically misplaced.
1,'.. Gunkel (,Z. WUl. Theot. 1899, 632-690) ogrees that In Aram, the tenn meant only 'the man,' but thinks that there may have l>een an esoteric eschat. tratlition undcrl.\ing both Daniel, Enoch, and other apocalypses, in which (like other apoc. expressions, as ■ the end,' ' the woes,' the ' elect,' i xari- X*», etc.) 'the man' (perhaps orig. 'the man of God,' or 'of heaven ') may have come to ne used conventionally as a mystic synonym of ' the Messiah ' : Jesus might thus have adopted it as a self-designation ; to outsiders It would mean simply ' the roan.' ond might be understood, for example, of an ancient prophet, returned to life(Mt 1614); by the initiated, it would be understood to be a covert title of the Messiah.
16. J. Dnimmond, 1901 (see 9 24). The tenn is used elastic- ally : starting from Dn "'8 Jesus may have regarded it as a t.vpical expression for the ideal people of Go(l, with which a-ssociations rlerived from the 'servant of God' in Is 6213- 6.'il'^ woulii rcadilv connect themselves : conscious Himself of His Messianic calling. He would naturally regard Himself as the Heaxi of this ideal class. The central i<iea of the expression would thus be that of the trtie gervant o/G'od,— pre-eminently Hiniftelf, but not necessarilv and uniformly exclusive of others («o. e.,<7., In Mt 82"l'J^i, Mk 2l»-'-«,— in Mt 111" the expl. 'a man' 15 8. 4] nia^v i>e mlopted). The eschat passages may be viajons of the spintual conquest of the world by a Divinely commissioned humanity, personified as ' the son of man.'
'21. Most of these opinions contain elements of truth ; but the diverL'ence as regards the funda- mental idea denoted by the exiiressiou in remark- ttble. Still those views wliicli see in the title .lame relation to humanity decidedly predominate. The
present writer must own that he is most attracted by the views of Westcott and Weiss (to which those of Neander, B.iur, and Holtzmann in 1865 lead up). The expression, understood in the natural sense of the words, denotes one who, though a Man, holds nevertheless a unique position among men ; and this, it seems to him, is the proper -starting-point for investigatin; its meaning, and discovering the further ideas (u any) attaching to it. He cannot think that the title was first used by Christ in the eschat. passages, or even after Peter's confession : whatever its sj)ecial signifi- cance may have been, it must have been an ex- pression heard frequently upon our Lord's lips, and the discijiles must have first become familiar with it in comparatively neutral or colourless pas- sages, not in tho.se foretelling either His future sullerings or His future glory. The title may have lieen liorrowed by our Lord from Dn 7" ; but He did not, at least when first using it, intend to bring before His hearers the figure there portrayed : He adopted it as a mere shell or form, suggestive of His humanity, into which He threw a new import and content of His own : more special associations derived from Dn 7" — perhaps, also, in Mt 16" 1928 2531 from Enoch *— came first to be attached to it in the eschat. passages. I's 8, with its strikingly-drawn contrast between the actual lowliness and the ideal dignity of man, may also well have contributed to the adoption of the title by our Lord. The title, as it seems to the present writer (though he would avoid such expressions as the ' ideal' or 'representative' man), designates Jesus as t/ic Man in wliom human nature was most fully and deeply realized, and who was the most comjilete exponent of its cajiaeities, warm and broad in His sympathies, ready to minister and suffer for others, sharing to the full the needs and deprivations which are the common lot of humanity, but conscious at the same time of the dignity and greatness of human nature, and destined ulti- mately to exalt it to unexampled majesty and glory. He would in general endorse cordially what is written on this subject in vol. ii. p. 023*"'' (cf. also p. 850'').