Mt 12^» (cf. Lk n^). It is .sufficient to point out that St. Luke places this saying in order of time considerably later than does St. Matthew, and as before, preference must be given to St. Luke in a matter of clironological order.
Finally, the parable of the Tares, in the explana- tion of which the title appears twice (Mt 13^''''*i), may, with good reason, be said to belong to a late period in our Lord's ministry. It owes its present position to St. Matthew's desire to bring it into the collection of parables comprised in his 13th chapter.
Thus, of the instances in wliich our Lord's self- designation appears in the Synoptic Gospels prior to their recital of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi, tliere is not one which can, on examination, be held to attbrd proof that this Messianic title was used by Him before His follower had declared Him to be the Messiah, or to invalidate the assumption that the use of the title by our Lord began at the time of that declaration, not earlier.
In St. Matthew's account of the incident at Caesarea there are reniarliable additions, both to our Lord's question and to Peter's answer. In Mt 161^ we read : ' Who do men say that tlie Son of Man is ? ' The answer is given : ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' In Mk 8^7 the question is : ' Who do men say that I am ? ' The answer is simply : ' Thou art the Clirist.' St. Luke (918-20) agrees, with but slight variations, with St. Mark. He has : ' Who do the multitudes say that I am ? . . . Thai Christ of God.' We have here another case — the most notable of all such cases— in which the title has been substituted for the pronoun which our Lord employed. It is possible that in this case the additional clause was first appended to Peter's answer, and that the substitution in our Lord's question was occasioned by it — a substitution which represents the desired answer as already provided in the statement of the question. Holtzmann may be right in suggesting that doctrinal interests are answerable for such a result. He says (op. cit. vol. i. p. 258) that ' the First Evangelist appears as the theologian, who sees in the "Son of Man" the obverse of the "Son of God," and so prepares the way for the doctrine of the two natures.' Whether the clauses in qiiestion are to be ascribed to St. Matthew himself, or whether they may be due to the theological tendency of a later hand, may be regarded as an open question.
For other instances than those already cited of this variation— the title appearing in one Gospel, but not in the parallel passage in another, or in the other two — see Lk 12^ as compared with Mt 10^^ ; Mt 16-8, cf. Mk 91 and Lk 9^' ; Mk 10^^ and Mt 2028, cf. Lk 22^'' ; Mk ^'^ and Lk 9^2, cf. Mt 16^1.
As to the occurrence of ' the Son of Man ' in the earlier chapters of the Fourth Gospel, it need here only be pointed out that such occurrence is in entire accord with the representation of St. John, that from their earliest association with Him our Lord's followers knew that He was the Divine Christ. The declaration of Messiahship and the use of the title are concurrent in the Fourth Gospel as in the Synoptics. This agreement is to be emphasized here : the reconciliation of the view, which repre- sents our Lord's Messiahship as declared from the outset of His ministry, with the threefold testimony that such declaration followed only when disciples had received prolonged training in the course of that ministry, does not come within the scope of our present purpose. The first occurrence of the self-designation in St. John's Gospel attbrds a striking parallel to our Lord's use of it in resjionse to Peter's confes-sion (Mk 2P-^^). Nathanael de- clares Jesus to be ' the Son of God . . . king of Israel,' and to that confession Jesus responds with the promise : ' Ye shall see the heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending ujion the Son of Man ' ( Jn P^). Similarly ,in 3^^, it is Avhen Jesus has declared to Nicodemus that He lias Himself descended from heaven and can therefore tell of heavenly things, that He goes on to designate Himself ' the Son of Man,' and to foretell His suffering on behalf of man. Here it may be noted that in the Fourth Gospel, precisely as in the Synoptics, not a hint is given that the title was unfamiliar and one that called for explanation. Nicodemus was not indisposed to ask questions ; but St. John leaves us to infer that as to this designation he found no difficulty. Three times in ch. 6 (vv.-^- ^*- ^-), in connexion with the dis- course in whicli Jesus speaks of Himself as ' the bread which came down out of heaven,' the title occurs, accompanying and used to emphasize an ()[)en declaration of our Lord's claims as to His Person and Work.
Tlie later occurrences of the title in the Fourtli (Jospel all, with the exception of 9^'"' (if avdpwirov be the right reading there), are found — as is the