The absence of the phrase 6 w6stoD avdpuirov from the general body of NT writings cannot, therefore, be explained as entirely due to a reverent or super- stitious disinclination to use a title which Jesus had appropriated to Himself. If the details of the martyrdom of James the Just given by Hegesippus and quoted by Eusebius be accepted, we have the designation used of the glorified Jesus Messiah. On being asked concerning Jesus who was crucified, he answered in a loud voice, ' Why do ye ask me about Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven' {HE ii. 23). According to Jerome, the Gospel according to the Helirews stated that Jesus had revealed Himself to James after His resurrection as 'the Son of man' ('filius hominis ' [Vir. III. 2]), and we may conjecture that the expression in Hegesippus is a reminiscence of that event. It may be readily accepted tliat the words of James the Just are ' of the nature of a quotation.' It is not, however, so easy to see why the same should be said of ' the use of the phrase by the martyr Stephen in the Acts and the martyr James the Just in Eusebius and by the angels in Luke after the Resurrection ' (E. A. Abbott, The Son of Man, Cambridge, 1910 [3317] ; cf. note on [3317(i]). The vision of Stephen gives a wider and deeper significance to the Messianic activities of the ascended Jesus. ' The Son of man ' stands on the right hand of God ready to express His feelings of love and sympathy with the sons of the race to which He belongs.
There are two passages in the NT where the words S/ioiov villi' dfOpuiirov are found (Rev 1'^ 14'*) Vioth in descriptive accounts of the Seer's visions, l-iuite obviously the references are to Jesus as
the glorified Messiah (see, on the other hand, H. Lietzmann, Der lilrn.'irhen.whn, Tiibingen, 1896, p. 56), and evidently are allusions to the apocalyptic langu.age of Daniel (7'''). According to G. D.alinan, the origin of the ex])ression is to be disi^overed not in Dn 7'^ but in lO'^'- [The Words of Jc.uts, Edin- burgh, 19U2, p. 251). The peculiar phraseology of the NT apocalyptist shows that, although he may have known and even been thinking of Jesus' self-designation, his eschatological doctrine had its roots in the soil of Judaistic transcendent- alism, moving in a plane higher than that of grammatical construction (cf. ojuoioi x°^''<''^'f*''''<*'F I'\ etc.), and that we cannot equ.ate his expression with the ^ewpuj . . , ri;' i/i6»' toO df^puiTrou of Stephen (see H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John-, London, 1907, p. 15). The use of Siioioi as an adverb in both passages may have been due to the translation he was accustomed to use, but in any case the above conclusion is not atlected (S/ioiot ui(is = ws i/Ws).
There seems, indeed, no reason to doubt that this designation was well known to the w^riters and teachers of the ajiostolic period in spite of non- usage. We need not stay to inquire into the ultimate origin of the idea underlying the term or whether it is to he traced to the Persian doctrine of the Primal Man (see C. Clemen, Primitiue Christianity anditsNon- Jewish Sources, Edinburgh, 1912, p. 150 ft'.). The expression has become native to Palestinian thought and v/a.H a, terminus tec/uiicus of Jewish eschatological speculation. The use of the 8th Psalm by St. Paul in 1 Co 15-'' and his dis- cussion as to the relative appearances in time of the 'earthy' {xo'kS^) and the 'heavenly' (iirovpdvios) man suggest his acquaintance with the term 6 vlb! ToC a.v6pujirov. The same may be said of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Jesus' superiority in rank to the angelic beings, notwithstanding the fact that He is wis avdpunrov, is insisted on. The author of the Epistle to the Ephesians not only quotes this Psalm {iravTo. WiTa^eii, Eph P-), but does so as if its highest application is discovered in the eternal exaltation of Jesus (iiirepdvu Trd<rr)s dpxvi, kt\.) 'the I/ord,' and in His session (Kadia-as) at the right hand of God in the heavenly regions {4v de^i^ airrov iv roh iirovpavtoi^ ; see J. Moffatt's translation in The Historical New Testa- ment-, Edinburgh, 1901, p. 232; cf. the use of the Danielle visions in 2 Es 13^'-)-
Widely difl'erent reasons are given by scholars to explain the absence of the term ' the Son of man ' in the writers of the apostolic period. All the Greek-speaking leaders of Christian thougiit from Ig-natius and Justin Martyr to Chrysostom agree in teaching that the title has a special reference to the human nature of Jesus, the human side in His descent. So also do Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Ambrose. For them its importance and signi- ficance were mainly dogmatic and theological, less suitable for the exigencies of practical instruction and life. For whatever reason, it did not then, and it never has, become a popular designation of Jesus by the Church (see DCG ii. 664'*).
J. R. Willis.
SOOTHSAYING.— A comparison of the words used in ditterent versions of the Scriptures to indi- cate the various practices and practisers of divina- tion— using that word in its very widest sense — shows how indefinite was and is the significance attached to all these, and intensifies the desire that research may speedily classify them and de- termine the exact meaning of each. The English word ' .soothsay ' strictly means ' to tell authorita- tively the truth.' The phrases 'sooth to say,' ' in good sooth ' show the primary meaning. Men are especially an,xious regarding the future ; hence a soothsayer is a sayer of truth as regards the future.