Jesus Certainly Man.’ “ It makes very enter-
Claimed to be taining reading to observe Bousset, Messiah and for example, grudgingly conceding the Son of Man nervously endeavoring to save himself from the consequences of the damaging acknowledgment. He cannot deny that this title “ represents a perfectly definite conception of the Messiah,” a conception which sees in the IMessiah a supernatural figure who comes down from heaven for a mission, and who is clothed with no less a function than that of the Judge of the world: and he cannot deny that Jesus represents Himself as
nity that Jesus was the Messiah, and, arguing backwards, we can assert that the rise of such a belief would be absolutely Inexplicable if Jesus had not declared to His disciples in His life-time that He was Messiah.” It is consequently “ now definitely assured, in spite of continual discussions In which It Is still frequently disputed,” “ that Jesus considered Himself to be the Messiah of His people” (107). Cf. Volk-
mar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbenjousstsein Jesu, 13, and Schwartzkopff there quoted. For a frhis of the literature In which it is altogether denied that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, see Holtzmann N. T. Theologie, I. 280, note. Of course it is not disputable that it was a “ self-evident assumption ” on the part of the Synoptists that He was the Messiah (Bousset, 167): for the later community — the community which gave birth to the evangelical narratives — says Bousset (171), “ the Messiahship of Jesus was the surest, most self-evident, and most precious thing about Him.” Cf. Dalman, Words, 306.
Professor N. Schmidt may be taken as the type of those extremists who find it more convenient just to deny that Jesus used this title of Himself at all: “Jesus never used this title concerning Himself either to claim Messiahship in any sense, or to hint that He was ‘ a mere man * or ‘ the true man ’; but in some pregnant utterances used it in reference to man in general, his duties, rights and privileges” {The Trophet of Nazareth, p. vli.). Mt 8^0 according to him means that the life of man is “ full of danger and uncertainty,” whereas a beast is “not deprived of his home and hearth by his convictions” (p. in)!
\The Synoptic Jesus Pri m i live 167
‘ the Son of Man.’ But he wishes us to believe that Jesus did this only under great pressure, as the close of His life drew near and evil fate closed about Him, — seizing and clinging to the Danielic prophecy to comfort Himself in the face of the fast-coming disaster. And He assures us that Jesus did not adopt the title even then in its full content “ including the idea of preexistence and His own judgeship of the world.”
“ To Him,” he tells us, “ the idea of the Son of Man meant only one thing, — His return in glory.”^® “ He did not thereby place Himself on a level with God. Above all. He did not lay claim to the judgeship of ^ the world, although that conception was, strictly speaking, included in that of the Son of Man.” “ It is true,” ^he adds, “ in the narrative of our Gospels, the opposite V seems to be the case. But it is inconceivable...
that Jesus... should have arrogated to Himself the judgeship of the world in place of God. This is -an instance of the faith of the community working upon ^ the tradition.... As the tradition was handed down by the community, Jesus was gradually removed from the position of a simple witness for His followers before God’s tribunal to that of the actual judgeship of the world.’’^’^ That is to say, in brief, Bousset does
S, not like the consequences of allowing that Jesus applied V'" to Himself the title of ‘ Son of Man,’ and, finding Himself unable nevertheless to deny that He did apply
Jesus, p. 194. Cf. among naturalistic writers who admit that Jesus used the title ‘ Son of Man ’ in connection with promises of returning in glory: Weisse, Evang. Geschichte i. 593 seq.: Keim, Jesus of Naz., III. 85-87; Wittichen, Idee des Reiches Gottes, 166-172; Vernes, Idees Mess., 229-233, and note on 243; Schenkel, Character of Jesus, 145; Zeller, Strauss und Renan, 88-91. These are brought together by Stanton, p. 249, note I.
this title to Himself, contents himself simply with denying the consequences, — Jesus could not have meant it. Those who prefer to determine historical facts by the testimony of credible witnesses, rather than by the witness of Bousset’s consciousness as to what were fitting, will probably think otherwise.^®
Similarly it cannot be even plausibly denied that Jesus spoke the remarkable words attributed to Him Jesus Certainly in which He acknowledges His ig- Claimed to be norance of the time of His promised
Superangelic second coming. The critics are indeed in a great quandary as to this passage. It is not the kind of a passage they can assume the evangelists to have invented. On their fundamental canon that statements which are, or seem to be, in conflict with the evangelists’ hero-worship of Jesus, bear the ineradicable stamp of genuineness, they are bound to attribute these words of Jesus. For was not Jesus to the evangelists the omniscient Son of God? And how could they put on His lips a confession of ignorance of so simple a matter as the time of His return? In point of fact, accordingly, this passage is found among the nine “ absolutely credible ” passages which Schmiedel declares “ the foundation pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus,”^® and is pronounced by him to have been “ most i®Cf. Shailer Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N, T., p. 103: “The phrase is represented as being used by Jesus to refer to Himself as Judge (Mk 8^® 14®^). To argue that these passages are Christian comments added to the words of Jesus is certainly to base conclusions on no clear evidence.” Nor is it easy to be rid of Jesus’ claim to be judge of the world; says Dalman {Words, 314), justly: “The right to judge the world was assumed by Jesus when He forgave sins,” — and the assertion of a function of forgiveness by Jesus is pervasive.
certainly ” spoken by Jesus. Yet in this passage Jesus j proclaims Himself a being superior to angels, separated, that Is, from the entire category of creaturely existences, and assimilated to the divine: “No one, not even the angels In heaven, nor yet the Son, but God only.”
And If It must be allowed that the “ real Jesus ” currently called Himself ‘ the Son of Man,’ no doubt with full consciousness of Its Impllca- And God tions, and asserted for Himself superangelic dignity. It would seem mere hypercrItIcIsm which would deny to Him the great assertion of Intercommunion with the Father made In Mt Lk 10“^. On the general critical canon that sayings reported by both Matthew and Luke “ are to be used with confidence as representing the thought of Jesus,”^® this passage must be accepted as an authoritative utterance of HIs.^^ But, In that case, the “ realj Jesus ” must be credited with conceiving His relation to the Father less as that of a servant than as that of a fellow: as the ‘ Son ’ He moves In the sphere of the divine life. And, this once allowed, what reason rehand, thinks that “ it must be admitted that this verse sounds much like a gloss or editorial comment”; and Dalman {Words), p. 194, that “the ending, ‘nor the Son, but the Father only,’ should be regarded as an accretion.” Of course writers like Martineau {Seat of Authority in Religion, 590), and N. Schmidt {The Prophet of Nazareth, 147, 231) take fright at the language, which seems to them redolent of a later time; and thereby bear their unwilling witness to the implications of the passage. In refutation of Dalman see Sanday, Hastings’ B. D., IV. 573, whose general remarks are quite convincing.
20 Cf. Shailer Mathews, p. 58. This is but to say — with the whole body of critics — that passages found in both Matthew and Luke belong to what Weiss calls “ the Apostolic source,” which contains the oldest (and most trustworthy) record of words of Jesus.
21 A strong defense of the genuineness of the passage is made by mains for denying to Him the culminating expression of His divine self-consciousness, the sublime utterance In which He gives the Son a share In the Divine Name itself (Mt 28^^)? Of course It is denied to Him by the critics of the school we have been considering. But the denial Is In the circumstances purely arbitrary and creates a situation which leaves an Important historical sequence unaccounted for. It Is undeniable, for example, that the trinitarian mode of speech here illustrated was current In the Church from Its earliest origin: It already appears In Paul’s Epistles, for example, — especially, as a familiar and well-understood form of speech. In 2 Cor 13^^, which was written not more than twenty-five years after our Lord’s death and antedates all our Gospels. This current form of speech among Christians of the first age finds Its complete account If the usage were rooted In utterances of our Lord, but it hangs Inexplicably In the air without some such supposition. The occurrence of the passage In Mt 28^® In the records of our Lord’s teaching Is thus too closely
Volkmar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbe^vusi. Jesu, pp. 32 seq. Harnack {Das Wesen des Christentums, p. 81) pronounces it authentic, and treats it as the most important and characteristic of the words of Jesus. Even Schmiedel does not venture to reject it: he only, by appealing to the “ Western ” text, attempts to reduce its meaning. The Abbe Loisy, however, {I’Evangile et VEglise, 45; Autour tin petit Lwre, 130), casts it out; but on the express ground that the declaration is too high an one for Jesus to have made; which is at least an admission that the words involve a claim to ontological Sonship. Prof. N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, p. 152, considers “such an utterance out of harmony with the admittedly genuine sayings of Jesus,” and even “ to cast an undeserved reflection upon His character.” For “how can the gentle Teacher... be supposed to have imagined Himself possessed of all knowledge and regarded all other men as ignorant of God?” Certainly this is an unanswerable query if Jesus is to be conceived as thinking of Himself only as a man among other men: the
The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 1 7 1 linked to a historical situation to permit its displacement on the purely subjective grounds on which alone its genuineness can be assailed.^^
It would seem to be reasonably clear, therefore, that the attem.pt to penetrate behind the Synoptic tradition The Synoptic with a view to discovering a “ real Jesus the Real Jesus,” differing from the Synoptic
Jesus Jesus as the natural differs from the supernatural, has failed. The purely subjective grounds on which such an attempt mu^ proceed in order to reach its goal, lays it open to the exaggeration which would eliminate the figure of Jesus from history altogether. From this exaggeration, it can save itself only by imposing arbitrary limitations upon the applica- saying is, however, in point of fact, an express claim to be something
very different from this. “ The occurrence of this verse in both Matthew and Luke,” says W. C. Allen, in loc., “ even if the two Evangelists borrow from a single source, proves that this saying reaches back to an early stage of the Gospel tradition. If, as is probable, the two writers drew from different sources, this tradition was wide-spread. If we add the fact that a similar use of the Son-the Father occurs in Mk 13^“, this usage as a traditional saying of Christ is as strongly supported as any saying in the Gospels.” Cf. Plummer on Luke’s re-
port of the saying, quoted above (p. 119).
22 Schmiedel, Encyc. Bib., 1876, gives a summary of the reasons relied on to exclude the passage. The history of its criticism is briefly sketched by Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, ed. i, I. 378-379, note. F. C. Conybeare alone has sought to put a documentary basis under the rejection; see esp. his articles in Preuschen’s Zeitschrift fiir N. T. Wissenschaft, etc., 1901, Heft 4, pp. 175-78, and Hilbert Journal, I. I. The findings of Conybeare have been taken up and repeated with extraordinary avidity by nearly the whole critical school. Only Harnack holds back: “ No positive proofs can be adduced for regarding 28^® as an interpolation ” {Expansion of Christianity, E. T., I. 44-45, note). E. Riggenbach has sufficiently answered Conybeare — who indeed required no answer — (Schlatter and Cremer’s Beitrdge zur For derung christlicher Theologie, 1903. vii.; also 1906, x.).; Men like Harnack, while vindicating the genuineness of the passage in Matthew, and supposing it tion of its subjective principle, which render It nugatory for the end for which It is Invoked. In any event no reasonable grounds can be assigned for discarding the portrait of Jesus drawn by the Synoptlsts, or for depriving Him of the great sayings by which He Is represented by them as testifying to His essential deity. It is Impossible to deny on any reasonable grounds that Jesus called Himself the ‘ Son of Man ’ by predilection, and It Is purely arbitrary to suppose that in doing so He did not mean what the term Implies. It Is equally Impossible to deny that He represented Himself under the denomination of ‘ Son ’ as of superangelic dignity, and as standing in a relation of Intimate continuous Intercourse with God the Father. This prepares the way for allowing farther that He represented Himself as sharer with the Father In the divine Name Itself, and makes nugatory all subjective objection to It. The strictest scrutiny of the Synoptic record of Jesus’ teaching. In other words, renders an appeal from their representation to Jesus’ own teaching meaningless. It. Is not only the Synoptists who testify that Jesus Is a divine person, but the Jesus they report: it Is not only the Jesus as reported by them who bears this witness to Himself, but the only Jesus of history.
pre-Pauline in origin (o/>. cit. p. iii), yet deny it to Jesus. For reasons why it must be vindicated to Jesus see Hort. on i P Sanday
Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 218, 219; Hastings’ B. D., ii. 213-14, 573> 574 i P* Chase, The Lord’s Command to Baptize, in the Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1905. Cf. also Bruce, The Kingdom of God, 1889, p. 258: “With reference to the trinity of the Baptismal formula, it is to be observed that it simply sums up in brief compass the teaching of Jesus”; and especially Zahn on Mt 28i®-20
(p. 711, note 7): “The text of verses 18-20 is transmitted with certainty in all essential elements. With reference to the almost stereotyped abbreviation which recurs in Eusebius (for example Demonstr.
On the basis of the Synoptic record, In other words, we can be fully assured that Jesus not only was believed to have taught that He was a divine person, but actu-l ally did so teach.^®
E^'ang., III. 6, 32, Tropeudivreg fiaOr^TeOffars Tzdvra rd edvrj iv tw Svofxari fioo^ diddffxovTe^ xrA.), in which Conybeare, Ztschr. fiir N. T. fViss, 1901, p. 175 seg. supposes that he has discovered the original text, cf. E. Riggenbach, Der Trinit. Tanfbefehl, 1903 (Schlatter- Cremer, Beitr. VII. i), by whom the matter is set at rest (erledigt). From Eus. Epist. ad Casar. (Socr. I. 8); c. Marc. I. i; Hist. Eccl., III. 5, and other passages, it may be seen that Eusebius recognized the received text as that which had been transmitted to him too, and as that which alone could be employed in dogmatic discussion.”
23 Cf. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 252: “His own express language claimed the title [of Messiah] in a sense not one whit less supernatural and glorious than that in which it was afterwards understood.” So p. 390: “I have endeavored to show that Jesus must have claimed to be the Christ in a sense involving His deity.” Cf. pp.