«FIGLIO DELL'UOMO». — A Semitic expression normally meaning “man.” In Hebrew ben ’ādhām (“s. of m.”) is found in parallelism with ’ādhām or ’ēnās (“man”): Iob 25, 6; Ps. (Heb.) 144, 3; Is. 51, 12; Ez. 2, 1, etc. In Aramaic and Syriac bar ’ēnās (“s. of m.”) or bar nāsā (“the s. of m.”) is commonly used to indicate “man.”
It nevertheless seems that the expression takes on a particular, messianic sense in Daniel and in the Gospels.
Dan. 7, 13 ff., after describing the vision of the four beasts, adds: “I was observing in the night visions, — and behold, with the clouds of heaven — there came one like a man (in the Aramaic kēbar ’ēnās, ‘like a s. of m.’) — and he came even to the Ancient of Days — and they brought him before him. — And to him was given power — and majesty and kingdom, etc.” (version by G. Rinaldi, p. 82). Daniel himself explains the vision: “These great beasts — there are four of them — are four kings, who will arise on the earth, but then the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it for ever and ever” (7, 17 ff.); and further on: “The kingdom … shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High” (7, 27). The passage is certainly messianic: Jews and Christians so understood II. The question is whether that “s. of m.” is an individual (the Messiah) or a collectivity (the messianic people of the saints). From the context it seems to follow that the prophet understood it in a collective sense (7, 17 ff. 27). But this collective sense does not exclude the possibility that the Messiah, as an individual, presides over “the people of the saints”: the King who, for the ancients, personified the kingdom. This individual sense (which we might call the “full literal” sense, if it was not perfectly understood by the prophet but only by God the inspirer) is seen in the prophecy by the subsequent revelation, which interprets it authentically.
Jesus, before Caiaphas, cites and authentically interprets Daniel’s prophecy, applying it to the individual Messiah, indeed to himself: “You will see the S. of m. seated at the right hand of Power, coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt. 26, 64). In Jewish tradition the expression was applied to the Messiah by the Ethiopic apocryphon of Enoch 46, 2. IV Esd. 13, 8 ff. (first century A.D.) likewise sees in it an individual sense.
In the Gospels the expression, determined by two articles, “the s. of m.” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), occurs 32 times in Matthew, 14 in Mark, 26 in Luke, and 12 in John, always on the lips of Jesus (or of persons repeating Jesus’ words). The passages are examined by P. Vannutelli (pp. 1–17). In the rest of the New Testament, the formula occurs once more on the lips of St Stephen: “I see the S. of m. standing at the right hand of God” (Act. 7, 55, an allusion to Dan. 7, 13), and twice in the Apocalypse (1, 13 and 14, 14, a citation of Dan. 7, 13: ὁμοίον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου).
What does this expression, which Jesus alone applies to himself, mean? P. Vannutelli (p. 45) concludes that “the s. of m.” on Jesus’ lips means “man,” that is, “I” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου = ἀνθρώπος = ἐγώ).
From a grammatical point of view, this interpretation of the Semitic expression can be justified, all the more since in some parallel passages of the Synoptics the formula is replaced by “I” (cf. Mt. 5, 11 with Lc. 6, 22; Mt. 10, 32 with Lc. 12, 8; Mt. 16, 31 with Mc. 8, 27 and Lc. 9, 18; Mt. 16, 21 with Mc. 8, 31 and Lc. 9, 22; Mt. 19, 28 with Lc. 22, 29; Mt. 20, 28 with Mc. 10, 45 and Lc. 22, 27).
This solution, however, does not seem satisfactory in every case. The opinion most commonly held among the Fathers and ancient exegetes maintains that, in using this formula, Jesus intends to emphasize his human nature, assumed in the Incarnation.
Others suppose that, in using this formula, Jesus clearly identifies himself as the Messiah foretold by Daniel. This solution suits the passage of Mt. 26, 61, before Caiaphas; it does not, however, seem admissible in all the other cases, especially since, if Jesus had clearly attributed to himself the title of the glorious Messiah, he would have fostered hopes of a political Messiah, whereas he intended to correct them.
The best solution holds that, by applying to himself this title, which could mean, depending on the case, “man,” “I,” or “Messiah,” Jesus intended to grade the light of his messianic Revelation. By calling himself by the messianic title used by Daniel, which could nevertheless take on veiled overtones, he allowed it to be understood that he was an extraordinary man and, for those capable of understanding it, that s. “of m.” of whom Daniel speaks. By using this term when predicting his Passion, he also corrected the Jewish expectation of a glorious political Messiah.
Some rationalists, supposing that s. of m. is a clear messianic title derived from Daniel, deny that Jesus used II. They suppose that the primitive community placed the expression of its faith on Jesus’ lips. This theory, which denies the historical value of the Gospel, can also be refuted by understanding the formula as a “veiled” messianic title, chosen by Jesus in order to grade the light.