of Matthew, is an idea of sonship which approximates
to the physical notion of the heathen world. Earlier still it was
probably used as a synonym for the Davidic Messiah. The question is
whether this is its meaning in the earliest passage of all,--the
account given in the first chapter of Mark of the voice from heaven at
the baptism which said, "Thou art my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased." It is generally held that this is a quotation from the
second Psalm,[4] and therefore identifies Jesus with the Davidic
Messiah. But is it quite so certain that it is a quotation from
anything? The words of the Psalm are really quite different, "Thou art
my Son" instead of "Beloved Son," and "This day have I begotten {55}
thee" instead of "in whom I am well pleased." Why should we suppose
either that the voice from heaven was restricted to quoting scripture,
or that it did so with quite remarkable inaccuracy? If, however, the
idea be abandoned that the voice from heaven necessarily refers to the
second Psalm, it becomes an open question whether Jesus himself
regarded his divine sonship as the Davidic messiahship, or as that
divine sonship which the Book of Wisdom ascribes to the righteous. The
problem thus raised can never be settled, for the evidence is
insufficient; but neither can it be dismissed, for it is implicit in
the gospel itself.

The whole importance of this series of problems in the history of early
Christology is often strangely mistaken. It seems to many as though
the line of thought suggested above, which reduces to a vanishing point
the amount of Christology traceable, in the ordinary sense of the word,
to Jesus himself, is in some way a grave loss to Christianity. No
doubt it is a departure from orthodoxy. But if the history of religion
has any clear lesson, it is that a nearer approach to truth is always a
departure from orthodoxy. Moreover, the alternative to the view stated
above is to hold that Jesus did regard himself as either one or both of
the two Jewish figures, the Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man
described in Enoch. Both of these are part of a general view of the
universe, and especially of a prognostication of the future, wholly
different from our own, and quite incredible {56} to modern minds. How
do we endanger the future of Christianity by doubting that Jesus
identified himself with figures central in incredible and now almost
universally abandoned forms of thought?

[1] I