Ibn Ḥazm said, “Preponderantly reported in their gospels, in more than one chapter, is whenever the Messiah would refer to himself he would use [the phrase] ‘Son of Man’ – it is beyond the bounds of possibility, and undeniably idiotic, [to suggest] that the ilaah [diety] would be the son of a human; or concurrently being the son of an ilaah [diety] and the son of a human, or for a human to bear an ilaah [diety]. There is nothing [within the bounds of] witlessness, impossibility, and kufr [that exceeds] beyond this. We seek refuge with Allaah ﷻ from misguidance.”
→ Kitab al-Fisal fi’l-Milal wa-al-Ahwa’ wa-al-Nihal 2/21 | Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi [Maktabatul as-Salaam al-‘aalamiyyah] | Translated by: Abu Dawūd [Mustafa b. Saalih] al-Hushayshi
Evidently, even the patristic interpreters acceded the understanding that the phrase “Son of Man” is an explicit phrase, “Son” in the genealogical sense and “Man” denoting Jesus’ being human. Though, in their understanding it was in reference to a particular person – Son of Man/Human” referring either to the Virgin Mary or Adam.
These alternatives were posed by Justin in his “Dialogue with Trypho (209)” — Son of Man essentially is an indirect reference Jesus supposedly used to refer to himself; shows humility and that he was *human.
“The Dialogue of Trypho” is a second century apologetic text documenting a discussion between the theologian Justin Martyr and a Jewish figure named Trypho, some asserted that Trypho here is Tarfon, while others state that Trypho is a fictional character invented by Justin.