Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man (page 2)

Jeffro

The Christian re-interpretation of ‘son of man’ is a corruption (which itself was likely present in various sects of Judaism in the first century) of the original intent, and the original word in Daniel 7:13 just means ‘a human’. Compare similar usage of ‘son of man’ throughout Ezekiel. As used in Daniel, it conveys (hyperbolically) that a new king in the line of David was expected to arise. The corruption of the term likely developed after expectations failed regarding the appearance of a human messiah in the years after Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE.

See also Ezekiel revisited - Teaching Box 7B (review of Pure Worship book).

peacefulpete

Jeffro, I appreciate the response. I'm certain you are correct that the "one like a son of man" was intended to mean "like a man/human", that is the underlying irony/reversal of expectation being dramatized. Repeatedly in Daniel and related works the reversal of fortune/destiny figures into the concept of divine provenance. The unlikeliest, the downtrodden, the lowliest become the powerful. In this pericope, the divine (or other heavenly entity depending upon form of vs 13) taking on the appearance of a man is elevated to the eternal King. I'll add that no mention is made of David or Davidic messianism. Not all sects of Judaism shared that particular idea and it would appear the author had opportunity but did not include this concept.

Jeffro

peacefulpete:

I'll add that no mention is made of David or Davidic messianism. Not all sects of Judaism shared that particular idea and it would appear the author had opportunity but did not include this concept.

It’s impossible to say for sure. The book of Daniel overall is intentionally cryptic. Davidic lineage was obviously a prominent belief, and the author of Daniel doesn’t specify any other lineage, though it’s possible that the author had some alternative in mind (and likely favouring the Maccabees). One ‘benefit’ of being less specific is it allows greater latitude for supposed ‘fulfilments’, which may or may not have also been intentional.

Jeffro

Just to clarify, the overall theme of Daniel was a (hoped for) Maccabean victory over Syria, which does imply a Maccabean king. But the supernatural imagery in Daniel 7:13 is so vague that the author could have intended a subsequent permanent Davidic lineage ruling at some point. The passage is ultimately hyperbole representing independent rule from Jerusalem rather than being subject to other nations, so there's no point trying to take it literally.

(Note that Daniel 8:17 refers to the pseudonymous author of Daniel as "son of man", which could imply that the anonymous author of Daniel thought of himself as the potential king, though use of the phrase there is probably just coincidental.)

Vidqun

Jesus referred to himself as "Son of man" approximately 60 times. Difficult not to make the connection.

Jeffro

Vidqun:

Jesus referred to himself as "Son of man" approximately 60 times

Well, he might have. We have no idea what Jesus said. All we have is stories written decades after his death. But even then, he had the book of Daniel available to him, so claiming to be the 'son of man' (completely contorting the original purpose of the phrase) would be entirely unremarkable. See also Psalm 146:3.

And Ezekiel is called the 'son of man' more than 90 times, if we're just playing by the numbers. 🙄

Vidqun

Not sure how one can view "someone like the son of man" the same as the Ancient of days. He approached the Ancient of days and kingship was bestowed upon him.

Daniel 7:13, 14 (OG) I was watching in the night visions, and lo, as it were a son of man was coming upon the clouds of heaven. And he came as far as the ancient of days, and the attendants were present with him. And royal authority was given to him, and all the nations of the earth according to posterity, and all honor was serving him. And his authority is an everlasting authority, which shall never be removed-- and his kingship, which will never perish.

--- Daniel (TH) I was watching in the night visions, and lo, as it were a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came as far as the ancient of days and was presented to him. And to him was given the dominion and the honor and the kingship, and all peoples, tribes, languages shall be subject him. His authority is an everlasting authority, which will not pass away, and his kingship will not be destroyed.

(Dan. 7:13, 14 NETS)

Theodotion based his text on the MT. It became the standard Daniel text. Most modern scholars believe the OG version to be based on a different, unidentified text because of the differences. Few MSS remain with it as their text.

However, it seems as though "son of man" was a common designation at the time. Gabriel refers to Daniel as such (cf. Dan. 8:17). Of course the context is different. Same goes for Ezekiel. In the vision the person coming before the Ancient of days is referred to "someone like a son of man," quite apt for a heavenly setting, where a human would not survive. Makes sense to me.

Jeffro

Vidqun:

quite apt for a heavenly setting, where a human would not survive

How could you possibly know whether a human in a vision could survive in an imaginary place? Apparently Abraham could survive in heaven to dispense drops of water to people in hell, so there’s no basis for saying ‘a human couldn’t survive’ in the given context.

The term used just means ‘a human’.

peacefulpete

Vidqun....the OG translation you posted is apparently a 'corrected' version of the original.

It reads: ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶντοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπουἤρχετο καὶ [ἕ]ὡς παλαιὸςἡμερῶν παρῆνκαὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν[προσήγαγον] αὐτῷ

Jeffro.....I can't help but think of the Enochic works. The Son of Man's throne is reserved ultimately for Enoch. Symbolism and typology dominated.

KalebOutWest

It appears, in editing a space, I lost my entire comment. I will return when I can to add it again. I don't know what happened.

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

Share this