Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete 56 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Vidqun...maybe think of it in parallel to Prov 8 description of lady Wisdom:

  “Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.”

  Wisdom is the well-known emanation of God in his creative works and later Torah. Yet the imagery portrays 2 characters interacting. Of course in the Dan 7 OG the imagery is 'clarified', so the two are in fact visionary aspects of the same divinity, through the difference of a few words. The riding on clouds, the receiving "service/worship" and the sitting on throne all together strongly suggest the identification with the AD.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  The individual in the context of the vision was originally Michael the Archangel.

  This is an apocalypse, and as such it is a “vision” or a scene in which the players are tropes borrowed from previous Jewish compositions, stories and writings to fit in with the Hasmonean narrative.

  The Hasmoneans had just defeated the Seleucids and were now doing something the Jews had not done since before the Babylonian Exile, namely rule themselves with their own king. In the Book of Daniel, this is pictured with a series of visions, as if the events are settled via spirits in heaven. The idea came from the Jews being exposed to Persian ideas, especially their demonology and the concept that world events were thus destined to the outcome to the battles between the forces of good and evil.

  While not named or necessarily Michael at the time of composition, at Joshua 5:13-15, before receiving dominion over Jericho (Joshua 6:2), Joshua only receives victory when the captain of God’s forces appears before him “like a son of man” in a vision.

  The “son of man” is, sort of, “messianic,” only there was no messianic hope or theology at the time of its original writing. If that seems contradictory it is only because most are unaware of the evolution of Judaism and when and how the concept of the Messiah came about. It has a lot to do with the Hasmoneans.

  When Judas Maccabeus led the Jews to victory against the Seleucid forces, that autonomous act of anointing and installing a new line of kings over the Jews led to a mixed history. There was freedom, yes, but the Hasmoneans abused it and their own people. They started to twist the Jewish religion in favor of the abusing Hasmonean rulers who engaged in forced conversions of those who were refusing to submit. Their own political intrigue, which included murder, blinded them to the rise of Rome, which was inducing the Herodians to trick its way into the Hasmonean line by way of its own subtleties. This was done by an arranged marriage.

  When all was done, the Herodians had control of Judea, the Romans of the territory, and the Hasmoneans had nothing. The Jews were once again enslaved to new masters.

  Always searching for answers in disbelief, the Jews turned to the Scriptures. The Mosaic Law, teaching that the kings must only come from the tribe of Judah, was claimed to be the sticking point. The Hasmoneans were all Levites. As the suffering under the Herodians and the Romans increased, a new theology stitching together texts where the promised coming Golden Age for humankind and the promises to David that one of his “anointed” offspring will always sit on his throne were developed into the Messiah theology of Judaism.

  The Hasmoneans originally ended Daniel with the 12th chapter, where Michael “stands” and it spells doom for the Gentile nations but prosperity for the Jews. Oddly this did not happen this way. While the books of 1 & 2 Maccabees are quite accurate, historically speaking (even 2 Maccabees with all its religious references), due to the failure of that dynasty the books were never considered for the Jewish canon. The story of Chanukah that is celebrated is not the victory of Judas Maccabeus over the Seleucid army but of God miraculously supplying enough oil to light the Temple menorah for all 8 days of the first celebration of the re-dedication.

  And the Book of Daniel itself? It is not even given prophet status. It is considered one of the Writings or Nevi’im. This was partially due to the fact that there was no “Daniel” who preached as a prophet to Israel or Judah (even in the book the character is not sent to prophesy to the Jews). The “prophet” is often considered a folk hero.

  In the end, the great Jewish scholar Rashi who died in 1105 attributed the “son of man” of Daniel 7:13 to messianic expectations. So eventually, it has evolved to become that figure.

  Today, many Jews do not believe that the concept of a Jewish monarchy that will rule all Jewish people and the world is compatible with justice. Therefore they do not believe in a “personal” messianic figure as part of the messianic hope.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  Final Redactions and Greek Additions to the Texts

  When the Hasmonean Dynasty was coming to the close, the Daniel apocalypse itself proved to be a failure. There are signs that the writers began to see themselves not as mere composers of political intrigue (which is what most apocalyptic authors are) but perhaps a new school of inspired prophets to Judea.

  Scholars see this in the final redactions to the text of Daniel, the very “prophecies” that fascinate groups like the Watchtower religion.

  These are time calculations for the coming Golden Age, the revival of the Solomonic Era or prosperity. Believing they were not merely the inheritors but the very ones to bring it forth into the world, chapter 12 of Daniel has them at the forefront of a future world where all Gentile forces fall before them as the powers of heaven literally drop them to their feet in an all out “end-of-the-world” scenario.

  At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish [for the Gentiles] such as has never occurred since [the Gentile] nations first came into existence. But at that time your people [the Jews] shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.--Daniel 12:1.

  The “great prince” of Joshua chapter 5, now in the person of Michael the Archangel, having received dominion, has “restored the kingdom to Israel” to the Hasmonean Dynasty. (Compare the question asked of Jesus at Acts 1:6) Three dates are set for the date of the Golden Age. One at Daniel 12:7, another at verse 11, and then at verse 12.

  Why? Because the Hasmoneans for the most part were quite honest about history-keeping. Not totally, but not given to the normal amount of superstition that others were. The apocalypse of Daniel, though a hidden language of tropes that for a time the Maccabean fighters had to employ due to oppression, eventually could be more open once they won more and more of their freedom. While no one is perfectly honest, they had quite a bit of candor due to the fact that their pride blinded them to even their own self destruction.

  The “end of days” or Golden Days that they write about was believed to begin with the first Chanukah celebration and the death of Antiochus in 164 BCE, when the Temple was liberated and rededicated. (vs 7) When one date for their “end” did not come, they merely left that “prediction” in the text and just added the newly updated one. (vs 11)Then when that one failed, they added the recalculation beside it. (vs 12) Eventually the Hasmonean Dynasty completely failed, and so Daniel is put to rest, to “rise” for his own reward “at the end of days.”--vs 13.

  Why were Greek additions added to Daniel, namely the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susana and Bel & the Dragon. While the last two are very entertaining on their own and likely circulated independently because of this before being added, the reason for all three being attached to Daniel might be the same reason there are additions to Mark. It is clear that Daniel comes to a swift and sudden end in the book named after him. We don’t know what happens to our protagonist. It is a very cryptic ending for a book that begins with wild stories of our hero. Is that it? Just some tales of numbers and days? Then he dies? Did somebody tear off the ending? Did we lose it or something?

  So it seems natural that these stories fit the bill when the Greek Septuagint was developed. Daniel needed a proper ending. The rabbis likely did not appreciate the book or its meanings very much, but there was very much interest in it and its signs and visions. It was the “Revelation” of its day. Did it really predict the future and foretell the “end of days”? People really wanted to know. So it was prepared "properly" for the wider readership who used Greek as their main language of reading the Jewish text.
• 

  peacefulpete

  That was worth waiting for KoW. Good stuff. I've read others having concluded Daniel 7 was featuring Michael as SM. I follow the logic but have to question the obvious, why not simply make it explicit? Why describe the powerful angelic Prince as 'like a son of man' which has been argued effectively to imply human frailty in Daniel. I follow your logic regarding Joshuah usage of the term, but that was hundreds years distant and likely had different shades of meaning by the time of Dan 7 composition.

  Matt 16 famously has Jesus ask who the people say the SM is, implying that their were multiple opinions centered around one of the prophets.

  Much like you said: players are tropes borrowed from previous Jewish compositions, stories and writings

  The answer insisting the SM and Messiah are one and the same reflects the view of the writer and his community not apparently the majority view even then. The half joking suggestion that the author imagined Daniel to be the SM isn't as crazy as it seems. Like I said the similar books of Enoch elevate Melchizedek, Enoch to godlike status.

  I love the suggestion that the Hasmoneans themselves were responsible for Daniel. Maybe, but it would seem easier to assume someone with deep sympathies for their efforts, given the short sighted prediction.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  Why describe the powerful angelic Prince as 'like a son of man' which has been argued effectively to imply human frailty in Daniel.

  I think that is a bit of a Christian idea. Jews and the Hasmoneans didn't have the same view.

  First, the term chebar actually means "like" as in "similar to" or "about" as in "something around the likes of." It doesn't refer to the quality of the subject, as if the subject is the same or necessarily shares something with what is being described.

  It appears at Daniel 5:31 in reference to telling an age:

  And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about [chebar] sixty-two years old.

  The vision is connected to the ideas in chapter 12. But Michael is neither an "angel" in the Christian sense* nor the "messiah." Michael is the "dominion" or the authority or autonomy that the Hasomonean kings believed God had given them once they had received their Temple back from Antiochus. He is kind of like an excuse, to put it lightly.

  Recall, these are Levites. Some of the Hasmoneans were part of the priesthood, from which came the high priest. So when time came to anoint a king, they knew the Torah and what is said about restrictions regarding rulership. They should have stopped their own family from taking the crown.

  Instead, they anointed their brothers and put them on the throne. The high priest, the one who was supposed to know and uphold the Law for the people, was the only one who could anoint the king if there was no authorized prophet to do so. No one else could. Thus it was corrupt from the beginning.

  How does one, therefore, legitimize an illegitimate dynasty that, according to Torah, is against the Law?

  You write an oracle (as if you were a prophet) in which the Ancient of Days gives power to what was at the time believed to be the Prince guaradian of the Jews: Michael the Archangel.

  In the vision of Daniel 7, the vision is of four succeeding kingdoms: Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.

  When we get to verses 7-8, we come to the kings of the Seleucid empire. The little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes who usurped the throne and persecuted the Jews.

  The writing of the apocalypse, of course, is contemporary with the events, usually after. When the Jews receive access to their Temple again and freedom to worship, the vision of "the son of man" that gains access to "the Ancient of Days" is written.

  Is this "son of man" figure "the Jews"? Yes. Is he also "Michael the Archangel"? Yes, because he represents the Jews. Is this the Hasmoneans? Yes, because this was how they legitimized breaking the Mosaic Law to anoint their own brothers as kings when they as priests knew Levites had no right to rule as kings. Is this the "messiah"? There was no "messiah" teaching officially yet, but eventually the Hasmonean view of "Michael" was abandoned because of what they did and the Jews accepted a general "messiah" view of the text.

  By the time the Herodian Temple stood, the Greek version of Daniel was popular reading. There were many explanations of Daniel, many views of "the son of man." And there was finally a full-fleshed out belief in the Messiah.

  What there wasn't was a belief in the Hasmonean dynasty or its original ideals, teachings, or even the way it celebrated Chanukah (for a time then and after rabbis tried to stop it). The Christian movement and the Bar Kokhba Revolt only made it loose favor in the eyes of the Jewish sages and teachers. The Book of Daniel barely made it into the Hebrew canon.

  ___

  *-I could spend too much time trying to reframe something that would only leave people so confused. There are very few concrete things in Judaism. Angels is not one of them. Suffice to say: Christian angels are one thing, Jewish angels another. Apples, oranges. Best to leave it there for now.
• 

  Jeffro

  KoW:

  the first Chanukah celebration and the death of Antiochus in 164 BCE, when the Temple was liberated and rededicated

  Temple was rededicated in December 165 BCE, prior to the death of Antiochus IV in 164BCE.
• 

  Vidqun

  Peacefulpete, in the end much ado about nothing. NETS used the Gottingen Septuagint as basis. Those editors as well as Pietersma and team view it as a transcriptional error [καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς (Dan. 7:13 LXT) > καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιου (Dan. 7:13 LXXRH)], therefore the similarity between the Old Greek and Theodotion in their translation. I thought it was a long shot and it is a long shot, but interesting nevertheless.
  
• 

  KalebOutWest

  Since they were unable to celebrate the holiday of Sukkot at its proper time in early autumn, the victorious Maccabees decided that Sukkot should be celebrated once they rededicated the Temple, which they did on the 25th of the month of Kislev in the year 164 B.C.E. Since Sukkot lasts seven days, this became the timeframe adopted for Hanukkah.--The History of Hanukkah, MyJewishLearning.com, Italics Added.
• 

  Jeffro

  Sources vary between 164 BCE or 165 BCE but 165 BCE is the correct year for the rededication of the temple in the December prior to Antiochus’ death in the 149th year of the Seleucid empire, which began in 312 BCE.
• 

  Jeffro

  What You Need to Know About the Hanukkah Story, MyJewishLearning.com:

  In three years, the Maccabees cleared the way back to the Temple Mount, which they reclaimed. They cleaned the Temple and dismantled the defiled altar and constructed a new one in its place. Three years to the day after Antiochus’ mad rampage (Kislev 25, 165 BCE), the Maccabees held a dedication (hanukkah) of the Temple with proper sacrifice, rekindling of the golden menorah, and eight days of celebration and praise to God. [Proper] Jewish worship had been reestablished.