again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
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.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
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.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
Reasonfirst....That book is referenced in one of the articles I linked. No reason to be shy around me, please share any insights or suggestions, pointless or not.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
SBF...You covered the topic pretty well. Identification shifted with time, politics, and translation. The crux of the matter is the pre-Christian developments that contributed to hypostatic Christology. The Son of Man appears in OG not merely as a messianic agent but as an aspect of God, much like Light, Logos, or Wisdom. Separate and described acting autonomously but yet in reality God.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
Vienna, It's a proposal that has some explanatory power. As he says unfortunately we have no ancient Hebrew versions with which to compare. Ultimately it doesn't matter as much as it seems. Once a variant text existed, readers understood the text differently. IOW, however the OG variant came to be (closer to original, scribal error, or theological alteration) subsequent readers would have seen the text differently...
You may have noticed this comment in the article:
We know that the language of Rev 1:13-14, where the exaltedJesus is called “son of man” but is depicted in terms that correspond tothe Ancient of Days of Dan 7:9 (“white hair”), was shaped by Dan 7:13OG, while other allusions to Daniel 7 – most notably in the Gospels – presuppose the clear distinction between the two characters found inthe Aramaic text and Theodotion.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
It is noted that the identification of the SofM as 'holy ones of Israel' is the result of the seeming substitution of the 'holy ones' with the SofM in the angelic interpretation offered in verse 27:
27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’
This reads rather awkward and has long been suggested to be the result of some type of gloss. Has the SofM been effectively erased from this passage to support the reading that the SofM is to be identified with the SofM?
To repeat, many have noted that only the Son of man is referred to in the vision section while only the 'holy ones' are said to receive the power in the interpretation in the MT and Theodotian forms. This is what leads many to conclude that the author intended to strictly identify the SofM as holy ones of Israel collectively. This however is not the case in the OG. In OG the holy ones are referred to in vs 8 of the vision. They are on the scene when the SofM appears. This makes the identification of SofM with holy ones improbable. This does suggest someone has removed the vs.8 reference to the holy ones in the Aramaic vorlage behind the MT and Theodotian to provide for the interpretation of the SofM as Israel and not that the SofM is the leader of the holy ones of Israel and as such all the nations. Perhaps as a result of changing Messianic views then current.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
There are a number of suggestions explaining this difference. One is the reading is the result of an effort to remove the concept of the Two Powers in Heaven that was seen as a threat by some. IOW instead of two powers, now there is only one. A second proposal suggests the opposite, that the MT (Masoretic) reading had been altered.
Johan Lust proposed the thesis that the current MT is, in fact, an “early Targum” of the original Hebrew text of Daniel, and that the OG translates, accurately, that original Hebrew text, now lost, in which the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man were, indeed, “one and the same symbol.”
In this case, the distinction between the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man would have been
introduced by the current MT – the Aramaic that supplanted the original Hebrew – in order to give voice to the apocalyptic-messianist agenda of that “early Targum.”
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
Again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site. The basic question I want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in Daniel 7. As we all know Christians understood the figure to be the Messiah (Christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of Israel as Jews typically read it? Or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?
The catalyst for this discussion is the alternate reading of Dan 7:13 found in the OG (Old Greek) LXX Papyrus 967. (andCodex Chisianus MS 88) Quoting an article by Bogdan G. Bucur: (3) The Son of Man and the Ancient of Days Observations on the Early Christian Reception of Daniel 7 | Bogdan G Bucur - Academia.edu
There is a notable dierence between two extant Greek versions of Dan7:13. While Theodotion, faithful to the Aramaic text, speaks of “one likea son of man” being presented to the Ancient of Days (ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπουἐρχόμενος ἦν καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασεν), the so-calledOld Greek (hereafter OG) depicts “one like a son of man” traveling, ingodlike fashion, “upon” the clouds of heaven (Ps 103/104:1; Isa 19:1),and approaching “like the Ancient of Days” (ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετοκαὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dadlccbe_js.
have you ever seen a full-grown elephant weighing thousands of pounds chained to a small stake in the ground when you visited a circus?
did it ever enter your mind and make you wonder how such a small stake in the ground could hold such a huge animal from straying outside the boundaries of the length of its chain and stake?
An excellent book about the human cost and power of high control groups, I'd also recommend Hostage to Heaven.
Hostage to Heaven: Barbara Underwood, Betty Underwood: 9780517538753: Amazon.com: Books
And for a broader look at the topic:
