Sunday, February 7, 2021

Chris Kugler on Daniel 7:13-14

In his Paul and the Image of God (2020), Chris Kugler wrote the following about Dan 7:13-14, the textual variants in the Greek manuscripts of this passage, and its ramifications for the Christology of the New Testament and Jesus being the "Son of Man":

 

In MT and Th Daniel 7.13-14, the one like a son of man comes “with the clouds of heaven (MT: עם-ענני שמיא/Th μετα των νεφελων του ουρανου)” and “unto the Ancient of Days (MT: ועד-עתיק יומיא/Th εως του παλαιου των ημερων).” Furthermore, this “son of man,” like “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” (in MT 7.27 or simply “the holy ones of the Most High” in Th 7.27, is offered the submissive obeisance of conquered peoples (MT: פלח/Th: δουλευω). However, in the Old Greek of Daniel 7.13-14, 27, (1) the “one like a son of man” comes “upon the clouds of heaven (επι των νεφελων του ουρανου)”; (for επι in this connection, see Matt. 24.30; 26.64; and Rev. 14.14-16) (2) “as [rather than ‘unto’] the Ancient of Days (ως παλαιος ημερων)”; and (3) the verbs used to describe the actions required of conquered peoples in 7.14 and 7.27 are not the same. In 7.14, “all the nations of the earth, according to their ethnicities, and every glory (παντα τα τθνη της γης κατα γενη και πασα δοξα)” is expected “to worship (λατρευω) the “son of man,” while in 7.27 “all authorities (πασαι αι εξουσιαι)” are simply “subjected (υποτασσω)” and “obedient (πειθαρχεω)” to “the holy people of the Most High.”

 

A close look at these three textual traditions across the rest of Daniel, particularly with respect to MT’s פלח, Th’s δουλευω and OG’s λατρευω, is instructive. The verb פלח appears nine times in MT Daniel (3.12, 14, 17, 18, 28; 6.17, 21; 7.14 and 27) and, leaving aside the cases of 7.14 and 7.27 for the moment, always refers to cultic worship. Furthermore, aside from the case of 3.17, in which Th offers φοβεομαι (“to fear”) as a translation, פלח is rendered in all of these cases in Th and OG by some form of λατρευω. However, though in 7.14 and 7.27 MT provides two further instances of פלח, Th instead offers δουλευω in both instances and OG provides λατρευω and υποτασσω (and πειθαρχεω), respectively.

 

Therefore, we have a scenario in which the MT of Daniel makes use of a verb in seen instances from Daniel 3 to Daniel 6, all of which denote cultic worship, and then makes use of the same verb two more times in 7.14 and 7.27. But, does this of itself indicate that the verb must carry the connotation of cultic worship in MT 7.14 and 7.27? I think not. Rather, not only can the Aramaic פלח—like (for instance) the Hebrew עבד and שחה and the Greek προσκυνεω—denote reverential prostration without the connotation of cultic worship, but the MT uses פלח with reference both to “one like a son of man” (7.13) and to “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” (7.27) suggests that פלח does not refer to cultic worship in 7.14. However, even if one should take MT’s פלח in 7.14 to denote the cultic worship of the one like a son of man—however this figure should be understood—this still would not indicate that the worship so offered by the conquered peoples was exemplary for the true people of God. In other words, even if—and I do not think that this is the correct construal—MT’s פלח at 7.14 denotes “cultic worship,” this would still not be evidence that some second-temple Jews either practiced or endorsed the worship of another figure as or alongside the one God of Israel.

 

But what of the case of Theodotion Daniel? I recall from the above that, although Th had provided λατρευω in every instance for MT’s פלח in 3.12, 14, 18, 28; 6.17, and 21—leaving only the case of 3.17, in which Th had provided φοβεομαι—in 7.14 and 7.27. Theodotion uncharacteristically offered δουλευω in both cases. In this connection, though δουλευω can mean “cultic worship,” this change of vocabulary likely reflects a deliberate attempt to indicate that cultic worship is not in view in Daniel 7.14, 27.

 

We are left, then, to consider the Old Greek of Daniel. Like Theodotion, the Old Greek provides λατρευω in every instance for MT’s פלח in 3.12, 14, 17, 18, 26; 6.17, 21. However, in chapter 7, OG Daniel makes a lexical distinction between the kind of reverence offered to the one like a son of man (7.13-14), on the one hand, and to “the holy people of the Most High,” on the other. The former is offered, I contend, worship (λατρευω) befitting the one God of Israel, while the latter are offered the subjugation (υποτασσω) and obedience (πειθαρχεω) of conquered peoples.

 

Does Old Greek Daniel 7, therefore, provide us with unique evidence in which a Jewish text clearly portrays a figure distinguishable from the one God as divine? Again, I think not. This is, I suggest, what has happened. Even though I do not even take MT Daniel 7 as a scene in which the son of man figure—however this figure should be understood—is presented as divine, I suggest that Old Greek and Theodotion Daniel 7 represent the different attempts to safeguard against such a misunderstanding. In this regard, the Theodotionic textual tradition of Daniel 7.14, 27 reflects an early and crucial translational decision, preferring δουλευω for MT’s פלח instead of Th’s much more characteristic λατρευω. The OG, on the other hand, conflates the one like a son of man with the Ancient of Days, thereby producing little more than the kind of theophanic tradition found in Ezekiel 1.26-28. Indeed, it is possible in this regard that Ezekiel 1.26-28, in which the Glory of the LORD appears “like the appearance of a human being (דמות כמראה אדם),” partly facilitated this conflation of the two “figures,” with the result that the one God of Israel simply appears both as one like a son of man and as the Ancient of Days.

 

With the consideration of the textual traditions of Daniel 7 behind us, we are in a better position to consider the interpretations of, for example, Rowland and Fletcher-Louis. Rowland takes OG Daniel 7 as evidence that the author intended to portray the son of man as “the embodiment of the person of the Ancient of days” and as one who “takes upon himself the form and character of God himself.” Fletcher-Louis argues that in the OG the son of man “is somehow identified with, expresses, or shares in the divine identity.” In this regard, however, I suggest that Rowland and Fletcher-Louis are guilty of precisely the interpretative mistake against which the tradents of the OG were trying to safeguard.

 

None of this is to deny, however, that the “one like a son of man” of MT Daniel 7.13-14 is remarkably exalted within the context of second-temple Judaism, nor that the creative works of OG and Th Daniel 7.13-14 do not also make this clear. I am only contesting the view that any of the three principal textual traditions of Daniel 7 portrays the “one like a son of man” as a properly divine being who is distinguishable from the God of Israel and worthy of the worship of faithful, monotheistic Israelites. (Chris Kugler, Paul and the Image of God [London: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2020], 40-2, emphasis added)

 

Blog Archive