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)