I have not seen much scholarship/apologetics by Latter-day Saints on Adam/Michael being the "Ancient of Days" in Dan 7 (cf. D&C 27:11; 116:1; 138:38), so in the hope to light a fire under the feet of my fellow apologists, I am making this post based on some rough notes I have produced on the topic, I hope to revisit this issue in the future, but hoping it will spark some interest among others, too. If you have any suggestions, feel free to drop me an email at ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom.
Previous Blog Posts on the “Ancient of Days”:
Andrew Chester on Adam being the "Ancient of Days" in The Testament of Abraham
The Ancient of Days Not being God the Father in Non-LDS Writings
Collins' Translation of Dan 7:13-14:
13/ I watched in the visions of the
night, and
behold, one like a human being
came with the clouds of heaven,
and he approached the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14
To him was given dominion and kingdom.
All peoples, nations, and languages will
serve him.
His dominion is everlasting dominion,
which will not pass away,
and his kingdom is indestructible. (John
Joseph Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of
Daniel [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible;
Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1993], 275)
Carol Newsom’s Translation of Dan 7:13-14:
13 I kept
watching in visions of the night,
and suddenly, with the clouds of heaven,
one in the likeness of a human was coming.
He approached the Ancient of Days,
and he was presented before him.
14 To him was given dominion and glory and sovereignty,
and all peoples and nations and tongues must serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away,
and his kingdom one that cannot be destroyed. (Carol A. Newsom, Daniel [Old
Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox/Westminster Press, 2014], 213)
Iaoel (alt. Yahoel) in the Apocalypse of Abraham
Mirroring “the Ancient of Days” of Daniel 7
[Like Daniel’s “Ancient of Days”]
The Apocalypse of Abraham says that the hair of the head of Iaoel was like snow
(11:2). (Collins, Daniel, 103)
1 And I stood up and saw him
who had taken my right hand and set me on my feet. 2 The appearance of his
body was like sapphire, and the aspect of his face was like chrysolite, and the
hair of his head like snow. 3* And a kidaris (was) on his head, its look
that of a rainbow, and the clothing of his garments (was) purple; and a golden
staff (was) in his right hand. 4 And he said to me, “Abraham.” And I said,
“Here is your servant!” And he said, “Let my appearance not frighten you, nor
my speech trouble your soul. Come with me! 5 And I will go with you
visible until the sacrifice, but after the sacrifice invisible forever.
6 Be bold and go!” (Apocalypse of Abraham 11:1-6 in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. [New York: Yale University Press, 1983], 1:694)
Iaoel and other Figures had the Divine Name “in”
them
Rav Naḥman says: This
one, i.e., any person, who knows how to
respond to the heretics as effectively as Rav Idit should
respond to them, but if he does not know,
he should not respond to them. The Gemara relates: A
certain heretic said to Rav Idit: It is written in
the verse concerning God: “And to Moses He said: Come up to the Lord” (Exodus
24:1). The heretic raised a question: It should have stated: Come
up to Me. Rav Idit said to him: This term, “the
Lord,” in that verse is referring to the angel Metatron,
whose name is like the name of his Master, as it is written: “Behold I
send an angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you to the place
that I have prepared. Take heed of him and obey his voice; do not defy him; for
he will not pardon your transgression, for My name is in him” (Exodus
23:20–21). (b.
Sanhedrin 38b)
And while I was still face down
on the ground, I heard the voice speaking, "Go, Iaoel of the same name,
through the mediation of my ineffable name, consecrate this man for me and
strengthen him against his trembling" . . . I am Iaoel and I was called so
by him who causes those with me on the seventh expanse, on the firmament, to
shake a power through the medium of his ineffable name in me. (Apocalypse of
Abraham 10:3, 8)
[I]n
in the immediate context of 22:27, another intermediary figure is introduced by
the Lord:
I
am going to send an angel in front of you, to guard you on the
way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Be attentive to him and
listen to his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your
transgression; for my name is in him (NRSV; Exod 23:20-21, my
emphasis)
There
are two Jewish traditions that allude to Exod 22:20-21 and both may shed light
on who is blasphemed in Exod 22:27a. The first comes from the Apocalypse
of Abraham, which can be dated between 70 and 150 C.E. In this text, God
commands an angel called Yahoel to consecrate Abraham (Apoc. Ab. 10:3-4).
The angel, whose name is thought to be a combination of Yahweh and El,
is indwelt by God’s ineffable name (Apoc. Ab. 10:8)
and is given powers of divine administration (Apoc. Ab. 10:8-14).
In this way, the Apocalypse of Abraham seems to allude to Exod
23:20-21, where God promises to send an angel to lead Israel and warns the
Israelites not to disobey the angel, for my name is in him. The
second tradition comes from Philo, who, in his commentary on Exod 23:20-21,
describes the angel that leads Israel as the Logos. The Logos is the μεσιτης or mediator of God’s gifts
and benefactions, who is elsewhere given the title of God. What is
striking is that the identification of certain figures as gods is not exceptional
in first-century Jewish literature . . . Inclusive monotheism, in our judgment,
provides a plausible theological context for reading verse 27a during the first
century. (Jerry D. Truex, The Problem of Blasphemy: The Fourth Gospel and
Early Jewish Understandings [2009], 103-4)
Outside the [Dead Sea Scrolls], there
are exalted figures who, if not directly called gods, are described in god-like terms. For example, Enoch, like
God, is placed on a throne of glory (1 Enoch 62:5; 69:29), identified as the
majestic “son of man” (1 Enoch 71:14), and considered worthy of worship (1
Enoch 48:5). (Ibid., 104, n. 538)
Abraham Ibn Ezra (12th century):
“Ancient of Days” is the Archangel Michael
Ibn Ezra offered a further
solution by interpreting the Ancient of Days as Michael, the archangel: “[The
unseating of the kings’ thrones] will be accomplished when Michael, the great
prince, rises up, as it explains. He is the ancient of days. In prophetic
visions, it seems that he appeared aged” (A.F. Gallé, Daniel: avec
commentaires de R. Saadia, Aben-Ezra, Raschi, etc., et variantes des versions
arabe et syriaque [Paris: E. Leroux, 1900], 76) (Newsom, Daniel,
247)
“Two Powers” Heresy Might Allow for a Distinction
between God and the Ancient of Days
Two Greek manuscripts contain an
ancient error in Dan 7:13, namely, ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν (“as the Ancient of Days”)
for ἓως παλαιοῦ ἡμερῶν (“to the Ancient of Days”). Even though the reading “as
the Ancient of Days” originated as an error, it is likely that, once it was in
circulation, theological meanings were attached to it. It is not necessarily
the case that Christians were the first or the only ones to find theological
meaning in this reading. The possibility is worth considering that this form of
the text played a role in the controversy over two powers in heaven.
The original reading of Dan 7:13*
may be understood as revealing that, alongside God (the Ancient of Days), there
is a primary angel or there will be an exalted messiah (the one like a son of
man). This point of view apparently was opposed by certain rabbis in the second
century C.E., who argued exegetically that the Ancient of Days and the one like
a son of man were two different manifestations of the one and only God.
Greek-speaking Jews of this persuasion would have welcomed the reading “as the
Ancient of Days” as support for their point of view. Such readers would
probably have taken vv 9–12* and vv 13–14* as parallel accounts of the same event.
The account containing the appearance of the one like a son of man and the
establishment of his kingdom describes from a different point of view the same
complex of events portrayed earlier in terms of the session of the Ancient of
Days with his court in judgment and the destruction of the four beasts. What is
characteristic of this point of view is its close association of both figures
with God, as manifestations of him.
Jews of a “two powers” persuasion
could have responded with the argument that neither the Ancient of Days nor the
one like a son of man is God himself. The two descriptions should be
interpreted rather as variant manifestations of the principal angel, a
hypostasis who is God’s agent in anthropomorphic form.
(Collins, Daniel, 103)
Parallels
between Daniel’s Ancient of Days and El in the Canaanite Pantheon
the descriptions of the two
figures have affinities with the Canaanite gods. Ba‛al’s stock epithet in the
Ugaritic texts is “rider of the clouds.” ˒El is called ˒ab šnm, which is most frequently
and plausibly taken as ˒abū šanīma, “father of years,” and is similar in sense
to “Ancient of Days.” Admittedly, the meaning of this phrase is disputed,111
and in any case it is a different epithet from what we find in Daniel. There is
no dispute, however, that ˒El is portrayed as an aged god in the Ugaritic texts.
(Collins, Daniel, 290—IMO, Daniel is subverting/deconstructing Canaanite
theology by having their “Ancient of Days”/”Father of Years” [the chief deity]
revealed to be the first mortal of the “true” Israelite religion, similar to
how biblical authors deconstructed Canaanite theology elsewhere [e.g., YHWH,
not Ba’al, being the true rider of clouds]—this works as, instead of being the
chief deity, the “Father of Years” is the first man, Adam. Cf. The
Reworking of the Ba'al Cycle in Daniel 7:9-13; Chapter
4: "Yahweh's Appropriation of Baal Imagery" in John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000, 2002], pp.
91-127).
4Q530 (4QEnGiantsb ar) 4QBook of Giantsb ar from
Qumran (note the plural thrones/seats):
16 I also saw something amazing in my dream this
night: The Ruler of the heavens came down to earth, 17
and thrones were erected and the Great Holy
One sa[t down. A hundred hun]dreds were serving him, a thousand thousands 18
[were …] him, [and ten thousand times ten
thousand be]fore him were standing. . . . (Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C.
Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition [Leiden: Brill,
1997], 1063, 1065)
One Potential Reason for Identification of “God”
(the Father) with the Ancient of Days: Errant Belief that Only God ‘sits’ in
the Heavens
From: “Excursus 4: The divine Throne, Judgment Scenes, and
Daniel 7:9-10”:
As in 4Q530, a plural but
unspecified number of thrones are set up. But who sits down? Here Dan 7:9
refers only to the Ancient of Days taking his seat, leading some (e.g.,
Montgomery 296; Goldingay 165) to assume that only God sites. Israelite
tradition does sometimes depicts only YHWH as seated with other attendants
standing before him (1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1-2). Indeed, a later rabbinic
tradition in Genesis Rabbah 65.21 concluded from an interpretation of
Ezek 1:7; Dan 7:16; Isa 6:2; and 1 Kgs 22:19 that “there is no sitting in
heaven” and that angels have no knees! (Halperin 149). The separate reference
in Dan 7:10 to “the court” as “seated,” however, suggests that first the
presiding God sits, and then those who are members of his council (cf. the
“princely thrones” of the council in the Ugaritic Baal epic; CTU 1.2 I
24-29). In various apocalyptic traditions, certain angelic beings do sit in the
presence of God, including the elevated Elect One or Son of Man in the
Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 45:3; 62:3, 5) and the Son of Man and the
twelve disciples in Matt 19:28. In those cases, as in Dan 7, the role of those
seated is to pass judgment. With a difference function, the twenty-four elders
in Rev 4:4 have thrones in heaven, as does the speaker of the Self-Glorification
hymn from Qumran, who boasts of “a mighty throne in the congregation of the
gods” (War Scroll, 4Q491 frg. 11 1.12). The role of divine counselor,
which was assumed in texts like 1 Kgs 22:19-20, however, is seen in later texts
as theologically inappropriate (1 En. 14:23; cf. Isa 40;14).
Consequently, the majority of the angels are represented as standing in
attendance and serving or worshiping (1 En. 14:22; 4Q530 2.17-18; Dan
7:10). The details of the scene in Daniel thus combine two traditions about
heaven: the myriad attendants represent the worship of God, while the seated
court foregrounds the judicial function. (Newsom, Daniel, 229)
“Ancient”
used for People/Objects that are not God the Father
In
Odes of Solomon 4, we read:
1 No man can desecrate Your holy site, O my God;
Nor can he alter it, and put it in another site
2 Because (he has) no power over it;
For Your sanctuary You designed before You made
special sites.
3. The ancient one shall not be desecrated
by those
inferior to it.
You have been given Your heart, O Lord, to Your
faithful
ones. (The Earliest Christian Hymnbook
[trans. James H. Charlesworth; The Odes Project; Cambridge: James Clarke &
Co., 2009], 7)
Here,
"'The ancient one' refers to the Jerusalem Temple" (ibid.)
Best Objection to the LDS Reading: The New
Testament Use of Dan 7:13-14 (often coupled with Psa 110:1) Seems to Present
God the Father with the Ancient of Days
Jesus’ use of Dan 7 in the Synoptic Gospels,
suggesting figure on his right hand is God, not Adam/Michael:
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast
said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (Matt
26:64)
And Jesus said, I am: and ye
shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the
clouds of heaven. (Mark 14:62)
Hereafter shall the Son of man
sit on the right hand of the power of God. (Luke 22:69)
Combined use of Dan 7 and Psa 110 in Acts 7:55-56:
But he, being full of the Holy
Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus
standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened,
and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
The book of Revelation’s use of Dan 7:
If the form of Dan 7:13 known to
the author of Revelation read ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν (“as the Ancient of Days”), it
is likely that he interpreted both the Ancient of Days and the one like a son
of man as hypostatic manifestations of God. In other words, the Ancient of Days
is not actually God but a distinguishable manifestation of God as a high angel.
The Ancient of Days and the one like a son of man from this point of view are
both angelic beings or two manifestations of the same angelic being. If the
author of Revelation held such a point of view, it would explain the conflation
of images from Dan 7:9 and 13.
In Rev 3:21 the risen Christ says
that he has conquered and sat with his Father on his throne. The vision of Dan
7:9–10* may have been understood by the author of Revelation as a prophecy of
that event. These verses in Daniel 7 depict the exaltation of Christ as the
angelic Ancient of Days, whereas 7:13–14* predict his second coming (cf. Rev 1:7).
Thus the two figures of Daniel 7 could represent for the author of Revelation
the same being, namely, Christ exalted to the status of the principal angel. (Collins,
Daniel, 103)
Text-Critical Material from Göttingen
13
ἐπί
Tert. II2 228] μετα Iust. Tert. III 386.448.556 = θʹ; επανω Iust. Dial. 14:8 120:4 Apol.
51:9; in Tert. III 421 Cypr.
Consult.: cf. Marc 13:26 Luc 21:27 | ἤρχετο / ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου] tr. 88-Syh Iust. Tert. III 386.556 Cypr.
Consult. = 𝔪 | ἤρχετο
Consult.] ερχομενος
Iust. Tert. III 386.556 Cypr. = θʹ | καί 2°] venit
Tert. III 386 Cypr.; + ηλθεν
Iust.; > Consult. | ἕως παλαιοῦ
Seg. p. 56 = Tert. III 386 Cypr. Consult. Zi.] εως του παλαιου των Iust. = θʹ; ως παλαιος 967 88-Syh | παρῆν] και (> Tert.) παρην ενωπιον αυτου Iust. Tert. III 387 Cypr.; > Consult. | παρῆσαν αὐτῷ 88-Syhtxt] παρῆσαν sub ÷ 88 (vid.; hab. tantum metob.: cf. praef. p. 42s.); προσηγαγον αυτω 967: cf. 𝔪; προσηγαγον αυτον Iust. Dial. 31:3 Tert. Cypr. Consult. = Zi.: cf. θʹ A’ 26 = 𝔪; προσηγον Syhmg(vid.); προσαγεται Iust. Dial. 79:2: cf. θʹ
14 βασιλική Tert. III 387.556 Cypr. Consult.] ※ και τιμη βασιλικη 88-Syh Iust. (sine ※) = 𝔪 > Ra. = Zi. | καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη] omnes reges Cyr. | λατρεύουσα αὐτῷ 967 Tert. III 556 Cypr. Consult. = Zi.] tr. 88-Syh = 𝔪 om. αὐτῷ Iust. Tert. III 387 | om. ἐξουσία 3° Tert. III 387 556 Cypr. | αἰώνιος] αιωνος 967 | ἥτις 2° Tert. III 387.556] >
Iust. Cypr. Consult.
(Joseph Ziegler, Olivier Munnich, and Detlef Fraenkel, eds., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco [vol. XVI,
2; Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis
editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999], 338–340.
13
om. τῆς
νυκτός
62′ | μετά
= Marc. 14:62 Apoc. 1:7] επι Q Sa Hippol.Ant.HS Eus.ecl. Chr. (=
I828) PsChr. II799 Tht. IV524 = οʹ et Matth. 24:30 26:64 | ὡς Cyr.VIII648] ωσει 62′ 449 C′−87 26 46′
106 407 590 Cyr. III1048 | ἐρχόμενος B-26-46′-239 Q V 538 LaS Hippol.
Eus.dem. p. 440, 10 et ecl. CyrHieros. p. 909 Didym. p. 893 PsAth.IV697
Chr.I828 VII553 PsChr. II799 Cyr. I313 IX933 X309 Hil. Aug.ep. 198, 3] + ην A′’
L’-311 C′ 230′’ 407 534 590 Arab Eus.dem. p. 495, 23 et eccl. theol. et c.
Marc. Chr. (= I294) Tht. Cyr. VI284 VIII 648. 1048 Aug. civ. 18, 34 = 𝔐;
+ αυτος
ην
62′; ηρχετο
Tht. IV524 = οʹ;
venit verss.p Lucif.; veniebat Vig. c. Eut. 1, 14 PsVig. c.
Var. 1, 47 | om. καὶ
προσήχθη αὐτῷ
Aeth Eus.dem. p. 440, 10 CyrHieros. p. 909 Tht.IV524 PsVig.; om. καί A’ | προσήχθη αὐτῷ B-46′ Q* LaS
Hippol.Ant.p Didym. Lucif. Hil. PsVig. trin. 3] προσηνεχθη αυτω Qc
Hippol. p. 210, 18 et Ant.p Eus.dem. p. 495, 24 et ecl. et eccles.
theol. PsAth. IV697 = Sixt.: cf. Is. 53:7 σʹ; αυτω προσηνεχθη 230; ενωπιον (εμπροσθεν Eus.) αυτου προσηνεχθη (+ αυτω 62′ 311-lII
Chr. Tht.p) O L′’ C′
106 233′ 393 407 534 590 Co Arab Arm Eus. c. Marc. Chr. (= I 294. 828) Tht.
Cyr. I 313 VI 284 VIII 648. 1048 IX 933 X 309 Aug. civ. 18, 34; ενωπιον αυτου (+ και 584) προσηγαγον αυτον A’ 26 = 𝔐;
pr. ενωπιον
αυτου
239
14
αὐτῷ
ἐδόθη]
tr. verss.p Hippol.Ant.p Eus.dem. p. 495 et ecl. Cyr. I
313 Lucif. Hil. = οʹ
| ἀρχή
… τιμή]
tr. 311 CyrHieros. p. 909 Tht.p; αρχη … εξουσια Sa; εξουσια … τιμη Eus.ecl.: cf. οʹ | γλῶσσαι] pr. και B 538 106 verss.p Hippol.p
Hil. PsVig. trin. 3 = 𝔐: cf. 3:4 | δουλεύσουσιν αὐτῷ Q-233 46′ 590 Co
Aeth Arab Hippol. Eus.ecl. Didym. p. 893 PsAsAth. IV 697 Hil. PsVig. trin. 3] δουλευουσιν αυτω B-239 LaS
CyrHieros. p. 909 Lucif.; αυτω δουλευουσιν A’ 538-88 c
Eus.dem. Chr. I 294; αυτω δουλευσουσιν
(-σωσιν
62′ 230) O L-311-449 C 26 106 230’ 393 (+ και υπακουσονται: ex 27) 407 534 Arm
Eus. eccl. theol. et c. Marc. Chr. (= I 828) Cyr. VI 284 VII 656 VIII 648. 1048
IX 933 X 309 Tht. Aug. civ. 18, 34 = 𝔐: cf. 27 | ἡ ἐξουσία] αυτω ουσια 534; pr. και L’-311
LaS Aeth Arab Arm Tht. Ir.lat Lucif. Hil. = οʹ | ἐξουσία1°◠2° 88 | om. καὶ ἡ βας. αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθ. 230: homoiot.; om. καί LaS | οὐ ult.] pr. η V Aeth = 𝔐 (Joseph Ziegler, Olivier
Munnich, and Detlef Fraenkel, eds., Susanna,
Daniel, Bel et Draco [vol. XVI, 2; Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate
Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1999], 339–341)
Cf. Chris
Kugler on Daniel 7:13-14
Texts of Dan 7:13-14 (LXX) from Göttingen
13 ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεγελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἤρχετο ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ἕως παλαιοῦ ἡμερῶν παρῆν, καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ. 14 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία βασιλική, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα λατρεύουσα αὐτῷ· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ (Joseph
Ziegler, Olivier Munnich, and Detlef Fraenkel, eds., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco [vol. XVI, 2; Vetus Testamentum
Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999], Da 7:13–14)
13 ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασε καὶ προσήχθη αὐτῷ. 14 καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι δουλεύσουσιν αὐτῷ· ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται. (Joseph Ziegler, Olivier Munnich, and Detlef
Fraenkel, eds., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et
Draco [vol. XVI, 2; Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae
Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999],
Da 7:13–14)