Notes from John A. Emerton, "The Origin of the Son of
Man Imagery," in Graham Davies and Robert Gordon, eds., Studies on the
Language and Literature of the Bible: Selected Works of J.A. Emerton (Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum 165; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 433-51. The article was originally published in The Journal of Theological Studies 9, no. 2 (October 1958): 225–242.
It is generally agreed that the
apocalyptic writers frequently use traditional material. It is highly probable
that the three later Son of man sources are dependent on Dan. vii. May not Dan.
vii itself be dependent on earlier tradition? In fact, as will be seen, some details
in this chapter are plainly derived from the O.T. This shows that some, at
least, of the material were not invented by the writer for his purposes. It has
also been argued that not all the details in the vision fit, or are adequately
accounted for by, the interpretation which is offered. This is best explained
on the hypothesis that earlier material has been used.
It is, therefore, legitimate to
suspect that behind Dan. vii lies traditional material, and to see if it is
possible to discover the origin of this material. (p. 434)
The word ‘El is frequently
used in the O.T., and it is likely that, sometimes at least, this reflects Canaanite
belief in the god EL, who was the head of the Ugaritic pantheon. It has often
been noticed that the representation of God as the Ancient of days in Dan. vii
recalls the description of El as ‘ab shnm, which is perhaps, to be
translated ‘father of years’ (M.H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts
[1955], pp. 32 f.) Even if this translation be rejected, there is no doubt that
El was regarded as an angel deity with grey hair (E.g., Baal II.V.4,
V.V.2, 24 f.). This is a more likely background to the Ancient of days than is
Iranian religion—quite apart from the question of whether, in fact, the
representation of the deity as an old man is genuinely Iranian (J. Duchesne-Guillemin,
Ormazd et Ahriman [1953], pp. 73, 126). (p. 437)
The Ancient of days is, as has
been seen, described in terms which recall O.T. passages, as well as the
Ugaritic description of El. The throne and the attendant angels are reminiscent
of the O.T. background. The stream of fire has no exact parallel in the O.T.,
but fire is often associated with the presence of God (e.g. Ezek. I, 13f., x.2)
(there is now a parallel in the Qumran literature [1 QH iii. 28 ff.]). The
presence of the Ancient of days, however, raises a problem. He is obviously
divine. But the Son of man corresponds to Yahwe. Who, then, is the Ancient of
days? How is the presence of two divine figures to be explained? (p. 443)
One way out of the difficulty is
offered by N. Schmidt (Journal of Biblical Literature xix [1900], pp. 22
ff.) He argues that there has been a transference to the angel Michael of Yahwe’s—originally
Marduk’s—role of dragon-slayer, and refers to Rev. xii. 7 ff., where Michael
defeats the dragon. This N.T. reference is, however, of doubtful relevance,
since the final destruction of the dragon in Rev. xix. 11-21 is brought about
by an army led by the Word of God. Nevertheless, Schmidt is probably right
in supposing that in late Judaism the Son of man was thought of as a heavenly
being subordinate to Yahwe—or perhaps, it may be added, as the messiah. No
doubt, the imagery proper to Yahwe has been transferred to some other being,
for the Ancinet of days must, in Maccabaean times, have been understood to be
Yahwe. But Schmidt does not explain precisely how the transference came about. He
seems to think that Yahwe was, as it were, split into two. Yahwe proper remained
God, and sat, somewhat remotely, in the background, while Yahwe the slayer of
the dragon was reduced to angelic status and identified with Michael. The
Ancient of days and the Son of man thus represent two aspects of what was once
the same deity.
If Schmidt is right, then the
conferring of kingship on the Son of man by the Ancient of days must be a later
addition to the myth underlying Dan. vii. But there is a serious objection to
this view, which has arisen as a result of evidence which has appeared since
Schmidt wrote. According to Schmidt, the Son of man and the Ancient of days must
be essentially the same deity. It is therefore, to be expected that they will
exhibit the same characteristics—except in so far as the Son of man may be
described in imagery appropriate to Michael. But one is described as coming in
the clouds, and the other as an old man. Yet in the Ugaritic texts—which are
more likely than Babylonian writings to illustrate the mythological background—these
descriptions belong to two distinct deities, Baal and El. This is all the more likely
to be significant, because there is no other place in the O.T. where Yahwe is
described as looking like an old man. This suggests that the presence of two
distinct divine figures may represent, not a late modification, but the
original form of the myth.
This opinion is confirmed by another
consideration. There is reason to think that, in Ugaritic mythology, Baal’s
kingship was conferred on him by El. Both El and Baal are kings and have
thrones, and yet EL is the head of the pantheon. For all his turbulence, Baal
is, formerly at least, subordinate to El. Baal cannot have a temple—the same
word also means palace—until El gives permission (Baal V. ivb and
11). (p. 447)
The Israelite enthronement festival
was probably an adaptation of a pre-Davidic Jebusite rite. It seems likely that
the chief Jebusite deity was known as El Elyon, and that he was originally
connected with this festival. But if the arguments advanced above are sound,
then the Jebusite enthronement festival involved two deities, corresponding to
El and Baal at Ugarit. It must not, of course, be assumed that there was a
stereotyped or rigidly uniform pattern of myth and ritual throughout
Syria-Palestine—or even, for that matter, at Ugarit itself. Nevertheless, it is
a reasonable conjecture that there may have been an analogous relationship
between El and Baal at Jerusalem. If this is right, El Elyon must have
corresponded to one of them, and it is, perhaps, more likely that he
corresponded to El After the settlement in Canaan, Yahwe was identified with
Baal in certain circles, and this is probably, as has often been observed, one
reason why names were sometimes compounded with Baal, even in the family of
Saul. This would be all the more easily comprehensible if both deities shared
the nature of storm-god. If, then, El and Baal both played a part in the
Jerusalem cultus, Yahwe could, quite easily, have taken the place of Baal.
This hypothesis involves the view that
at some stage El, or El Elyon, was recognized as formally superior to—though
not necessarily more prominent than—Yahwe. There is nothing improbable in this,
even though it may have been objectionable to some Israelites. As it happens,
just such a theory has been advanced by some scholars, on grounds quite
independent of the Son of man imagery. Nyberg (Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft, xxxv (1938),
pp. 329 ff.), followed by Widengren (The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of
Lamentation as Religious Documents [1937],
p. 78; Sakrales Königtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum [1955], pp. 11, 85), has tried to reconstruct the
religious situation after David’s capture of Jerusalem. He suggests that David
allowed the old Canaanite cultus to continue, and even recognized the supremacy
of Elyon, the god of the land, who was probably identical with ʿAl, Shalem, and
Zedek. This recognition of El Elyon is reflected in Gen. xiv. It also explains
why none of David’s eleven sons born in Jerusalem has a name compounded with
Ya, although this element appears in two or three of the names of the six sons
born previously. But, although he recognized the supremacy of Elyon, the god of
the land, David continued to worship Yahwe, the deity of his family and people.
Yahwe was thus subordinated to Elyon. Eissfeldt (Journal of
Semitic Studies, i [1956], pp.
25 ff.; Volume du Congrès—Strasbourg
1956 [1957], pp. 138 ff. But in Theologische
Literaturzeitung, lxxix [1954],
col. 284, he says that the recognition of El did not affect the cult.) holds a view
similar to that of Nyberg and Widengren The difficulty with Nyberg’s theory is
that it lacks direct evidence. When Elyon is mentioned in the O.T., it is
almost always possible, if not probable, that he is identified with Yahwe. It
is quite likely that they are distinguished in Ps. lxxxii, but it is far from
certain that Yahwe is subordinate. The only O.T. passage cited by Nyberg where
this interpretation is at all probable is Deut. xxxii. 8 f. The last word of
verse 8 makes better sense if, with the LXX, (Also a Hebrew fragment from
Qumran: cp. B.A.S.O.R. [Dec. 1954], p. 12) ʾEl is read for Yisraʾel. This
would mean that Elyon divided the nations of the world according to the number
of the gods (cp. Deut. iv. 19, xxix. 26; Ecclus. xvii. 17). Each god received a
nation to himself, and Yahwe was allotted Israel. If this be the right
interpretation of the true text, then Yahwe may be subordinate to Elyon. This
association of Yahwe with Israel might explain how the Son of man came to
represent the saints of the Most High. By the time that Daniel was written, the
expression ‘Most High’ had, of course, long been taken over by Yahwe.
In the period following the capture of
Jerusalem by David, Yahwe came more and more to be identified with Elyon, and
to appropriate this title to himself. It is interesting to note that there may
have been an analogy to this in Canaanite religion. According to some scholars,
(Pope, op. cit., pp. 27 ff., 82 ff., 104; A.S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras
Shamra Texts [1952], pp. 63 f., 88 ff. Contrast Gray, op. cit., p. 11) the
Ugaritic texts show Baal in process of usurping the place of El as head of the
pantheon. If a similar tendency existed in Jerusalem, it might have aided the
rise of Yahwe to supremacy. The enthronement Psalms certainly speak of Yahwe as
the supreme deity.
One question remains. If, in the early
monarchy, Yahwe was subordinated to Elyon in the Jerusalem cultus, how was the
tradition of two divine beings transmitted to the author of Daniel? Amid so
much uncertainty and so many conjectures, no answer can be given which claims
anything more than possibility. It must suffice to show that the
transmission of such a tradition was not impossible. It is, in any case,
certain that much ancient mythological material has found its way into
apocalyptic, even though the history of such traditions cannot be traced in
detail. In view of what the O.T. tells of the religious policy of most of the
Jewish kings, there is nothing incredible in the view that, as late as the
exile, Yahwe was subordinate to Elyon in parts of the Jerusalem cultus. It is
also possible that an aged deity continued to be represented in the cult, even
after he had lost all theological significance. Religious practices are
conservative of otiose features which have lost the significance which once was
theirs. Little importance should be attached to such conjectures as these. They
are intended merely to show that there is nothing impossible in the view that the
tradition of two divine beings survived as late as the exile. In and after the exile,
the tradition could have been preserved in the same channels as those through
which other mythological material was transmitted to the apocalyptic writers.
(pp. 448-50)