I am currently doing research into the “Ancient of Days” in Dan 7 and finding commentators who do not believe the figure to be God, or at least, not only God (sometimes, a commentator will argue it is the Father and, by means of divine investiture, Jesus).
While
searching for various terms (in this instance, “Michael” and “Ancient of Days”),
I came across the following from The Gospel of Nicodemus (AKA Acts of Pilate):
CHAP. 9 (25)—And the Lord, holding the hand of
Adam, delivered him to Michael the archangel: and all the saints followed Michael
the archangel, and he led them all into the glorious grace of paradise. And
there met them two men, ancient of days. The saints asked them: Who are
you, that have not yet been dead along with us in the regions below, and have
been placed in paradise in the body? One of them answered, and said: I am
Enoch, who by the word of the Lord have been translated hither; and he who is
with me is Elias the Thesbite, who was taken up by a fiery chariot. Here also
even until now we have not tasted death, but have been reserved to the coming
of Antichrist, by divine signs and wonders to do battle with him, and, being
killed by him in Jerusalem, after three days and half a day to be taken up
alive again in the clouds. (ANF 8:452)
This
stood out as it makes reference to plural “Ancient of Days.” Perhaps if
one just stopped there, one could argue that there was a strand of thought,
reflected in this work, of there being more than one “Ancient of Days,” and
perhaps it was understood as a title that more than one person could hold. However,
appealing to the Greek of this passage does not support such. The Greek
of this text from The Gospel of Nicodemus (B) simply reads "two old/elderly men":
. . . δυο πρεσβυται ανθρωποι
. . . (Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Pleše, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and
Translations [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011] 486; on p. 487 Ehrman
and Pleše provide the translation: “two elderly people”)
So
the passage is not appealing to/reworking Dan 7 and the “Ancient of Days”;
instead, it is speaking of simply two elderly men.
The
point of this post? Where one can, always examine the original language texts
and primary sources. By looking up the original language texts in this case, I
saved myself from having to eat crow in the future if a critic were to examine
this text and call me up on relying on English translations!
Our
critics often do not demonstrate intellectual honesty and integrity; does not
mean we should not strive our best to demonstrate such, however.