The following notes are taken from Bogdan G. Bucer, "The Son of Man and the Ancient of Days: Observations on the Early Christian Reception of Daniel 7," Phronema 32, no. 1 (2017): 1-27
The Greek Texts of Daniel 7:13
There is a notable difference
between two extant Greek versions of Dan 7:13. While Theodotion, faithful to
the Aramaic text, speaks of "one like a son of man" being presented
to the Ancient of Days (ως υιος ανθρωπου ερχομενος ην και εως του παλαιου των
ημερων εφθασεν), the so-called Old Greek (hereafter OG) depicts "one like
a son of man" traveling, in godlike fashion, "upon" the clouds
of heaven (Ps 103/104:1; Isa 19:1), and approaching "like the Ancient of
Days" (ως ανθρωπου ηρχετο και ως παλαιος ημερων παρην). The text is
somewhat ambiguous, since it is not immediately clear whether the one approaching
is compared to or identified with the Ancient of Days; whether
"Son of Man" and "Ancient of Days" should be taken as
symbolic characters, as real heavenly entities, or as two symbolic
representations of a single heavenly entity. This ambiguity led to debates among
exegetes. (p. 2)
We know that the language of Rev
1:13-14, where the exalted Jesus is called "son of man" but is
depicted in terms that correspond to the Ancient of Days of Dan 7:9
("white hair"), and was shaped by Dan 7:13 OG, while other
allusions—most notably in the Gospels—presuppose the clear distinction between
the two characters found in the Aramaic text and Theodotion. . . . But what if
ως παλαιος ημερων is not derivative and secondary? Meadowcroft argued that
"the reading 'one like the ancient of days' must be allowed to stand in
the LXX," because in this instance as well as in general, the OG very
likely "provides a literal translation of the material in its Vorlage"
(Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel 223, 230, 26) . . . It is
clear that the reference in Rev 1:13-14 to the exalted Jesus as “one like a son
of man” and subsequent addition of traits corresponding to Daniel’s Ancient of
Days was shaped by Dan 7:13 OG. It is also clear that this apocalyptic image of
the white-haired Christ is at the root of the notion of Christ as the Ancient
Days (pp. 4, 6, 25)
Christ as the Ancient of Days
Just as the distinction between
Son of Man (Christ) and Ancient of Days (Father) proved useful in polemics
against Judaism and various types of "Modalism," so also did the
identification of Christ as the Ancient of Days play a role in anti-Arian and
anti-Eunomian polemics. One strategy in this respect was to emphasise the
adaptive character of all visionary reports, and thereby to foreclose any
inferences from visionary imagery to the realty of God in godself. This
approach to biblical visionary reports is especially characteristic of John
Chrysostom, who distinguishes between God as ουσια, which indeed, "no one
has ever seen," and God in his συγκαταβασις, condescension, expressed in
the rich and manifold theophanic visions of the prophets. In conclusion, Daniel
7, just like the visions of Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, is an instance
of divine συγκαταβασις, "all these were instances of (His) condescension,
not the vision of the Essence itself unveiled" (John Chrysostom, Homily
15 on the Gospel of John (PG 59:98)) (p. 9)
Sometimes however, Daniel 7 is
invoked as part of a positive statement about the divinity of the Son. The
argument, as it is expressed by Athanasius and John Chrysostom, is that the Son
must be fully divine because Daniel's vision presents him seated on the divine
throne, attended by thousands upon thousands of angelic ministers (like
Daniel's Ancient of Days). (Athanasius, CA 1.38 (Athanasius Werke
I.1, 2:148), in a passage that invokes Daniel 7 alongside Genesis 18 and Exodus
3; John Chrysostom, On the Equality of the Father and the Son 11.). The
most significant and numerous instances of Christ being identified as the
Ancient of Days occur, however, in liturgical texts. A homily on the Meeting of
the Lord ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, and another one circulating under the
name of Methodius of Olympus (Ps-Cyril of Jerusalem, Homilia in occursum
domini (PG 33:1183-1204); Ps-Methodius of Olympus, De Simeone et Anna
(PG 18:348-381). Ps-Cyril’s homily was probably written around 450 (Michel
Aubineau, Les homélies festales d'Hésychius de Jérusalem [2 vols;
Brussels: Societé des Bollandistes, 1978] 1:4n. 2).), delight in the
paradoxical identification of the enthroned and omnipotent Ancient of days with
the fragile baby in the arms of Symeon. (As a sidenote, the visual
counterpart—the festal icon—bears, quite literally, the same message:
"This child has created Heaven and Earth" (Dionysius of Fourna, The
Painter's Manual of Dionysius of Fourna: An English Translation With Commentary
of Cod. gr. 708 in the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library, Leningrad
(Redondo Beach, CA: Oakwood, 1989 [1974]) 32).
Although the interpretive
framework of the discourse is provided, not surprisingly, by Isaiah 6,
Ps-Methodius also invokes the Sinai theophanies (the burning bush and the
giving of the Law) and Daniel 7. Thus, the aged Symeon receives in his arms, as
an infant, the Ancient of days, τον ηνπιοτητι παλαιον των ημερων, "the
preeternal one as an infant," τον εν ηνπιοτητι προαιωνιον, who is none
other than the God of Abraham, the Holy One of Israel, the Mystagogue of Moses
and Lawgiver (Ps-Methodius of Olympus, De Simeone et Anna 8 (PG
18:365B); 6 (PG 18:360C)). (Ps?) Cyril, very similarly, exhorts his readers to
"sing and chant and glorify the infant-and-God, btoh forty-day old and
pre-eternal, both a little child and Ancient of Days (παιδιον μικρον και
παλαιον των ημερων), both a baby at the breast and the maker of the ages. For
this homilist,
It is this child who, of old,
parted the sea for Israel, and drowned Pharaoh, and gave the Law to the
Israelites, and rained down manna, and led the Hebrew nation by a pillar of
fire, and rent the rock asunder, and kept the bush unconsumed in a flame of
dewy fire.
Consequently, he calls on all
things to glorify "the God-child, forty days old and eternal, the small
child and Ancient of Days, the suckling child and maker of the ages"
(Ps-Cyril of Jerusalem, De occursu 12 (PG 33:1200 AB); De occursu
4 (PG 33:1192A).). Another homily, this time one on the Nativity, ascribed
erroneously to both Athanasius of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, emphasises
the paradox even more:
I behold a strange mystery: in
place of the sun, the Sun of Righteousness placed in the Virgin in an
uncircumscribed manner . . . Today God, He-Who-Is and preexists becomes what he
was not; for being God, he becomes a human being without stepping out of his
being God . . .The Ancient of Days is born as a child. (PG 28: 960A-961A = PG
56:389) (pp. 9-11)
This straightforward christological
identification of the Ancient of Days became a standard occurrence in Byzantine
hymnography. Consider the following exquisite example of hymnographic theology,
drawn from a stanza in Romanos the Melodists's Second Kantakion on Theophany:
Let us all raise our eyes to God
in heaven, as we cry like Jeremiah: The One who appeared on earth, this is our
God, who also willingly lived among men (cf. Bar 3:38), and underwent no
change, who showed himself in different shapes to the prophets, whom Ezekiel
contemplated like the form of a man on the fiery chariot, and Daniel as a son
of man and ancient of days, proclaiming the ancient and the young to be one
Lord: The One who appeared and enlightened all things. (Romanos, Second
Kontakion on Theophany 15 (SC 110:288))
According to Romanos, then,
Daniel 7 proclaims one Lord—specifically the one-who-would-be-incarnate,
Jesus Christ—simultaneously young and old, son of man and ancient of days:
ανθρωπου υιον και παλαιον ημερων, τον αρχαιον και νεον ενα Κυριον. (pp. 11-12)
Fuller quote of John Chrysostom, Homily 15 on the Gospel of John referenced above
"No man hath seen God at any
time." By what connection of thought does the Apostle come to say this?
After showing the exceeding greatness of the gifts of Christ, and the infinite
difference between them and those ministered by Moses, he would add the
reasonable cause of the difference. Moses, as being a servant, was minister of
lower things, but Christ being Lord and King, and the King's Son, brought to us
things far greater, being ever with the Father, and beholding Him continually;
wherefore He saith, "No man hath seen God at any time." What then
shall we answer to the most mighty of voice, Esaias, when he says, "I saw
the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up" ( Isa. vi. 1 ); and to
John himself testifying of Him, that "he said these things when he had
seen His glory"? ( c. xii. 41 .) What also to Ezekiel? for he too beheld
Him sitting above the Cherubim. ( Ezek. i. and x .) What to Daniel? for he too
saith, "The Ancient of days did sit" ( Dan. vii. 9 .) What to Moses
himself, saying, "Show me Thy Glory, that I may see Thee so as to know
Thee." ( Ex. xxxiii. 13 , partly from LXX.) And Jacob took his name from
this very thing, being called "Israel"; for Israel is "one that
sees God." And others have seen
him. How then saith John, "No man hath seen God at any time"? It is
to declare, that all these were instances of (His) condescension, not the
vision of the Essence itself unveiled. For had they seen the very Nature, they
would not have beheld It under different forms, since that is simple, without
form, or parts, or bounding lines. It sits not, nor stands, nor walks: these
things belong all to bodies. But how He Is, He only knoweth. And this He hath
declared by a certain prophet, saying, "I have multiplied visions, and
used similitudes by the hands of the prophets" ( Hos. xii. 10 ), that is,
"I have condescended, I have not appeared as I really was." For since
His Son was about to appear in very flesh, He prepared them from old time to
behold the substance of God, as far as it was possible for them to see It; but
what God really is, not only have not the prophets seen, but not even angels
nor archangels. If you ask them, you shall not hear them answering anything
concerning His Essence, but sending up, "Glory to God in the Highest, on earth
peace, good will towards men." ( Luke ii. 14 .) If you desire to learn
something from Cherubim or Seraphim, you shall hear the mystic song of His
Holiness, and that "heaven and earth are full of His glory." ( Isa.
vi. 3 .) If you enquire of the higher powers, you shall but find that their one
work is the praise of God. "Praise ye Him," saith David, "all
His hosts." ( Ps. cxlviii. 2 .) But the Son only Beholds Him, and the Holy
Ghost. How can any created nature even see the Uncreated? If we are absolutely
unable clearly to discern any incorporeal power whatsoever, even though
created, as has been often proved in the case of angels, much less can we
discern the Essence which is incorporeal and uncreated. Wherefore Paul saith, "Whom
no man hath seen, nor can see." ( 1 Tim. vi. 16 .) Does then this special
attribute 4 belong to the Father only, not to the Son? Away with the thought.
It belongs also to the Son; and to show that it does so, hear Paul declaring
this point, and saying, that He "is the Image of the invisible God."
( Col. i. 15 .) Now if He be the Image of the Invisible, He must be invisible
Himself, for otherwise He would not be an "image." And wonder not
that Paul saith in another place, "God was manifested in the Flesh" (
1 Tim. iii. 16 ); because the manifestation 5 took place by means of the flesh,
not according to (His) Essence. Besides, Paul shows that He is invisible, not
only to men, but also to the powers above, for after saying, "was
manifested in the Flesh," he adds, "was seen of angels." (NPNF1
14:50-51)
