The Ancient of Days has been variously identified. Yarbro Collins,
for example, proposes that the Ancient of Days was 'a distinguishable
manifestation of God as a high angel' (Yarbro Collins, 'Tradition', 557).
Certainly, the Ancient of Days was understood by some interpreters in the first
centuries CE to be an angel. For example, in the Hekhalot text, the Visions
of Ezekiel, the Ancient of Days appears to be identified with the Heavenly
Prince of the Third Heaven (Cf. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, 140). But this by no
means signifies an overwhelming tendency towards such an identification since
it may be counter-balanced by another text, Sefer ha-Razim, in which the
statement 'He is the Ancient of Days' unequivocally refers to God (Morgan, Sepher,
84). The Ancient of Days was most likely widely understood to be God. Emerton
has argued, for instance, that whatever may be the mythical background of
Daniel 7.9-13, from Maccabean times - that is, when monotheistic doctrine was a
touchstone of Jewish identity - we may presume that the Ancient of Days was
understood to be God (Emerton, 'Origin', 239. Cf. Goldingay, Daniel,
165). (Peter R. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the
Christology of the Apocalypse of John [Society for New Testament Studies
Monograph Series 95; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997], 36, emphasis
in bold added)
Note that,
at least for a ‘solid’ identification of the Ancient of Days being God, one
must assume a late date for Daniel. For a refutation of the claim Daniel is a
late text and is pseudepigraphic, see:
Thomas L.
Gaston, Historical
Issues in the Book of Daniel
