[Dan 7:14] seems to depict a
process whereby the son of man acquires a divine authority. While his
authority is derived (יהיב), the service offered to him is the same sort
that is due to divinity. This is portrayed by פלח, the same word used in the
confrontation between the king and the young men of ch. 3 over whose God should
be served (3:12, 14, 17, 18, 28). In 6.17 and 21, Darius describes Daniel’s relationship
with God in terms of פלח. The process has perhaps been duplicated in 4 Ezra 13,
where a human figure (4 Ezra 13.3, ‘this man’, ille homo) comes
out of the depths of the sea ‘with the clouds of heaven’ (4 Ezra 13.3, cum
nubibus caeli). That figure is later described as a man whom the Most High ‘had
kept’ (4 Ezra 13.25-26, conseruat) for the work of deliverance.
At this stage he is implicity identified with the creator God by the phrase ‘his
creation’ (creatrum suam), yet is still distinct from the Most High.
Since the Most High is speaking the interpretation, suam can only refer
to the being who has arrived with the clouds of heaven. Later still he is
revealed to be the son of the Most High (4 Ezra 13.52, filium meum).
But in both Daniel 7 and 4 Ezra 13 it remains an open question whether
or not the son of man’s authority becomes intrinsic or remains derived. (T.
J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison [Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1995], 202-3)
The versions [of Daniel] are
closer to each other in v. 14. They both agree that the sovereignty granted the
son of man is derived (LXX, εδοθη,
MT, יהיב). They also agree that the service offered him is the same sort of
service that is due divinity. . . . this is portrayed in the MT by the word פלח.
Whenever the LXX translates the word in Daniel, it does so with the verb λατρευω. . . . that too is a word
preserved for dealings with the divine. But the Greek is also not quite
equivalent to the Aramaic in that it tends to suggest a cultic understanding more
than is the case with פלח. . . . . in v. 14 Θ chooses to translate פלח with δουλευω, a term which [is] more generally
applicable than λατρευω to human relationships of
subservience. (Ibid., 229)
