The following refutes the naïve claim that there are no significant theological variation in the biblical manuscripts:
. . . the son of man in the LXX
seems to bear the mark of a divine figure in a way that the MT son of man does
not. The ambiguity of the phrase ‘like a son of man’ (MT, כבר-אנשׁ; LXX, ως υιος ανθρωπου) is present in both versions, but
the LXX’s use of επι and its portrayal of the heavenly
audience clarifies the ambiguity. When it comes to v. 14 the MT and the LXX
agree that the figure who arrives on the clouds is vested with a special authority,
an authority that is eternal in scope. Indeed the homage offered him is of the
sort appropriate to God. This on its own need not make him a divine figure any
more than Nebuchadnezzar’s response to Daniel in 2.46 makes Daniel divine,
although in that case the key words פלח and λατρευω are not present. It remains an
open question in the MT whether or not the son of man’s authority becomes
intrinsic or remains derived. The LXX has decided in favour of the first option.
As a result, the divinity of the son of man perceived by the LXX in v. 14 is
read back into v. 13 and so affects the translation. The translator chooses options
that are possible renderings of the Aramaic, but cumulatively they tend to take
the meaning in a particular direction. The LXX might well also have been
working with a Vorlage that tended in the same direction by witnessing
to על instead of עם in v. 13. (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], 229-30)
