Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Son of Man

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
    The plural 'thrones' are for the heavenly court to sit on (verse 10b). Mowinckel used them to argue that the man-like figure originally took part in the judgment, but this left him with nowhere for the court to sit, and it should be accepted that the man-like figure does not take part in the judgment because the text does not give him this function. The divine throne is altogether more splendid and fiery; the imagery is in the tradition of Ezekiel, and had been Israelite for some time. So had the heavenly host, seen already by Michaiah ben Imlah (1 Kings 22.19): God would not come alone for judgement (e.g., Zech. 14.5).

    Comment


    • #47
      Son of Man

      Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
      Elsewhere in our meagre sources דינא means 'judgment', but here 'the abstract passes into the concrete', as Montgomery notes, comparing κριτήριου and indicium. The meaning must be that 'the court sat'. The existence of a heavenly court should be no surprise in view of the common OT idea that God has a heavenly council associated with him (e.g. Job 1, Psa. 82). As on earth, the court does not sit down until the Judge has done so; the intervening lines are simply an extended description of the Judge, together with his many attendants. The judgement then proceeds with the opening of the books. Divine books were a traditional item widespread in the ancient Near East and found in the OT (e.g. Isa. 4.3; Mal. 3.16; Psa. 69.29[28 English]).

      Comment


      • #48
        Son of Man

        Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
        With the scene thus set, the narrative proceeds without further ado, let alone any change of scenery, straight to to destruction of the fourth beast and in particular its little horn having been interrupted only for the setting of the judgement scene. The whole narrative is therefore perfectly coherent, and could not be much tauter without detracting from the splendour of the judging deity and his court. The whole of the fourth beast is necessarily destroyed. It should be clear that the destruction of the little horn itself would not have been sufficient, as it would have left the hated Macedonians still in power, and that the destruction of the whole fourth beast necessarily involves the destruction of its little horn. The first three beasts are not destroyed; no interpretation is given, but one may be surmised. Babylon, Media, and Persia will remain as separate states, serving Israel, whereas the Seleucid empire will actually be destroyed. The mention of this completes the symbolic picture of the judgement in verse 12, and was desirable after the symbolic grandeur of the appearance of the first three beasts in the vision, but the reality of the survival of these states was not important enough to the author to warrant separate mention in the interpretation where, as in Dan. 2, it is subsumed in the general picture of the triumph of Israel, who are then served by all nations.

        Comment


        • #49
          Son of Man

          Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey (emphasis added):

          The destruction of the fourth beast is the essential point of the judgement, and an essential preliminary to the passing of sovereignty to the man-like figure in verse 13-4. The full introductory formula at the beginning of verse 13 marks an important event, but not a change of scenery. Since the scene is set on earth it follows that the man-like figure comes downwards with the clouds. But who is he? His identification has been the subject of lengthy debate, and this is an appropriate place to try to bring that debate to an end.
          Last edited by John Reece; 12-11-2014, 09:22 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Maurice Casey (emphasis added)
            Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
            The destruction of the fourth beast is the essential point of the judgement, and an essential preliminary to the passing of sovereignty to the man-like figure in verse 13-4. The full introductory formula at the beginning of verse 13 marks an important event, but not a change of scenery. Since the scene is set on earth it follows that the man-like figure comes downwards with the clouds. ...[snip]

            The assertion above by Casey calls for a pause in my transcription of his 1979 thesis, so that a second opinion may be presented by a competent scholar of the Aramaic text of Daniel 7.

            From Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia: Augsburg/Fortress, 1993), by John J. Collins (emphasis added):
            13. with the clouds of heaven: See the discussion of the religio-historical background above. The preposition עם, "with," is variously rendered in the versions. Montgomery sees here a theological nuance, arguing that a deity would come on the clouds, but there is no basis for the distinction.* The text does not indicate whether the figure is ascending or descending or moving horizontally.
            *On the one hand, R.B.Y. Scott ('Behold He Cometh with Clouds,' NTS 5 [1959] 127-32) has shown that the preposition עם is interchangeable with ב and can mean "on" or "in" (cf. Dan 2:43; 7:2); so already Torrey, "Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel," Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 15 (1909) 282. On the other hand, clouds are associated with the Deity in a wide variety of ways in the Hebrew Bible, and the association is not dependent on the use of the preposition "on" (Yahweh appears in a cloud in Exod 19:9; 34:5; Num 11:25).
            Last edited by John Reece; 12-10-2014, 12:54 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Son of Man

              Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
              In verses 13-4 the man-like figure is brought before the Ancient of Days and given sovereignty: all nations will serve him and his kingdom will last for ever. This is summarized briefly in what is said of the Saints of the Most High in verses 18 and 22, and it is explicitly stated of the people of the Saints of the Most High verse 27. It is natural, and it is important that it is the case, that this longest formulation of the triumph of the Saints echoes the language of verse 14 most accurately. What the man-like figure gets in verse 14, the people of the Saints of the Most High get in verse 27; they get nothing which was not granted to him. He corresponds to them also in the structure of the dream and its interpretation. He receives the kingdom from God after the destruction of the fourth beast: they receive the kingdom from God after the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was to be the last king of the kingdom which the fourth beast symbolized. It follows from this that the man-like figure is a symbol of the Saints of the Most High. Moreover he is a pure symbol, that is to say, he is not a real being who exists outside Daniel's dream; he is only a symbolic being within the dream. This is clear for two reasons. In the first place, the author provided an interpretation of the symbolism of this dream, which reaches a climax with the full description of the triumph of the people of the Saints of the Most High in verse 27. This triumph was very important to the author, and it corresponds precisely to what is said of the man-like figure in verse 14, but it does not mention him. If the author had viewed him as a real being who would lead or deliver the Saints, he must have mentioned him here.* The second reason is that on this view four kingdoms are represented by beast-like figures, the fifth by a man-like figure. It is not suggested that the beast-like figures really existed somewhere; we only attribute consistency to the symbolism by concluding that the man-like figure was not a real being either.

              *My next post will present a challenge by Collins to Casey's highlighted-in-maroon-color-sentence quoted above.

              Comment


              • #52
                Son of Man

                Originally posted by John Reece
                Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                In verses 13-4 the man-like figure is brought before the Ancient of Days and given sovereignty: all nations will serve him and his kingdom will last for ever. This is summarized briefly in what is said of the Saints of the Most High in verses 18 and 22, and it is explicitly stated of the people of the Saints of the Most High verse 27. It is natural, and it is important that it is the case, that this longest formulation of the triumph of the Saints echoes the language of verse 14 most accurately. What the man-like figure gets in verse 14, the people of the Saints of the Most High get in verse 27; they get nothing which was not granted to him. He corresponds to them also in the structure of the dream and its interpretation. He receives the kingdom from God after the destruction of the fourth beast: they receive the kingdom from God after the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was to be the last king of the kingdom which the fourth beast symbolized. It follows from this that the man-like figure is a symbol of the Saints of the Most High. Moreover he is a pure symbol, that is to say, he is not a real being who exists outside Daniel's dream; he is only a symbolic being within the dream. This is clear for two reasons. In the first place, the author provided an interpretation of the symbolism of this dream, which reaches a climax with the full description of the triumph of the people of the Saints of the Most High in verse 27. This triumph was very important to the author, and it corresponds precisely to what is said of the man-like figure in verse 14, but it does not mention him. If the author had viewed him as a real being who would lead or deliver the Saints, he must have mentioned him here.* The second reason is that on this view four kingdoms are represented by beast-like figures, the fifth by a man-like figure. It is not suggested that the beast-like figures really existed somewhere; we only attribute consistency to the symbolism by concluding that the man-like figure was not a real being either.

                *My next post will present a challenge by Collins to Casey's highlighted-in-maroon-color-sentence quoted above.
                On pages 304-310, in his Hermeneia commentary on Daniel, John J. Collins presents an extensive Excursus on "One Like a Human Being" in Daniel 7:13; the following is an excerpt from Collins' excursus (emphasis added):
                II. The kind of symbolism involved. In the context of Daniel 7, it is quite clear that the four beasts are viewed as allegorical symbols; hence the angel's interpretation in verse 17 identifies them as four kings or kingdoms. The interpretation does not necessarily exhaust the sense of the symbols, but it gives their reference. The beasts stand for entities that are more familiarly recognized as kings. Because there is an evident contrast between the beasts from the sea and the human figure who comes with the clouds, many scholars have assumed that this figure too must be an allegorical symbol. However, the apparition of the "one like a human being" is separated from the beasts in the text by the description of the Ancient of Days, which is generally accepted as a mythic-realistic symbol for God. The Ancient One is assumed to exist outside the dream, and there is no more appropriate or familiar language by which he might be described. Accordingly, we are subsequently given no identification of the Ancient of Days by the angel. It is highly significant that "the one like a human being" is not interpreted either.* He is associated with "the holy ones of the Most High" insofar as they too are said to receive the kingdom, but there is no one for one equation, such as we have with the beasts and the kings. If an argument is to be drawn from the nature of the symbolism, then, it should favor the view that the "one like a human being" is a symbol of the same order as the Ancient of Days―a mythic-realistic depiction of a being who was believed to exist outside the vision.
                *Rowland, The Open Heaven, 180: "If the Son of Man figure had merely been a symbol of the Saint of the Most High, we might have expected to find the same kind of identification between the Son of Man and the saints which we find in respect of the beasts and the kings in verse 18, but this is lacking." This observation is more telling than Casey's gratuitous assertion that "if the author had viewed him as a real human being who would lead or deliver the Saints, he must have mentioned him here," at verse 27 (Son of Man, 25).

                Comment


                • #53
                  Son of Man

                  Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                  The author evidently thought that in interpreting the man-like figure as the Saints of the Most High he was making his meaning clear. Unfortunately, however, the meaning of this term is also a subject of considerable debate. I shall argue that he meant the Jewish people, specifically the faithful Jews attacked by Antiochus Epiphanes, and I assume this result now. In selecting a man to symbolize the true Israel, the author was making use of some of the simplest and most basic concepts of his native Israelite religion. He believed that Israel was the chosen people of the only God, who was mindful and would deliver them. They were a holy people, and if they had done wrong (cf. Daniel 9) they repented, and because they were a righteous remnant not rebelling against God they would soon be triumphant. To symbolize this the author made use of the traditional Israelite idea that man is superior to the beasts, an idea which is expressed with great clarity in the creation narrative of Gen. 1 and in Psa. 8.6-8. From it grew the symbolism of opposition to God as brutish, and obedience to him as manly (e.g. Psa. 73.21f.). The author had used these ideas already in Daniel 4, where Nebuchadnezzar's pride led to his condemnation to a beast-like existence. When he repented and acknowledged the sovereignty of God, Nebuchadnezzar was restored to manhood. This incident is reflected in Daniel 7.4, and these same Israelite ideas explain the author's choice of a man as a symbol of the true and obedient Israel in 7.13. Moreover, the fact that man is traditionally superior to the beasts explains why the author chose the man-like figure as a symbol of the Jews only when they are in triumph, not when they suffer.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Son of Man

                    Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                    It is this symbolism, consistently maintained, which explains the apparently anomalous position of verses 21-2, and which necessitated the summary interpretations of the symbolic part of the dream in verses 17-18. If he was to maintain this symbolism, the author could not portray the man-like figure as suffering and humiliated by a beast. Therefore there is no mention of the suffering of Israel in the account of the fourth beast and its little horn at verses 7-8, even though this account is relatively prolonged. The author had no symbol for Israel suffering, so the sufferings of Israel could not be portrayed until the man-like figure had been interpreted. This is the main function of the summary interpretation of verses 17-18. The author, living among and writing for the Saints of the Most High, provided in these verses the interpretation of the man-like figure in a way which will have been much clearer to his readers than it has been to contemporary scholarship. Once this interpretation was supplied. Daniel could see the suffering of the Saints, and this follows immediately, tacked on to his question in verses 19-20. This lengthy repetition of the description of the fourth beast and especially its little horn, in the form of Daniel's question to the interpreting angel, thus has two functions. It draws attention to the fourth beast and particularly to its little horn, and it prepares the way directly for the new piece of visionary material in verse 21. Now that the man-like figure has been interpreted as the Saints of the Most High, Daniel can see the little horn making war on them, a piece of visionary material symbolizing the persecution and war brought on them by Antiochus Epiphanes. Verse 22 brings added clarity and emphasis to the most important event of the chapter, the triumph of the Saints.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Son of Man

                      Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                      Thus a proper understanding of the author's symbolism enables us to see clearly the point of the structure of this chapter. The order of events in verses 17ff. also increases the dramatic effect of the narrative, drawing attention to it does so to the activities of the little horn, under whom the author and his comrades lived and suffered. It results in the final triumph of the Saints being emphatically stated three times in the second half of the chapter. The author will no doubt have been well satisfied with his literary and dramatic solution to the problem he set himself by his choice of the man-like figure to represent the true Israel.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Son of Man

                        Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                        His choice was not a necessary one, in the sense that other possibilities were open to him. The author of 1 Enoch 89-110, like the later author of 4 Ezra 12, used animals in a different and more essentially neutral symbolic sense, and our author could have done the same. He had known many people martyred, so he might have produced a suffering man. However, his choice of the man-like figure as a suitable symbol for the triumph of the true Israel, is, as we have seen, a perfectly intelligible choice made on the basis of ideas found elsewhere in Jewish theology and used by him elsewhere in his book. That this was the choice that he made is demonstrated by the evidence of the text of this chapter, whose symbolism and structure are otherwise unintelligible.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Son of Man

                          Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                          What about the כ? [The] 'כ retains its original nominal character as "the like of"'. It was 'like' a human being because in Daniel's dream it looked like one: however it was not in fact a human being, it was a purely symbolical being. This is true also of the first and third beasts in verses 4 and 6, though it is easily overlooked because of their peculiar features. It is true also of the second beast, which has none, but our author's habitual flexibility of expression resulted in his using a different expression here, though it is one with the same meaning, דמיה ל. The same is not said of the fourth beast because it is to be portrayed as so awful that there is nothing to compare it with, in appearance as in frightfulness. The other important being in the dream is the Ancient of Days; here there is no כ because this being exists.

                          From John J. Collins' Excursus: "One Like A Human Being", in Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia: Augsburg Fortress, 1993), p. 305:
                          The preposition כ, "like," is best understood as indicating the mode of expression proper to a vision, so that "like a son of man" means a human figure seen in a vision," [Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man, 10] where the figure may or may not represent something other than a human being.

                          See also here.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Son of Man

                            Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                            Thus the use of כ in this chapter is consistent. It is true that it is used a little differently in the description of angels in 8-12, but this does not matter, even if these chapters are from the same author. How different the usage is, is a function of the finesse of the analytical technique employed, not only of the primary evidence. If we are content to say that here too כ is used in expressions of comparison, then the uses in 8.15 etc. are the same as in 7.13. If we employ a finer analytical technique which differentiates between the use of כ in 7.13 to describe a being which looked like a man in every way but did not in fact exist outside Daniel's dream in 8:15 etc. to describe the real appearance of real angels, and in 7.4, 6 to describe beings which looked partly like and partly unlike something, we must add that all this falls within the semantic area of כ, and that variation within the normal semantic area of every word is normal to any author. Such an analysis cannot therefore constitute a valid argument either against the interpretation I have proposed or against the common authorship of all these passages.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Son of Man

                              Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                              בר אנשׁ was described by Driver as 'a choice semi-poetical expression'. Evidence subsequently gathered, though still meagre, has made it clear that it was a normal term for 'man'. The singular does not recur in Daniel, but the plural is found twice, 2.38; 5:21. Reasons for the author's choice of it here can be plausibly surmised. Against אנשׁ, he wanted an individual rather than the species; against גבר, the less definite expression is perhaps the more suitable for a pure symbol. Montgomery's judgement appears sound: 'the expression of both category and individual was best expressed by בר אנשׁ'. Psa. 8 may have been in mind, but it is not the coincidence of בן אדם that suggests this so much as the content of verse 6, an expression of that sentiment which explains our author's choice of a man as a symbol of Israel.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Son of Man

                                Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:
                                Daniel saw the man-like figure coming down [see below -JR] 'with the clouds of heaven'. His heavenly origin is right and proper for a symbol of the chosen people of God; the idea that it makes him a divine being results from too rigid an interpretation of other texts. There are no previous examples of purely symbolic beings coming with the clouds in the OT because there are no previous examples of purely symbolic beings coming at all. It marks a perfect contrast with the beasts emerging from the sea. They are forces basically hostile to God; the chosen people symbolized by the man-like figure are God's own. The position of 'with the clouds of heaven' immediately after 'behold' properly draws the eye of the reader like that of the visionary up into the sky―the scene so far has been set entirely on the earth. This does not usually happen after ארו, and hence the unusual word order. At verse 2 an identical order of words was not required because the author began with a statement about the sea, which corresponds symbolically to the clouds, and could thus use 'and' to add the information that the beast emerged from it.

                                See here.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X