Son of Man

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

There is insufficient reason to suppose that the author avoided putting the man-like figure on the clouds. Since he is coming down to earth it may be that the author considered his passage most naturally rendered with עם, but neither he nor the LXX translator can be shown to have had the finesse to see substantial difference between עם ["with"] and על ["upon"], ἐπί ["upon"] and μετά ["with"]. The LXX translator used ἐπί because that was how he saw the man-like figure coming, and the religionsgeschichtlich evidence makes his view unsurprising. The subsequent exegetical tradition shows a good variety of prepositions, and this does not appear to have any organic connection with different interpretations of the man-like figure. He is then brought before the Ancient of Days by some of the divine servants already mentioned in verse 10. The LXX says this explicitly, but this must be the meaning of the Aramaic text as well, for they are the appropriate beings for this task, and there is no one else to do it.

See here.

[John Reece]

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 man-like figure is then given dominion, glory, and sovereignty. He cannot represent 'the rule of the saints, or the saints as invested with authority' because he comes first and then is invested with kingship and authority. As the interpretation makes clear, he simply represents the Saints. Despite being invested with such dominion, glory, and sovereignty, he is not enthroned. He is not in any way confused with the heavenly beings who constitute the court, and who do indeed sit on thrones. He is given the sovereignty to symbolize the giving of sovereignty to Israel, and every Jew knew that, so far from distracting from the sovereignty of God, this would demonstrate that God was in fact king of all the world.

Thus the corporate interpretation of the man-like figure as a symbol of the Saints of the Most High enables us to give a coherent and consistent account of the symbolism and structure of the whole of Daniel 7. Other identifications have, however, been so abundant in the scholarship of recent years that a critical survey of them is a necessary complement to the exposition of the Danielic text. The commonest of these other views is that the man-like figure is the Messiah. This view has a long tradition from the pre-critical era. One of the best recent expositions of it is that of Dhanis.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

Dhanis recognizes that the man-like figure represents Israel, but he argues that it represents the Messiah too. He notes that in the angelic interpretation the beasts are interpreted as kings ( מלכין, verse 17, where the reading מלכיָן with versional support is unlikely to be correct) as well as kingdoms. The author could in fact say 'kings' in his summary because like everyone else at that time he believed that a king was representative of his kingdom. Dhanis quotes two straightforward examples from the book of Daniel: 2.39 from the same author, and, what is perhaps the most striking of all, from the Hebrew part of the book, 8.21, 'And the he-goat is the king of Greece; and the great horn between its eyes is the first king'. It does not however follow from this that our author believed that Israel would have a king at all. Messianic beliefs were not universal, and the fact that our author did not share them is demonstrated by his failure to mention the Messiah anywhere, above all in his interpretation of the man-like figure. The author of the longer account of Israel's deliverance in Daniel 12 does not mention any Messiah either. It is to be concluded therefore that our author belonged to a group which did not expect a Messiah. From Daniel 10―12 we may conclude that Michael was thought of as the guardian angel of Israel; but her only king, in our author's view, will have been God. Transcendental features of the symbolism cannot be held against this because in themselves they need not involve transcendence in the being symbolized, and the author's interpretation shows that no transcendental being is involved in this particular case, but only God's chosen people whom he held in the highest possible regard. Some scholars have made use of the idea of 'corporate personality' to explain how the man-like figure can symbolize both the Messiah and the people of Israel, but this idea cannot be helpful until it is shown that the man-like figure is in fact an individual as well as a symbol of a corporate entity.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

Dhanis further observes that the interpreting angel never makes statements such as 'The Son of man is the Saints of the Most High', or 'Those who receive the kingdom are the Saints of the Most High', but he says only 'The Saints of the most High will receive the kingdom'. This observation, which recurs throughout the modern literature on Daniel 7, is perfectly correct but leads nowhere very significant. In the same way the author never says 'Now the little horn is another king'. His style of writing interpretations is not to do this with every item. Having set up the ten horns and briefly interpreted them, he assumes quite correctly that he simply has to proceed 'and another one will arise after them' and we shall know that he is referring to the little horn. Similarly he assumes that, if he proceeds from the beasts in verse 17 to the triumph or the Saints of the Most High in verse 27 in language very similar to that of verse 14, we shall all know he is interpreting the man-like figure. His was not an unreasonable assumption, and it has been called into question only by interpreters who do not share his ideas. He did not imagine that the man-like figure would be interpreted as the Messiah because he and the other members of his group did not expect the Messiah, because he assumed everyone would realize that the interpretation he wrote was really intended to explain what his symbolism meant, and because his interpretation supplies the expected triumph of his group as a very precise equivalent of the triumph of the man-like figure.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

Another suggestion is that the man-like figure should be identified as Michael. The classical exposition of the view is that of N. Schmidt, and it has been revived by [J. J.] Collins [JBL 93 (1974), 50-66]. In a passage which has exercised considerable influence on subsequent scholarship, Schmidt notes the examples of expressions of the type 'one like a son of man' used in the Book of Daniel to designate angels. At 8.15 Gabriel is described as 'like the appearance of a man'; at 8.16 he has the 'voice of a man'; at 10.16 he is described as 'like the resemblance of the sons of man'. at 10.18 'like the appearance of a man'; at 3.25 one of the four 'men' is likened to a son of God; at 9.21 the angel is referred to as 'the man Gabriel'; at 10.5 he is 'a man clothed in linen' and likewise at 12.6, 7. Schmidt adds references to Rev. 19.14; Ezek 1.26; Enoch 87.2., to show that the representation of angels in human form is comprehensible in the thought and usage of this period, and he deduces that the man-like figure in Daniel 7.13 is an angel too.

[John Reece]

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

As applied to Daniel 7.13, this argument is logically unsound. Let us first grant Schmidt's supposition that Daniel 7 was written by the same man as Daniel 8―12. From the fact that the author described angels in human terms, it does not follow that he could not describe anything else as 'man-like' as well. On this logical point Schmidt's argument collapses. It is even less improbable that a different author should use the same image for a piece of pure symbolism. That Michael is the heavenly prince of Israel in Daniel 10.21; 12.1 is to be granted, but it follows from the evidence of Daniel 7 itself that the author of Daniel 7 did not regard him as important enough to mention.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

Collins' argument differs chiefly in that he regards the 'holy ones' in Daniel 7.18, 22 as the angels, though this leads him into some difficulty at 7.27. This makes it more natural for him to interpret the man-like figure as their representative, but his argument is no real improvement on that of Schmidt. He repeats the references to Daniel 8.15; 9.21; 10.5; 12.6, and does not explain the absence of Michael in 7.27.

[John Reece]

The Apocalypse of John

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

Zevitt has interpreted the man-like figure as Gabriel, but his argument suffers from the fatal flaw of being dependent on Schmidt to show that the man-like figure is an angel. His interpretation of Daniel 9.21, 'the man Gabriel whom I saw in the vision at the beginning', as a reference to Daniel 7.13 is based on a definition of 'vision' (חזון) remote from the book of Daniel. The reference is to Daniel 8.16, where the appearance of the angel to Gabriel to interpret the symbolism is still part of the vision. It need hardly be added that Zevitt does not explain the absence of Gabriel from the interpretive section of Daniel 7.

From The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), 2 volume set Hardcover – January 1, 2002, by Ludwig Koehler (Author), Walter Baumgartner (Author), & 1 more ... [emphases added]:

חָזוֹן MHb.2, JArm.t Syr. חֶזְוָנָא,? Mnd. ZAW 50:311: construct חֲזוֹן.

―1. vision; Johnson Prophet 12ff.35ff: with ראה Daniel 8.15, Daniel 8.1 , is frequent Hos 1211, rare 1S 31, is missing Pr 29.18 (:: Gemser 144: supervisor, MHb. חַזָּן), is taken away Mi 36 Ezk 1222 Lam 29; how long will it be? Daniel 8.13, in the distant future Ezk 1227 Hab 23 Daniel 8.17, Daniel 10.14; רָאָה בֶח׳ Daniel 8.2 (X 2), Daniel 9.21, הֵבִין בְּח׳ 117, דִּבֶּר בְּח׳ Ps 8920 דְּבַר כָּל־ח׳ the fulfilment Ezk 1223; חֲ׳ לַילָה nocturnal vision Is 297; ח׳ שָׁלוֹם visions of salvation Ezk 1316, חֲ׳ שֶׁקֶר false visions Jr 1414, = ח׳ שָׁוְא Ezk 1224, חֲ׳ לִבָּם Jr 2316; —2. word of revelation: in book titles Is 11 (with → חזה !) Ob 1 Nah 11, written Hab 22 2C 3232; kept secret חתם Daniel 9.24, סתם Daniel 8.26; to fulfill הֶעֱמִיד Daniel 11.14, הקים Sir 3620; בִּקֵּשׁ from the נָבִיא Ezk 726; 1C 1715; —Ezk 713 crrpt. < חָרוֹן (v.12b). †

Please correct me if I am wrong; however, I take it that Casey is saying that the book of Daniel is a literary composition produced entirely via human creative writing, historical references, etc., devoid of any true divine inspiration. I get that impression from reading all of Casey's writings on the subject of the Son of Man; that fits the well-known fact that he was an agnostic.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

Black has used the biblical application of terms such as 'one like the appearance of a man' together with Feuillet's assertion of direct dependence on Ezek. 1 to support his belief that 'in effect . . . Daniel 7 knows of two divinities, the Head of Days and the Son of Man'. The author of Daniel 7 was a pious Jew, so that clear evidence would be required for us to suppose that he had produced a second divinity, but no purely divine terms are used of the man-like figure, and he is clearly subordinate to the Ancient of Days. Feuillet exaggerated the dependence on Ezekiel, partly because he still believed that the term 'Son of man' was an abnormal semi-poetic expression. The phrase 'like the appearance of a man' is suitable for comparing anything to a man, and the early biblical examples could not limit its potential in the work of any native speaker of Hebrew or Aramaic. Consequently the increasing quantity of non-biblical material has produced an example of its application to a phenomenon quite different from the numen praesens et visible of Yahweh theophany or an angelic theophany, namely the appearance of the moon at night (1 Enoch 78:17). Daniel 9.ff. really does contain a throne theophany of Yahweh in the old Israelite tradition found especially also in the book of Ezekiel, and it is a theophany of the one God, not of two; moreover the symbolic heavenly origin of the man-like figure may not be applied to produce the deification of the Saints because it symbolizes them but does not describe them.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

Apart from the anonymous Messiah, three human beings have been suggested as candidates for the man-like figure. Gaster suggested Moses. His unsatisfactory approach typifies all too many attempts to get behind the text of Daniel. He comments on verses 9-18, 'It is absolutely incoherent and confused. In order to understand it properly, some order must be put into that confusion so characteristic of a dream told incoherently'. But the incoherence and confusion lie in the mind of the researcher who cannot understand the text, and the function of such remarks is to permit an arbitrariness in method whereby the scholar reads into or behind the text what he first expected to find there. His comment on verse 9 is reminiscent of his ancient predecessors: 'Evidently the word thrones is not to be taken as plural'. Equally arbitrary is the comment on verse 14: 'The glory of God, His might and power, is described in Daniel 7.14, which has nothing to do with the Son of man, and should follow immediately after God sitting in judgement'. This is not interpretation of the Danielic text, but simple rejection of it. The identification of the man-like figure as Moses follows on the most general of grounds, its only particularity being the unconvincing assertion of direct dependence on Deut. 32.2-4. Gaster uses very late evidence to fill out his picture of Moses, without the careful discrimination which must be employed if such late material is to be handled convincingly, and his production of Moses on a cloud suffers from the same fault as more orthodox attempts to identify the figure by means of its cloud. Yet the late date of Gaster's evidence is a less fundamental fault than the way in which he distorts and in the last analysis brushes aside the evidence of the Danielic text which he is supposed to be interpreting.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

Sahlin has suggested that the man-like figure is Judas Maccabaeus. The fact that the author never mentions Judas Maccabaeus is a fatal objection to this view. Also the disappearance of this view is especially difficult to explain because it fits so beautifully into the Syrian tradition of interpretation, which saw the Maccabean victory under Judas as the meaning of the triumph of the Saints of the Most High, and could easily have seen Judas Maccabaeus as a type of Christ.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

Schmid has suggested that the man-like figure is none other then Daniel himself. Schmid's view is dependent on his redaction history of Daniel 7, which is similar to those discussed above, and unconvincing for the same reasons. It is precisely the removal of the interpretation of the man-like figure which makes its interpretation difficult. Schmid then seeks the source of the designation 'one like a son of man' in Daniel 8.17 where Daniel is addressed as 'son of man'. But this term is not a title nor an exclusive description of anyone, and the fact that it is applied to Daniel (probably by a later author, but that is a separate point) does not supply the identification of the person involved when the description is used elsewhere. It is a normal term for man, and the fact that Daniel, like Ezekiel before him, could be addressed by means of it is not inconsistent with the use of human symbolism in a different way in a separate chapter.

[John Reece]

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 remaining identification of significance is that which regards the man-like figure as derived from widespread concepts of an Urmensch in the ancient Near East. This is important because if the author of Daniel knew a glorious individual figure, 'the Man' or 'the Son of man', it could be this figure which was known to later sources and referred to by Jesus himself, and this could be the case even if our author had used this individual figure as a symbol in Daniel 7 itself. The weakness of this view is that this 'Son of man' figure does not actually occur in any Jewish source. I shall argue that the present text of Daniel does not provide sufficient evidence of its existence in Israel. I shall argue similarly in the case of other texts as I deal with them, and draw the results of these discussions together at the end of chapter 5, where I shall argue that there was no Son of man concept in Judaism.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

How far this interpretive school depended on it own inability to understand the Danielic text is evident in the seminal work of Gunkel, who used the incomprehensibility and un-Jewish nature of the man-like figure as a major argument for his conjecture that in the myth 'Son of man' was the title for the conqueror of God. But the outstanding difficulties listed by Gunkel have now all been solved, and the structure and symbolism of the chapter have become clear when it is seen against its native Jewish background. Thus the ground is removed from Gunkel's conjecture. Little enough evidence could in any case be drawn on in its favour. The number of genuine similarities between Daniel 7 and the Babylonian material, whether assessed in its original form or as it supposedly recurred in Israel, were too few to demonstrate dependence, and some of them, such as the use of רוח, are in themselves common use of material so widespread that its recurrence in independent works was inevitable.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

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

This same mythological background was also utilized by Schmidt, who in suggesting that the man-like figure was Michael argued that his prototype was Marduk. Subsequent scholars have produced a series of different suggestions, which underlines the methodological inadequacy of their work. Beginning from an inability to understand the origin of the man-like figure in Daniel and the 'Son of man' in the Similitudes of Enoch, they have pointed out similarities to Daniel 7 in a variety of mythological sources in the ancient Near East. But a few similarities are not proof of origin, and the uncontrolled nature of the use of this evidence is decisively against all these views. In recent years Canaan has replace Babylon as the main source of influence to be suggested. This is instructive. The similarities with the Babylonian material are still there, but now appear as inadequate, which they always were. But the Canaanite arguments are of the same type, relying on a few similarities, and having to posit an Israelite conception different from that found in any source because existing Israelite sources do not have any concept sufficiently like that of the earlier myths. Moreover the assembling of an apparently imposing list of different myths as evidence of a widespread concept of an Urmensch used by Daniel is misleading; the need to assemble such a list of foreign material is really due to the absence of sufficiently clear evidence of the requisite kind anywhere.