Book of Daniel – Next Step Bible Study

Sunday Psalm Studies: Daniel 3:[46-90] (Part 2)

The Song of the Three Young Men (Daniel 3:[46-90]), continued

- Narrative (prose) introduction (vv. 23-28 [46-51])
- Praise/Blessing to YHWH (vv. 29-34 [52-56])
- The Song proper: Creation is called to praise/bless YHWH
  - Stanza 1: The Heavenly beings/bodies (vv. 35-41 [57-63])
  - Stanza 2: The Heavens and its atmosphere (vv. 42-51 [64-73])
  - Stanza 3: The Earth and its surface (vv. 52-59 [74-81])
  - Stanza 4: Humankind upon the earth (vv. 60-66 [82-88])
- Closing Benediction (vv. 67-68 [89-90])

Stanza 1, along with the introductory portions of the Song, were examined in Part 1 of this study.

Stanza 2 (vv. 42-51 [64-73])

By all accounts, the text of the second stanza is quite confused. This can be seen by: (1) the different order/arrangement of the verses in the manuscripts and versions; (2) the doubling/repetition that occurs among the couplets, and (3) the significant number of textual variants within the couplets. Moore (p. 71) provides a convenient table illustrating six different arrangements for the couplet-verses of the stanza. The ten couplets of the fullest form of the stanza (as in the LXX, Vulgate, and several of the Theodotion manuscripts) includes repetitions (or near-repetitions) that, if original, would make for a clumsy and badly composed stanza. For this reason, a number of commentators (such as Moore) believe that vv. 45-46 [67-68] and 49 [69] are secondary additions (glosses or conflated text) that should be omitted. A reasonably strong argument can be made that the original stanza(s) contained seven couplets; cf. Moore, p. 72, and the article by E. B. Christie, “The Strophic Arrangement of the Benedicte”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 47 (1928), pp. 188-93. The aforementioned omissions are supported text-critically by manuscripts B (Vaticanus) and Q of Theodotion which omit vv. 45-46, and by the omission of v. 49 in the Sahidic and Syriac versions (the Syriac also omits v. 46). Without these three verses, the seven-couplet Stanza reads as follows:

^42[64]Give a good account of the Lord, all (you) rain(s) and dew—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
^43[65]Give a good account of the Lord, all (you) winds—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
^44[66]Give a good account of the Lord, (you) fire and heat—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
^50[69]Give a good account of the Lord, (you) frost and cold—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
^47[70]Give a good account of the Lord, (you) nights and days—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
^48[71]Give a good account of the Lord, (you) light and darkness—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
⁵¹^[73]Give a good account of the Lord, (you) lightning-flashes and clouds—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!

The same pattern from Stanza 1 is continued, with each couplet beginning with an imperative of the verb eu)loge/w, “give a good account, speak well of”, i.e., “bless”; also, the same refrain continues to be used throughout. In Stanza 1, the call went out to the heavens (i.e., the upper half of the cosmos), particularly the upper/highest portions where the heavenly beings/bodies reside and move about. The focus in here in Stanza 2 is on the atmospheric phenomena that ‘dwell’ (i.e., occur) in the space below. These represent an expansion of Psalm 148:8; as previously mentioned, Psalm 148 appears to have served as the main pattern and inspiration for the Song.

As noted above, verses 45-46 (and 49) represent conceptual overlap (and doubling) of vv. 42, 44, 50. Almost certainly, all of these verses were not present together in the original version of the stanza. However, the considerable variation in the manuscripts and versions suggests that the conflated text and doublets were present in the received text to some degree, compelling the ancient copyists and translators (just like modern commentators and translators) to take steps to improve the text. The relevant portion of verse 45 [67] in Theodotion (A-text) reads: “…(you) cold and burning (heat)”, which seems to be a conflation of vv. 44 + 50 (see above); the LXX has “…(you) frost and cold” (r(i=go$ kai\ yu=xo$), which is the reading I have used for v. 50. The Theodotion/LXX reading of v. 50 (with minor variation) is “…(you) frost and snow”. Verse 46 [68] is apparently a conflation of vv. 42 and 50: “…(you) dews and snowfalls” (dro/soi kai\ nifetoi/).

Beyond these textual issues, the position of the final v. 51 [73] is curious; the mention of “(lighting) flashes and clouds” seems to fit better (and more appropriately) at the beginning of the stanza, in connection with the rainstorm (o)mbro/$, v. 42 [64]) and winds (pneu/mata, v. 43 [65]). YHWH’s control over the waters (v. 38 [60]) is manifest in the atmospheric phenomena of storms (with winds, clouds, and lightning flashes) and the subsequent rainfall (along with dew and snowfall, etc.). It is thus proper for these phenomena, which exist and respond by God’s command, to give praise and blessing to Him.

Stanza 3 (vv. 52-59 [74-81])

Verse 52 [74]

“Let the earth give a good account of the Lord—
let it sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!”

In the third stanza, the focus shifts from the upper half of the cosmos (“the heavens”) to the lower half (“the earth”). This shift is expressed poetically by the variation in grammatical form—to a third person (rather than second person) imperative, which is translated like a jussive form (“Let the earth give a good account of [i.e., bless] the Lord”). Kuhl (pp. 119, 130) reconstructs similarly with a third person Hebrew imperative (i.e., yk!r=B*, rather than Wkr=B*). The same variation occurs in the refrain. The term “earth” (Jr#a#, Greek gh=) refers to the entire lower half of the cosmos, but particularly to the habitable surface (viz., the cylindrical or disk-shaped surface) where animals and human beings dwell (see below).

Verse 53 [75]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) mountains and hills—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!“

The mountains/hills, which extend upward from the flat surface of the earth, are the most prominent (and grandest) visible features, and thus deserve to be mentioned first. Cf. Psalm 148:9a.

Verse 54 [76]

“Give a good account of the Lord, all (you) th(ing)s sprouting in the earth—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!“

The reference is to all kinds of plants and trees—things growing/sprouting up (vb fu/w) from within the ground (lit. “earth”, the surface of the earth). The LXX has the preposition e)pi/ (i.e., “upon the earth”) rather than e)n (“in the earth [i.e., ground]”). The Greek wording corresponds generally (and loosely) to Ps 148:9b: “tree(s) of fruit and all cedars”.

Verses 55-56 [77-78]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) seas and rivers—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
[Give a good account of the Lord, (all you) springs—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!]”

LXX and Theodotion differ in the order of these two couplets. The LXX ordering is to be preferred, as the “springs” (phgai/) make (perhaps) for a better transition to the deeps and the ‘sea monsters’ of the following v. 57 (cf. Psalm 148:7). However, it is to be suspected that v. 56 (LXX / v. 55 Theodotion) is a secondary gloss (indicated by square brackets above), and that there was originally only one couplet referring to the seas and rivers/springs; this would result in seven couplets (rather than the current eight) for the stanza (cf. Moore, p. 73). If v. 56 is to be maintained as a legitimate couplet, then the expanded reading of the line “…rains and springs” (o)mbroi/ kai\ phgai/ [LXX]) would seem to be required to achieve a more consistent meter, as Moore notes (p. 72f).

Verse 57 [79]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) sea-monsters and all th(ing)s moving in the waters—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!“

This couplet corresponds generally with Ps 148:7b: “…(you) sea-monsters [<yn]yN]T^] and all (the) depths”. As noted above, according to the ancient Near Eastern cosmology, “the earth” (v. 52 [74]) refers to the entire lower half of the cosmos; that is to say, it also includes all of the deep places (“depths”) below the surface of the earth, just as “the heavens” includes all of the high places stretching to the highest point of the heavens (and incorporating the primeval waters that are above). In the LXX of Ps 148:7, dra/kwn (“sea-serpent, ‘dragon’) translates the noun /yN]T^ (on which, see the earlier note), while here kh=to$ is used for the idea of a “sea-monster”, corresponding to /yN]T^ in passages (such as Genesis 1:21) where the mythological aspect has largely been removed and the term (plural) simply refers to the great creatures (whales, etc.) that inhabit the seas. The reference has been expanded further to include all fish and aquatic creatures (“all th[ing]s moving in the waters”, cf. Gen 1:21).

Verses 58-59 [80-81]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) winged (creature)s of the heaven(s)—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
Give a good account of the Lord, (you) four-footed (creature)s and beasts of the earth—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!”

The final two couplets refer to all the other animals that dwell on (and above) the surface of the earth—winged/flying creatures (i.e., birds, etc.), along with four-footed and other kinds of land-animals. These two couplets correspond to Ps 148:10; cf. Gen 1:20, 24-25. I have followed the LXX for v. 59, which corresponds to the wording in Gen 1:24; Theodotion has “(wild) beasts and cattle [i.e., herd animals]” (ta\ qhri/a kai\ ta\ kth/nh).

Stanza 4 (vv. 60-66 [82-88])

Verse 60 [82]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) sons of men—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!“

The final stanza of the Song focuses on human beings (“the sons of men”) as the principal inhabitants of the surface of the earth; cf. Psalm 148:11-12. The couplets of the stanza begin from this general designation (i.e., humankind), becoming more specific as they proceed.

Verse 61 [83]

“Give a good account of the Lord, O Yisrael—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!“

Here the focus narrows from humankind generally to the people of Israel. Several manuscripts of Theodotion (A Q V) have a third person imperative (i.e., jussive) form, “Let Yisrael give a good account of the Lord”, as also (Q V) in the refrain; cf. Moore, p. 68.

Verse 62 [84]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) the Lord’s priests—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!“

The “priests of the Lord” are the ones among God’s people (Israel) specially chosen and consecrated to deal with the holy things of the sanctuary, etc., central to the Israelite/Judean religious culture and to the covenant with YHWH.

Verse 63 [85]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) the Lord’s servants—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!“

The reference may be to the Levites and other religious officials involved in the Temple, etc. Certainly, the terminology “servants of the Lord” can be applied in an ethical-religious sense to those who are devout and faithful to YHWH. In this respect v. 63 allows for a transition from the priesthood to all the holy ones of Israel (vv. 64-65).

Nearly all of the manuscripts and versions read “the priests of the Lord” and “the servants of the Lord”, respectively, in vv. 62-63; however, manuscript B (Vaticanus), along with the Armenian version, omits “of the Lord” (kuri/ou) in both verses.

Verses 64-65 [86-87]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) spirits and souls of (the) righteous—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
Give a good account of the Lord, (you who are) holy and lowly in heart—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!“

These two couplets refer to the righteous and holy ones among the Israelite/Judean people. The emphasis here is on religious devotion and faithfulness rather than on the ritual aspects (vv. 62-63). This is indicated particularly by the expression “lowly (i.e., humble) in the heart” as a characteristic of the righteous/holy ones.

Christie and Moore (p. 74) regard these verses as a secondary addition (interpolation) to an original seven-couplet stanza. However, if the stanza is understood as being comprised of vv. 60-66 (with vv. 67-68 as a closing benediction), then it does contain seven couplets.

Verses 66 [88]

“Give a good account of the Lord, Ḥananyahu, Azaryahu, (and) Miša’el—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!
For He took us out of (the) Unseen realm,
and saved us out of (the) hand of Death,
and rescued us out of the midst of (the) burning flame,
and (from) out of the fire set us loose!”

From the righteous and holy ones generally (vv. 64-65), the focus narrows further to the specific figures of Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael (the Hebrew names of the three companions)—the subjects of the narrative, who were thrown into the fiery furnace precisely because of their faithfulness to God.

Appended to the conclusion of the psalm is a quatrain in which the three companions are presented as declaring and making a confession (of praise) regarding the salvation that God performed on their behalf (vv. 26-27 [49-50]). Four different verbs are used (one in each line): e)caire/w (“take out”), sw|/zw (“save”), ru/omai (“rescue”), lutro/w (“[set] loose”); cf. the corresponding Hebrew verbs as reconstructed by Kuhl (p. 132). Theodotion has the verb ru/omai (“rescue”) in lines 3-4 both, while the LXX has lutro/w in line 4; I have followed the LXX reading. The language largely follows that of the prayer-Psalms, particularly in lines 1-2 where the focus is on the righteous being rescued (by God) from death. There is a traditional pairing of Sheol (loav=) and “Death” (tw#m*) for the realm of Death (and the dead); the poetic term Sheol here is translated by a%|dh$ (hádēs, i.e., Hades)—literally, the “unseen (realm)” of the dead (viz., the netherworld). In lines 3-4 this traditional deliverance-terminology is applied to the specific situation faced by the three companions—that is, they were saved from the “burning flame” of the furnace’s fire. The narration of the actual loosing (i.e., freeing) from the furnace comes in v. 26 [93].

Closing Benediction (vv. 67-68 [89-90])

Verse 67 [89]

“Give out a confession to the Lord that He (is) good,
that His mercy (lasts) into the Age!

The Song ends with a final benediction calling on people everywhere to give praise and blessing to God. This first couplet is traditional, being identical to Psalm 105:1; 106:1; 135:1 (LXX). The verb e)comologe/omai means “give forth an account as one”, which, in this religious praise-context, means a shared or common acknowledgement (and confession) of who YHWH is and what He has done (for His people). The righteous and faithful ones among the people will gladly make such a confession “as one” —that is, as a community (of the righteous). The corresponding Hebrew verb is hd*y`, often translated “give praise/thanks”, but which very much has a confessional aspect to its meaning.

Verse 68 [90]

“Give a good account of the God of gods, all (you) the (one)s revering the Lord!
Sing praise (to Him) and give out a confession:
that His mercy (continues) into the Age,
and into the Age of Ages!”

The blessing-format of the Song is reprised here at the close, in an expanded form. It is particularly addressed to all those people, everywhere, who revere (vb se/bomai) God. The call for the faithful to make a unified confession of praise and thanksgiving (v. 67) is also restated, declaring their (and our) firm belief that God’s mercy toward those He loves is everlasting and will never fail. It will continue even into the next (or new) Age, and in all the Ages to come.

* * * * * *

In the next study, we will explore the 17th and 18th of the so-called Psalms of Solomon. This will conclude our series of studies on selected deuterocanonical and extra-canonical Psalms.

- References above marked “Moore” are to Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 44 (1977).
- Those marked “Kuhl” are to Curt Kuhl, Die Drei Männer im Feuer: Daniel Kapitel 3 und Seine Zusatze, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 55 (Topelmann: 1930).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Daniel 3:[46-90] (Part 1)

The Song of the Three Young Men (Daniel 3:[46-90])

Perhaps the best known of all the extra-canonical Psalms is the “Song of the Three Young Men” (cited subsequently as “the Song”), one of the deutero-canonical (or ‘Apocryphal’) additions to the Book of Daniel, and the second of two which were included between 3:23 and 24 of the MT (see the recent study on the Prayer of Azariah, 3:[24-45]). The Song, like the Prayer (of Azariah), was likely composed originally in Hebrew (cf. Moore, pp. 45-48), though no Hebrew (or Aramaic) remains have survived to confirm the theory. Back in 1930, Curt Kuhl (Die Drei Männer im Feuer, BZAW 55, cited below as “Kuhl”) reconstructed a plausible Hebrew version (with 4+3 [or 2+2+3] meter). Even earlier, Moses Gaster delineated what he believed to be the original Aramaic version of the Song (“The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotion’s Additions to the Book of Daniel”, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 [1894], pp. 280-90, 312-7; 17 [1895], pp. 75-94; idem, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel [1899]).

There is reason to think that the Song (with its narrative preface) was integrated into chapter 3 prior to the inclusion of the Prayer, and possibly before the Semitic (Aramaic/Hebrew) work was translated into Greek; cf. Moore, pp. 63-65. A strong argument in support of this theory is the way that the position of the Prayer contradicts the narrative logic of the preface to the Song (vv. 23-28 [46-51])—that is, Azariah is presented as uttering the Prayer in the midst of the flames prior to the angel’s act of saving/protecting him from the fire (vv. 26-27 [49-50]). Thus, it is likely that the Prayer (with its own preface) was secondarily (and somewhat awkwardly) included in a version of chapter 3 that already contained the Song.

It also seems likely that the introduction to the Song was already attached to it before the Song was included into the Aramaic text of chapter 3. The author of that introduction presents information that was already mentioned in verse 22 of the MT, and it is doubtful that he would have repeated it if the introduction were simply composed for the purpose of integrating the Song into chapter 3. The Theodotion version of Daniel ‘corrected’ the situation by omitting the detail from v. 22 that is repeated in the introduction to the Song (v. 25[48]).

As mentioned above, there are no surviving remains (either in Hebrew or Aramaic) of the Song, but only the Greek version/translation, which survives in both the LXX and Theodotion recensions, with relatively few differences between them (compared with much of the rest of the book of Daniel). The LXX is represented by a single surviving manuscript, and (indirectly) by the Syro-Hexapla version; the Theodotion version is preserved in a good number of manuscripts, most notably the major uncials A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus).

The Song may be outlined as follows:

- Narrative (prose) introduction (vv. 23-28 [46-51])
- Praise/Blessing to YHWH (vv. 29-34 [52-56])
- The Song proper: Creation is called to praise/bless YHWH
  - Stanza 1: The Heavenly beings/bodies (vv. 35-41 [57-63])
  - Stanza 2: The Heavens and its atmosphere (vv. 42-51 [64-73])
  - Stanza 3: The Earth and its surface (vv. 52-59 [74-81])
  - Stanza 4: Humankind upon the earth (vv. 60-66 [82-88])
- Closing Benediction (vv. 67-68 [89-90])

The Song follows the basic pattern of Psalm 148 [study], essentially representing an expanded (and more systematic) reworking of that canonical praise-Psalm (part of the Hallelujah, Kingship-of-YHWH collection, Pss 146-150). At the same time, the refrain that follows every verse resembles that of Psalm 136. Other references and allusions to the Psalms will be noted.

When presented separately as a deuterocanonical (or Apocryphal) ‘addition’, the Song is numbered vv. 23-68 (with the Prayer of Azaraiah vv. 1-22); however, when integrated in the Greek version as part of Daniel chapter 3, the numbering is vv. 46-90 (with the Prayer, vv. 24-45). In citing these ‘additions’, it is customary to give the deuterocanonical addition verse numbering first, followed by the integrated chapter 3 numbering in square brackets (v. 23[46], v. 24[47], et al.).

Narrative Introduction (vv. 23-28 [46-51])

The central part of the introduction is the narration of the saving action by the Messenger (Angel) of YHWH, dramatic detail that fills out the scenario narrated in verse 25 of the MT:

“But the Messenger of (the) Lord stepped down together with the (one)s around Azaryahu, into the furnace, and he shook the flame of fire out of the furnace, and he made the middle of the furnace as (if) a wind of dew was whistling through, and the whole of the fire did not touch them (at all)—it did not even cause distress or bring along trouble to them!” (vv. 26-27 [49-50])

This prepares the way for the narrative introduction to the Song proper:

“Then the three (of them) as out of one mouth sang praise and gave honor and a good account [i.e., blessing] to God in the furnace, saying:” (v. 28 [51])

Praise/Blessing to YHWH (vv. 29-34 [52-56])

Verses 29-30 [52]

“Worthy of a good account are you, Lord, the God of our fathers,
and worthy of praise and to be lifted high, into the Ages!
and of a good account (is) the holy name of your splendor,
even to be highly praised and lifted high into the Ages!”

The first two couplets of the introductory Blessing to YHWH that begins the Song are also to be found essentially in Tobit 8:5. This suggests that the Song may have been in existence by the time that the book of Tobit was composed (2nd century B.C.), and that the author quoted from it (or was otherwise influenced by it).

The Greek adjective eu)loghto/$ (lit. “worthy of [being given] a good account”, i.e., to be spoken well of) likely translates Hebrew EWrB* (“blessed”); thus, in conventional English translation the first lines of vv. 29-30 [52] are rendered “Blessed (is)…” or “Blessed (be)…”. Similarly, ai)neto/$ means “worthy of praise”; Kuhl suggests that the underlying Hebrew is lL*Whm=.

As Moore (p. 69) notes, the translator of the Song seems have been drawn to the use of words compounded with the preposition u(per- (“over, above”), such as the verb u(peruyo/w (“lift high [i.e., exalt] exceedingly”), here in both v. 29b and 30b (cf. also Psalm 37[36]:35; 97[96]:9), and the adjective u(peraineto/$ (“exceedingly to be praised”, i.e., worthy of praise) in v. 30b (parallel to ai)neto/$ in v. 29b). Cf. also u(pere/ndoco$ (“[held] exceedingly in honor”) in v. 31b, etc. Kuhl suggests that the u(per– prefix translates the Hebrew particle da)m= (“much, very”).

The Greek ei)$ tou\$ ai)w=na$ (“into/unto the Ages”), used throughout the Song, corresponds to the Hebrew temporal-durative expression <l*oul= (“into/into the distant [future]”), which occurs frequently in the Psalms.

Verse 31 [53]

“Worthy of a good account are you in the shrine of your holy splendor,
and to be highly praised and held in highest honor into the Ages!”

The reference to God’s “shrine” (nao/$, i.e., temple sanctuary) could refer to the Temple in Jerusalem, though the immediate context here in the Psalm would seem to be YHWH’s dwelling place in (or above) the heavens. The two aspects of YHWH’s holy dwelling—heavenly and earthly (i.e., in Jerusalem)—are occasionally brought together in the Psalms, and that may also be the case here. The extended expression “shrine of your holy splendor” likely represents a conflation of the Hebrew expression Ev=d=q* lk^yh@ (“palace [i.e., temple] of your holiness”) in Psalm 5:8[7]; 79:1; 138:2; Jonah 2:5[4], 8[7]; (cf. Ps 11:4: Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20) along with the idea that the “weight” (dobK*, i.e., honor, glory, splendor) of God’s presence (and His name) resides there (e.g., Psalm 26:8).

Verse 32 [54]

“Worthy of a good account are you on (the) throne of your Kingdom,
and to be sung highest praise and lifted high into the Ages!”

In YHWH’s palace/temple (v. 31 [53]), He sits upon His throne, where He rules as King. The entire cosmos is the realm of His Kingdom, but specifically the inhabited earth—and the nation/domain of His people, in particular. The universal Kingship of YHWH is an important recurring theme in the Psalms, including the final Hallelujah collection of 146-150; as noted above, the Song is patterned after Psalm 148.

Verse 33 [55]

“Worthy of a good account are you, the (One) looking upon (the) depths,
(and) sitting upon (the) kerubim,
and to be praised and lifted high into the Ages!”

The kerubim (Heb <yb!WrK=) are hybrid winged-creatures which, in ancient Near Eastern mythological (and cultic) tradition, functioned as servants and guardians of the Deity (and His dwelling-place). In particular, they flanked the golden box (i.e., Ark) that served as the cultic-ritual throne of YHWH in the sanctuary of the Temple (and earlier Tent-shrine), cf. Exod 25:18-20; 1 Kings 6:23-28. But the <yb!WrK= are also portrayed as residing in the heavens—cf. especially Psalm 18:11[10] (par 2 Sam 22:11), which refer to YHWH seated (and riding) upon a bWrK=. The designation of YHWH as “the (One) sitting upon the kerubim” is traditional (cf. Psalm 80:1; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15).

From His throne in the heavens, YHWH looks down upon the earth (and its depths, Grk a&busso$ [plur.], i.e., the regions below the surface). This emphasizes YHWH’s ruler (as King) over the entire cosmos; it also draws upon the tradition of the all-seeing ‘eye’ of God, as He observes and watches over all of His Creation.

There is disagreement between the LXX and Theodotion versions over the order of vv. 32-33 [54-55]. This has been cited in support of the theory that v. 33 [55] here, which seems to contain two distinct praise-worthy attributes of YHWH—viz., looking upon the depths and sitting upon the kerubim—represents a conflation of what were originally two distinct verses (cf. Kuhl, p. 157; Moore, p. 70). This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the stanzas of the Song proper each contain seven verses (couplets/bicola), and it is likely that the introductory Praise/Blessing originally did as well. Cf. the article by E. B. Christie, “The Strophic Arrangement of the Benedicte”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 47 (1928), pp. 188-93.

Verse 34 [56]

“Worthy of a good account are you in the firmness of the heaven(s),
and to be sung praise and given honor into the Ages!”

The noun stere/wma (“firm/solid body”) is used in Gen 1:7, etc., to translate u^yq!r*, referring to the solid outer surface of the dome that bounds and delineates the upper (hemispheric) half of the cosmos (i.e., the heavens). In this cosmological context, the term is typically translated “firmament”, which is a better match for the Greek word than the Hebrew (denoting a “hammered/beaten [surface]”). If this cosmological reference point is in view, then YHWH is portrayed as being present in the midst of the (highest) heavens. On the other hand, there are numerous references in the Psalms to YHWH fixing and setting the heavens firmly in place, and, in particular, to the setting of His throne firmly in the heavens, and that seems a better fit to the context here; cf. Ps 9:8[7]; 89:3[2]ff; 93:2; 103:19; 119:89; also Prov 3:19; 8:27.

Stanza 1 (vv. 35-41 [57-63])

The four stanzas of the Song address the entire cosmos—i.e., all of creation. The first two stanzas focus on the upper half of the cosmos (the heavens), while the last two have the lower half (the earth) in view. The first stanza addresses the beings that reside in the heavens, including the heavenly bodies, just as the final stanza addresses the beings (i.e., humans) that reside on the earth.

Verse 35 [57]

“Give a good account of the Lord, all (you) the works of (the) Lord—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!”

This couplet represents the beginning of the Song proper, as the focus shifts from blessing/praising God directly to a call for all of Creation to bless/praise Him. Such a call by the author/protagonist can also be found a number of times in the Psalms, notably in Ps 148, which, as mentioned above, serves as the pattern and inspiration for the Song. The wording here, with the “works” (Grk e&rga) of God being called on to praise Him, may be drawn from Psalm 103:22 and 145:10ff—in which case, the corresponding Hebrew is hc#u&m^ (plur.), denoting something done (or made) by God. The plural refers to the various living creatures and other components of the creation that YHWH has made—viz., His work as Creator.

In place of the adjective eu)loghto/$ (cf. above), the related verb eu)loge/w (“give a good account, speak well of”, i.e., “bless”) is used throughout the Song, corresponding to Hebrew Er^B*. The couplets of the Song begin with an imperative of this verb, as the author-protagonist calls on all of creation to bless YHWH.

The exhortation in the second line, “sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!” (u(mnei=te kai\ u(peruyou=nte au)to\n ei)$ tou\$ ai)w=na$), is used (with only occasional variation) as a refrain throughout the Song, much like the refrain in Psalm 136. Kuhl reconstructs the Hebrew of the line as: <ym!l*oul= Whm%m=orw+ Whl%l=h^µ.

Verse 36 [58]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you the) heavens—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!”

As noted above, the focus in the first two stanzas is on the upper half of the cosmos (“the heavens”), and this begins here with an address to the heavens themselves (just as in Psalm 148:4, cf. also v. 1). On the idea of the heavens personified as beings who can speak out and praise/bless God, cf. Psalm 19:2[1]; 50:6; 69:35[34]; 89:6[5]; 97:6; note also 96:11; on the specific motif of calling to the heavens, cf. Psalm 50:4; also Deut 32:1; Isa 1:2, etc.

Verse 37 [59]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) Messengers of (the) Lord—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!”

The first of the heavenly beings/bodies addressed are the “Messengers” (i.e., Angels, Grk a&ggeloi) of YHWH; cf. Psalm 148:2, also 103:20.

The order of vv. 36-37 [58-59] is reversed in the LXX and Vulgate.

Verse 38 [60]

“Give a good account of the Lord, all (you) waters th(at are) above the heaven(s)—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!”

According to the basic cosmology of the ancient Near East, the cosmos (“heaven and earth”) was surrounded by the primeval waters. Thus, there were understood to be waters surrounding (and above) the dome of the upper half of the cosmos (the heavens); cf. Gen 1:7; 7:11. While El-YHWH is generally understood to have His throne ‘in the heavens’, at least one line of religious-poetic tradition portrays Him as enthroned above the heavens, in the midst of the waters (which He has subdued and controls)—Psalm 29:3, 10, and cf. the references and allusions in Ps 93:4; 104:3, etc.; on the cosmological-mythic background of this imagery, see my article “Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”. The praise declarations in Psalm 8:2[1]; 57:6[5], 12[11]; 108:6[5]; 113:4; 148:13 likely reflect the tradition of YHWH being enthroned above the heavens.

This verse is presumably derived from the similar call to the waters in Ps 148:4.

Verse 39 [61]

“Give a good account of the Lord, all (you) powers—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!”

This verse (the first line) is similar to the LXX of Ps 103[102]:21 and 148:2b, in which duna/mei$ (“powers”) translates the plural of ab*x*, “armies” —viz., the heavenly beings/bodies as a great army (or ‘host’) that serves YHWH, and which can ‘do battle’ at His command (and on behalf of His people). The Greek term is certainly being used in that same cosmological context here; Kuhl rightly renders pa=sai ai( duna/mei$ (“all the powers”) back into Hebrew as toabx-lk. These “armies” (or “hosts”) of the heavens should be understood as including both the Messengers (Angels) (v. 37 [59]) and the heavenly bodies of the sun, moon and stars (vv. 40-41 [62-63]). In ancient polytheistic cosmology, divine beings (“powers”) were thought to be present in the heavenly bodies, governing and controlling them. Even in the developed monotheism of later Israelite religion, Judaism, and Christianity, the subordinate heavenly beings (i.e., Angels) were sometimes viewed as having intermediate control (under God’s supreme authority) over the heavenly bodies and atmospheric/celestial phenomena.

Verse 40 [62]

“Give a good account of the Lord, sun and moon—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!”

Cf. Psalm 148:3a.

Verse 41 [63]

“Give a good account of the Lord, (you) stars of the heaven(s)—
sing praise (to Him) and lift Him high into the Ages!”

Cf. Psalm 148:3b, and note the similar reference to stars (as personified heavenly beings) giving praise in Job 38:7.

The remainder of the Song will be discussed in Part 2 of this study.

- References above marked “Moore” are to Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 44 (1977).
- Those marked “Kuhl” are to Curt Kuhl, Die Drei Männer im Feuer: Daniel Kapitel 3 und Seine Zusatze, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 55 (Topelmann: 1930).

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 3:16-23ff (Part 2)

Daniel 3:16-23ff (Prayer of Azariah), continued

In Part 1 of this study, we examined the narrative setting of chapter 3, focusing particularly on the confession of faith made by the three companions (vv. 16ff), leading up to their being thrown into the “burning furnace of fire” (v. 23). It is at just this point that the Greek Versions of Daniel (LXX and Theodotion), followed by other ancient Versions, include two poetic pieces that have come to be known as the “Prayer of Azariah” and the “Song of the Three Young Men”, respectively. These pieces are among the so-called “Additions to Daniel”, part of the Deutero-canonical corpus (in the LXX and Vulgate) and the Protestant ‘Apocrypha’. The “Song of the Three Young Men” will be treated, as one of the deutero-canonical Psalms, in an upcoming post in the Sunday Studies on the Psalms series. Here, we will focus exclusively on the Prayer of Azariah.

The Prayer of Azariah

Even though the Prayer is part of the Greek text of Daniel, it almost certainly was not composed in Greek. There are strong reasons to believe that it was originally composed in Hebrew and subsequently translated into Greek, presumably at the time it was included as part of the book of Daniel (cf. Moore, pp. 45-6). A reasonable attempt at reconstructing a Hebrew original was made in 1930 by Curt Kuhl (Die Drei Männer im Feuer, BZAW 55), pp. 150-5, Notes, pp. 132-50. Some years earlier, M. Gaster made a similar reconstruction into Aramaic (cf. “The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotion’s Additions to the Book of Daniel”, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 [1984], pp. 280-90, 312-7; 17 [1985], pp. 75-94). The Hebrew verses of Kuhl’s reconstruction are primarily 3-beat (3+3) couplets or comparable 2-beat (2+2+2) tricola.

The Prayer, like the following Hymn, is prefaced by a narrative introduction that is solely intended to integrate the poem within the chapter 3 narrative (after verse 23). As a deutero-canonical ‘addition’, the Prayer is designated by verses 1-22; integrated within chapter 3 (i.e., in the Greek Version of Daniel), the numbering continues from v. 23—viz., 3:24-45. When citing or referencing the verses of the Prayer, the deutero-canonical number will be given followed by the integrated Greek verse number in square brackets, i.e., 1[24], 2[25], and so forth.

There can be no certainty as to the date or provenance of the Prayer, but, based on the tone and wording of vv. 9 [32], 14-15 [37-38], there is a likelihood that it dates from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 167-163 B.C.). This is also the date assumed by most scholars for the final form of the book of Daniel. Yet, neither the Prayer nor the Hymn was likely ever part of the original (Aramaic) text of chapters 2-7.

Narrative Introduction (vv. 1-2 [24-25])

After the three companions are thrown into the “burning furnace of fire” (v. 23), the narrative of the Prayer picks up the scene (v. 1 [24]): “And they walked about in (the) midst of (the) flame(s), singing hymns to God and giving a good account of [i.e., blessing] the Lord” (Theod). The LXX version is more expansive, mentioning all three companions by name, and describing them as “speaking out to (God)” (i.e., praying) and singing hymns. The pairing of praying / hymn-singing more accurately corresponds to the two addition-pieces (Prayer / Hymn) included in the narrative.

The Prayer is attributed to Azariah (Aramaic Abed-nego), who is always listed last among the three companions. This makes the attribution of the Prayer to him a bit surprising, and it has been suggested that the Prayer was originally associated with a separate Azariah (a common Hebrew name, ‘Ăzar-Yāh[û], “YH[WH] has given help”, or “YH[WH] is [my] Helper”), and it may have been an identification with the Azariah of Daniel that prompted the inclusion of the Prayer here in chapter 3; cf. Moore, p. 56. In the LXX version, the other two companions are said to utter the Prayer together with Azariah. The Prayer proper is introduced in rather dramatic fashion: “And, (hav)ing stood together [i.e., firm], Azaryahu spoke out [i.e., prayed] thus to (God), and (hav)ing opened up his mouth in (the) midst of the fire, said…” (Theod). Azariah is portrayed as standing firm (in faith) even with the fire raging all around him, boldly speaking out (praying) to God.

Stanza 1: Verses 3-9 [26-32]

The Prayer is a poetic work similar in certain respects to a number of the canonical prayer-Psalms. It is comprised of three sections (or stanzas) of similar length—vv. 3-9 [26-32], 10-15 [33-38], 16-22 [39-45]—the first of which is presented as a confession (of praise/blessing) to God: “Of good account [i.e., blessed] are you, Lord, God of our fathers, and (worthy) to be praised, and your name is (to be) honored unto the Ages!” (v. 3[26], cf. 1 Chron 29:10, 20).

As the remainder of the stanza makes clear (vv. 4[27]ff), YHWH is praised/blessed primarily for His justice—His judgments (as the great Judge) are right and just (“all your judgments are truth”), even when He brings terrible punishment upon a people. This applies even when the judgment/punishment comes upon His own people (i.e., the Israelite/Judean people):

“Indeed, judgments of truth you (have) made
according to all (thing)s that you brought upon us,
and upon the holy city of our fathers, Yerušalaim.” (v. 5[28]a-c)

In the historical context of the narrative setting, this judgment refers to the Babylonian conquest (and exile) which included the sacking/destruction of Jerusalem. According to the presumed setting of the poem’s composition, this extends to the calamities that came upon Jerusalem during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (described allusively and poetically in the prophetic visions of chapters 7-12 of Daniel). These judgments are declared to be just punishment because of the sins committed by the people. The declarations in vv. 5[28]d-e and 8[31] frame a confession of sin in vv. 6-7 [29-30]:

“For in truth and (right) judgment [i.e., justice] you brought upon (us)
all these (thing)s through [i.e., because of] our sins!

For we sinned and were lawless (so as) to stand away from you!
Indeed, we sinned (truly) in all (thing)s
and your commands (placed) on (us) we did not hear,
nor did we keep watch altogether nor do (them),
according to how you commanded us
that (things) might come to be good for us.

And (so) all (thing)s, as many as you brought upon (us),
and all (thing)s, as many as you did to us,
you did them in true judgment.”

Confession of sin does not feature prominently in the prayer- and lament-Psalms, though there are a few instances where it does occur (e.g., 25:7, 11, 18; 32:5; 38:4[3], 19[18]; 51:4-7 [2-5]ff). It has been claimed that the prominent emphasis on confession of sin here in the Prayer is inappropriate to the narrative setting (cf. Moore, pp. 40-1), since the main thrust of the narrative involves the faithfulness of the three companions—they specifically did not turn away from God or abandon the covenant with Him. However, the protagonist in the Psalms often serves as a representative of the people; and, particularly in the lament-Psalms with a communal emphasis (e.g., 74, 79, 80), the protagonist (as one of the righteous) speaks on behalf of the people as a whole. Closer to the context of the Prayer here is Daniel’s prayer in 9:4-19 (to be discussed), in which he confesses the people’s sins (in solidarity with them), even though he personally may not have been unfaithful to God. Cf. Ezra 9:6-15; Nehemiah 9:6-37; Baruch 1:15-3:8.

In the national lament-Psalms, an exilic (or post-exilic) setting is implied, as the protagonist laments the suffering and humiliation the people face under the power/oppression of the hostile surrounding nations. The same emphasis occurs here in the Prayer, as the summary description of the specific judgment brought upon the people (by God) in v. 9[32] leads into the following lament section:

“And you gave us along into (the) hands of hostile (foe)s,
lawless and most hostile (one)s having stood away from (you),
and to an unright(eous) king, even (the) most evil across all the earth!”

Stanza 2: Verses 10-15 [33-38]

The distressful and deplorable condition of the people, introduced in verse 9[32], is further expounded in the second stanza—a poem or psalm of lament. As noted above, this section has much in common with the canonical lament-Psalms (esp. those with a strong communal/national emphasis). Even closer is Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 (vv. 4-19), and cf. also the post-exilic prayers of Ezra, Nehemiah and Baruch mentioned above. It is not simply a matter of being at the mercy of hostile and wicked enemies; the situation is actually worse than that:

“And now, there is not for us (any) opening of the mouth,
(while) shame and disgrace have come to be (the lot)
for your servants and for the (one)s revering you.” (v. 10[33])

On behalf of the people, the protagonist makes a plea to YHWH, calling on Him to act:

“(So) then, do not give us over to completion,
for the sake of [dia/] your name!
And do not scatter your (covenant) set through (to us)!
And do not make your mercy stand away from us—
for the sake of [dia/] Abraham the (one) loved by you,
and for the sake of Yiṣḥaq the servant of you,
and Yisrael the holy (one) of you,
to whom you spoke saying
(you were) to multiply their seed as the stars of the heaven,
and as the sand th(at is) along the edge of the sea!” (vv. 11-13 [34-36])

Typically, the in prayer-Psalms, the protagonist makes an appeal based (in various ways) upon the covenant-bond established between YHWH and His people. This is very much the case here as well. The appeal is made to YHWH’s own faithfulness to the covenant, and to the specific promises made to the ancestors of Israel/Judah (Gen 22:17, etc.). In spite of these promises regarding the great blessing and prosperity of the people, quite the opposite seems now to have occurred:

“(Yet it is) that, O Master, we have become little,
beyond all the (other) nations,
and we are lowly in all the earth today
through [i.e., because of] our sins!
And there is not in this time (for us)
(any) chief and foreteller [i.e., prophet] and leader,
nor whole burnt offering nor (sacrifice for) slaughtering,
nor (gift to) bring forward nor incense (to burn),
no place to give (our) fruits in front of you
and (so) to find mercy!” (vv. 14-15 [37-38])

The Israelite/Judean people now have a greatly reduced status, in a lowly condition—poor and oppressed (and humiliated)—among the nations. Moreover, they have lost access to the Temple and the sacrificial ritual that is essential to maintaining the covenant bond with YHWH. In particular, they have lost the ritual means to restore the bond (when it has been broken), to atone for their sins and thus find forgiveness (“mercy”). At the level of the historical-setting of the narrative, this simply refers to the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the people; however, in terms of the likely setting for the composition of the Prayer, it also refers specifically to the actions of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) in regard to the Temple (viz., the outlawing and eliminating of the performance of the prescribed sacrificial ritual, etc.), cf. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc 1:45-54.

Stanza 3: Verses 16-22 [39-45]

Since the Israelite/Judean people do not have the ability to restore the covenant-bond with YHWH, finding forgiveness and mercy from Him, through the prescribed means of the sacrificial ritual (v. 15[38]), they have to rely (at least temporarily) on other (non-sacrifical) means. In the final stanza, the protagonist (on behalf of the people) seeks to atone for sin by approaching YHWH, not with sacrificial offerings, but instead with a humble and repentant heart, and with a renewed spirit of devotion. This relative ‘spiritualization’ of the sacrificial ritual occurs at a number of points in the canonical Psalms (e.g., 40:7[6]ff; 50:8ff, 16-17ff; 51:18-19 [16-17]; 141:2), which may, to some extent, reflect a similar time of composition in the exilic and post-exilic periods. The ‘sacrifice’ that the people offer to God is their whole-hearted commitment to follow Him faithfully, remaining devoted to Him (v. 17[40]b).

With their heart thus turned toward the covenant-bond with YHWH, the people (with the author-protagonist speaking on their behalf) can make their request to YHWH (vv. 19[42]ff), asking that He rescue them from their hostile foes and restore them—from their current lowly state back to their former privileged position (in which they enjoy the Divine blessings and protection promised by the covenant). As often in the Psalms, the request for deliverance is framed in terms of the mighty deeds performed by YHWH on behalf of His people in the past:

“And may you take us out of (our distress), according to you wondrous (deed)s,
and (so) give honor to your name, O Lord!” (v. 20[43])

The second line represents another common feature of the prayer-Psalms: an appeal to the name of YHWH—that a miraculous deliverance of His people will bring honor to Him, including admiration and veneration by many of the surrounding nations (cf. the closing verse 22[45]). At the same time, the prayer includes a request that the enemies who have oppressed God’s people should themselves experience punishment (in accordance with what they have done to God’s people):

“And may they be turned in (shame), all the (one)s showing bad (intention)s toward your servants,
and let them be put to shame, (away) from all power and position of power,
and let their strength be altogether broken (apart)!” (v. 21[44])

Such imprecatory wishes are a common feature in the prayer- and lament-Psalms, however unsettling they may be to many modern readers.

The final couplet of the Prayer expresses the wish (and the expectation) that the deliverance that YHWH works for His people would result in His Sovereignty being acknowledged by all the peoples of the earth (all the surrounding nations). This a key thematic emphasis and point of orientation for many of Kingship Psalms—such as the collections Pss 93-100 and 146-150—those which particularly stress the universal Kingship of YHWH (viz., over the entire world and all people everywhere). This emphasis becomes more prominent in the exilic and post-exilic period and is reflected in the book of Daniel (see esp. chapter 7) even as here in the deutero-canonical Prayer. It is a vital component of the eschatological (and Messianic) expectations of the period, tied to the hope of Israel’s restoration in the New Age.

“May they come to know that you, O Lord, alone (are) God,
and (to be held) in honor over the whole inhabited world!” (v. 22[45])

Conclusion

It is quite clear that the Prayer of Azariah stands on its own as a prayer- and lament-psalm, akin to many similar prayer-Psalms in the canonical Scriptures. It has much in common with Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 (vv. 4-19, as mentioned above), and this similarity may help to explain the inclusion of the Prayer here in chapter 3, despite there being very little in the Prayer itself that applies to the immediate narrative context. This transferred setting, however, does give to the Prayer a special significance, as an illustration of the righteous and devout character of the three companions (i.e., Azariah and his fellows). Even when facing the prospect of death in the flames of the fiery furnace, their concern is not with their own personal safety, but rather with the welfare of their people—the Community—as a whole. Indeed, as mentioned in the prior studies, Daniel and the three companions stand as representatives of the Judean/Jewish people in exile (among the nations); the challenges and dangers that they face (such as here in chapter 3) are illustrative and representative of those which the people everywhere face. They serve as an exemplary ideal of devotion to God and to the covenant bond with Him—viz., to the unique religious and spiritual identity of God’s people. Indeed, Jews and Christians alike have found much inspiration and encouragement from the ‘Three Young Men’ and their ordeal in the fiery furnace.

References above marked “Moore” are to Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 44 (1977).

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 3:16-23ff (Part 1)

Daniel 3:16-23ff (Prayer of Azariah)

As we have seen in the previous studies, the references and allusions to prayer in the book of Daniel relate to the broader narrative-dramatic theme of the challenges facing Israelites and Jews, while living (in exile) among the surrounding nations, with regard to their religious identity. In the first chapter (cf. the earlier study), this was expressed in terms of cultural assimilation, with Daniel and his three companions—who, in the context of the narrative, represent the people as a whole—experiencing pressure to adopt the dietary practices expected of the other young men at the Babylonian royal court. In the second chapter (cf. the prior study), the danger comes in the form of physical harm and the threat of death. Within the narrative of that particular chapter, the threat is not rooted in the religious and cultural identity of the Judeans per se—it is not specifically an instance of religious-cultural persecution or oppression—but it sets the stage for such a focus in the subsequent narratives, such as that of chapter 3, which we will examine in this current study.

Here, assimilation comes in the form of accommodation to Babylonian religious practices. The conflict in the narrative—viz., the pressure on the three companions to pay homage to the golden statue (lit., “image”, <l@x=, Heb <l#x#) set up in the plain of Dura (verse 1)—ultimately refers to the worship of deities other than YHWH (cf. verse 18). The statue-motif is a continuation from chapter 2, where a great statue, symbolizing the nations and their kingdoms, featured in the dream-vision of Nebuchadnezzar. Here the statue also has symbolic significance—representing the authority, and the oppressive wickedness, of the nations, especially that of the Babylonian empire. The exiled Judeans face a double-edged danger: whether to accommodate themselves to the foreign religious culture, or to face persecution (and death) for refusing to do so.

The conflict is established in verses 1-7, with the choice between worshipping the statue (v. 5) or being burned alive in the “furnace of fire” (v. 6). It is not clear in the narrative who or what the statue is supposed to represent, at the historical-dramatic level. It could be that the statue is an image of the god Bel (= Ba‘al, “Lord, Master”), presumably as a title of Marduk (cf. Isa 46:1; Jer 50:2; 51:44, and cf. the name given to Daniel, 1:7; 4:5[8]). This view receives support from the notice by Herodotus (1.183) regarding a great statue of ‘Zeus’ (seated on his throne) in the temple of Bel in Babylon; Diodorus Siculus (2.9) also mentions gold statues on top of the temple. However, the narrative may also be influenced by a tradition, recorded in the ‘Verse Account of Nabonidus’, regarding a statue of the moon god (Sin/Nanna) erected by Nabonidus. Another possibility is that the statue is meant to be an image of Nebuchadnezzar himself, indicating that the king desired to be venerated and worshiped by the people (cf. Judith 3:8). Early Christian interpreters (e.g., Hippolytus, Chrysostom, Jerome) tended toward the latter view, but commentators today favor the view that the statue is an image of a god—most likely the great state god of Babylon, Bel/Marduk. See the discussion by Collins, pp. 180-1.

The Judeans (as represented by the three companions) face pressure to worship the image and are arrested and punished for failing to do so (vv. 8-23). The prescribed worship takes the form of falling down (vb lp^n+) and paying homage (by prostrating oneself, vb dg]s=) to the image. Regarding the latter verb, the corresponding Hebrew (dg~s*, cf. Arabic sajada) is used in Isa 44:15, 17, 19; 46:6—in the specific context of venerating an idol-image (of a deity) fashioned by human hands.

As the conflict is developed in the narrative, the exemplary faithfulness and devotion (to YHWH) of the three Judean companions is highlighted in two primary respects: (1) their refusal to give homage to the statue (vv. 12ff); and (2) the public confirmation of their position and confession of faith (vv. 16-18ff). Let us look briefly at the latter.

The Companions’ Confession of Faith (and its consequences), vv. 16-18ff

There are three statements made by the companions, corresponding to each of verses 16-18. The first of these expresses that the king (Nebuchadnezzar) does not hold any authority over their conscience and religious conviction (cf. John 14:30; 19:11):

“O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give back (an answer) to you over this decision (by you).” (v. 16)

The “decision” (<G`t=P!) refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s determination regarding the case/situation of the companions in verse 15. It states the central conflict of the narrative in terms of the choice faced by the Judeans—viz., whether to comply (and thus forsake their religious identity) or to suffer punishment (death).

The second confessional statement is formulated as a conditional statement marked by the particle /h@ (“if…”). This particle originally functioned as an interjection (“See/Look/Behold…!”), and so most of the occurrences in the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. Ugaritic hn, Amarna Canaanite annū); however, gradually it also came to be used as a conditional particle (cf. Job 24:5; Jer 2:10), much like the more common <a!, and so also in Aramaic. Here the conditional statement is:

“If it be (that) our Mighty (One) whom we serve is able to rescue us from the furnace of burning fire, and from your hand O king, He will rescue us!” (v. 17)

This conditional formulation has caused some concern among commentators and translators with regard to the use of the verb lk@y+ (“be able”), since it seems to suggest that God might not be able to save the companions. Already the Greek versions render it as a simple declarative statement:

“For there is a God to whom we give service (who is) able to take us out of (the) burning furnace of fire, and out of your hand, O king, to rescue us!” (Theodotion)

Some modern commentators have sought to treat v. 17 in a similar manner, such as by reading the initial /h@ as an interjection: “See—it is (that) our Mighty (One) whom we serve is able to rescue us from the furnace of burning fire, and from your hand, O king, He will rescue us!” However, the conditional nature of the statement seems clear; cf. the note by Collins, p. 187f. The theological problem is largely avoided if one understands the verb lky here not strictly in terms of personal ability, but rather in terms of making a certain outcome prevail. I.e., “If it be (that) our Mighty (One) whom we serve should prevail to rescue us…”.

A second (contrasting) conditional statement follows in verse 18:

“But (even) if not, let it be known to you, O king, that your Mighty (one)s we will not serve, and to the golden image that you stood up we will not give homage!”

In other words, whether God chooses to rescue them or not, the companions will remain faithful to Him and will not worship/venerate any other deities (or their images). Upon this confession of faith, with their refusal to worship the statue, the companions were ordered to their death, thrown into the fiery furnace (vv. 19-23).

There is no specific mention of prayer in this passage, but the faith and devotion expressed by the young men strongly suggests an attitude of prayer, and one can well imagine that, even as they were thrown into the fire, they were engaged in prayer. As it happens, the Greek version(s) of chapter 3 effectively fill in this gap, by including a Prayer-text in the narrative—the so-called Prayer of Azariah (vv. 26-41), preceded by a narrative introduction (vv. 24-25). In Part 2 of this study, we will examine this Deutero-canonical text.

References above marked “Collins” are to John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Heremeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1993).

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 2:18ff

Daniel 2:18ff

The reference to prayer in the second chapter of Daniel is extremely brief, but is worth examining. As was discussed in the previous study, the sense of conflict facing the Judeans who lived in exile in the Babylonian (and later Persian) empire was established in the narrative of the opening chapter. In the episodes that follow (in chaps. 3-6), the conflict turns into an open persecution against the Judeans who seek to remain faithful to their own cultural-religious identity and loyal to the covenant with YHWH. The devout and faithful Judean is represented by Daniel and his three companions—all servants at the royal court. Even though the narratives have a royal/courtly setting, they serve as an exemplary paradigm for the Judean/Jewish people as a whole. Many ordinary people would face similar kinds of challenges (and tests to their faith) while living in exile ‘among the nations’.

The narrative-dramatic theme of persecution is foreshadowed in chapter 2, with the violence threatened by king Nebuchadnezzar against the sages of the royal court (and throughout Babylon) for their failure/inability to provide an inspired interpretation of his dream. Following the narrative introduction in v. 1, the drama (with its point of conflict) is established in vv. 2-12. This portion of the narrative climaxes with the order “to make perish [i.e., kill/destroy] all (the) wise (one)s [i.e., wise men, sages] of Babylon” (v. 12). At a transitional point in the narrative (vv. 13-16), it is explained that Daniel and his (three) companions would be among the sages that were to be put to death (v. 13). This dramatic detail is based upon the information provided at the close of chapter 1 (vv. 17-21), emphasizing how these four young Judean men were granted (by God) great knowledge, skill and learning, and that Daniel (in particular) was also given a special ability to discern and interpret all kinds of dreams and visions.

It is said of Daniel that he then responded (lit. made a return) with “counsel and (good) taste”, i.e., wise/sound judgment. The pair of Aramaic nouns are af*u@ and <u@f=, the latter literally meaning “taste”, in the sense somewhat of the English idiom “(have/use) good taste”. The noun af*u@ occurs only here in the Aramaic portions of Scripture, but <u@f= occurs 30 times (in Daniel and Ezra), effectively used as a wisdom-term and an attribute of the wise/righteous ones. The initial temporal expression /y]d^aB@ (“in that moment, at that time”) suggests that Daniel acted quickly, with a sense of urgent immediacy. One might describe the immediate action taken by Daniel as political action—as he sought, through governmental channels, to gain time (and a temporary reprieve) for those who were about to be put to death (vv. 14-16). By some means that are not exactly explained, Daniel was able to gain a hearing with Nebuchadnezzar (v. 16), promising that an interpretation of the king’s dream would be provided to him.

Yet the political action taken was only a temporary expediency that would allow Daniel the opportunity to seek from God (i.e., through prayer) the inspired dream-interpretation that he would give to the king. Indeed, the real and central focus was not on political action, but on prayer.

Daniel begins (v. 17) by meeting with his three companions (introduced in chapter 1, cf. the previous study), in order to explain the situation to them, and to inform them that they needed

“to seek out (act)s of compassion from before (the) Mighty (One) [i.e., God] of the heavens over [i.e., regarding] this secret” (v. 18a)

The LXX adds the detail that Daniel urged them to engage in “fasting and prayer/supplication”, the latter term (de/hsi$) specifically denoting the act of making one’s needs known to God. Thus, the Greek version makes explicit what is clearly implied in the Aramaic—namely, that Daniel and his friends were to spend time in prayer, speaking out to God and making their needs known to Him. The purpose of the prayer, obvious from the dramatic setting of the narrative, is specified in v. 18b:

“…(so) that they should not be made to perish, Daniel and his companions, (along) with (the) remainder of (the) wise (one)s of Babylon.”

They were praying for their own sakes, but also for the sakes of many other (non-Judean) sages all throughout Babylon.

There is perhaps the implication that this time of prayer lasted the rest of the day and into the night, as the next verse (19) mentions Daniel “at night”; one might well envision Daniel in the midst of a night-time prayer vigil, though this is not clearly indicated in the text. In any case, it is at this time (on the same day) that the prayer of Daniel (and his three companions) is answered by YHWH: “Then (it was), to Daniel in a vision of the night, (that the) secret was uncovered [i.e., revealed]”. In response, Daniel gave a blessing to “the Mighty (One) [i.e., God] of the heavens”.

This expression, “Mighty (One) of the heavens” (aY`m^v= Hl*a$), is of theological significance, particularly in relation to a certain missionary orientation that pervades the narrative of chapters 1-6. Daniel and his companions pray to God (YHWH) according to this title; then, once the prayer has been answered, Daniel gives praise to God by the same title (v. 19, cf. vv. 20-23). Finally, in the midst of the dream announcement (vv. 28-45), and just prior to its interpretation, Daniel declares to Nebuchadnezzar the power and sovereignty of God (YHWH) using this title (v. 37, cf. also v. 44). This demonstration of the God’s power leads Nebuchadnezzar to admit/confess, in an attitude of worship and reverence (v. 46), that Daniel’s God truly is “Mightiest of Mighty (one)s [i.e., God of gods] and Lord of kings” (v. 47). Thus, prayer to YHWH, in the midst of a missionary context (‘among the nations’), results in an answer from Him, in such a manner that even prominent members of the surrounding nations are forced to acknowledge (and worship) Him as the one true God. This narrative pattern is repeated in several other episodes within chapters 1-6 (to be discussed).

The Aramaic title “Mighty (One) of the heavens” (aY`m^v= Hl*a$) deserves some additional comment. It occurs twelve times in the books of Daniel and Ezra (Dan 2:18-19, 37, 44; Ezra 5:11-12; 6:9-10; 7:12, 21, 23 [twice]), while the corresponding Hebrew <y]m^V*h^ yh@l)a$ occurs nine times (Gen 24:3, 7; Jonah 1:9; Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:4-5; 2:4, 20; 2 Chron 36:23) and <y]m^V*h^ la@ once (Ps 136:26). With the seeming exception of the two instances in Genesis, the occurrences are all in late texts (i.e., exilic or post-exilic), and/or in settings where Israelites/Jews are relating to people of the surrounding nations. The missionary context of Jonah 1:9 is obvious, as the prophet ends up proclaiming the truth of YHWH in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh even as Daniel does in the Babylonian capital. As for Psalm 136, the praise address to YHWH at the beginning and close of the Psalm resembles the language used here in Daniel 2.

It has been suggested that the use of the title by Jews (esp. in the Persian empire) was specifically intended as a religious declaration within a foreign setting, using terminology that even the Babylonian and Persian leaders would understand, but which also preserved the core Israelite confessional belief in El-YHWH’s identity as the Creator—the High God and Sovereign over all the universe (heaven and earth). It is noteworthy that there are nine occurrences of the Aramaic title in the papyri of the Jewish colony of Elephantine, including an instance where the Persian governor (Bigvai) in Judah (Yehud) was replying to a petition from the Jews of Elephantine.
For more on the subject of this title, see the article by D. K. Andrews, “Yahweh the God of the Heavens” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of T. J. Meek, ed. W. S. McCullough (University of Toronto Press: 1964), pp. 45-57.

In a number of the Psalms (see esp. Pss 93-100) we find an expectation that even the surrounding nations will eventually follow Israel in acknowledging and worshiping YHWH. This seems to have become a religious and theological emphasis already in the late pre-exilic period, but it takes on considerably greater prominence in the exilic and post-exilic periods, often within a distinctly eschatological worldview. In the New Age of Israel’s restoration, the nations will come to join Israel—whether willingly or by compulsion—in giving worship to YHWH as the supreme God (“God of gods”, as Nebuchadnezzar declares). The book of Daniel is certainly in accord with this religious-missionary tendency.

In our next study, we will turn to chapter 3, to examine the role of prayer in the famous episode of the statue and the ‘fiery furnace’.

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 1:8-9ff

Beginning this Fall, the Notes on Prayer will focus on the role of prayer in the Book of Daniel—prayer as a thematic and literary feature of the book.

Prayer in the Book of Daniel

The Book of Daniel can rather neatly be divided into two halves. The first half (chaps. 1-6) deals with stories about Daniel (and his companions), while the second half (chaps. 7-12) consists of apocalyptic visions with Daniel (presented) as the seer and speaker—that is, the one who both sees and declares the visions. Prayer takes on a somewhat different role and place within these two very different literary settings.

Daniel 1:8-9ff

We begin with the first half of the book, focusing on a central thematic emphasis that is established in the initial verses of the first chapter. Throughout the book the challenges faced by the Judeans living in exile are clearly depicted and described, with special attention given to the importance of remaining pure and faithful to YHWH in the midst of an alien culture. This same thematic emphasis can be extended to the situation of Jews living in the Diaspora; indeed, this broader cultural milieu comes into view in the second half of the book, as the apocalyptic visions touch upon life in the Hellenistic (Greek) world during the 4th-2nd centuries B.C.

With the Judean exile (in Babylon) established in the opening verses (vv. 1-2), the narrative of chapter 1 is introduced in vv. 3-7, presenting the dramatic scenario—viz., life in the Babylonian royal court—and introducing the central characters: (a) the king (and his officials), (b) Daniel, and (c) three contemporaries/companions (Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah) who are in the same situation as Daniel. The four young Judean men were selected for service in the royal court, and thus to function as part of the Babylonian imperial establishment. This scenario reflects an upper-class (royal/aristocratic) version of the situation facing the Judean exiles as a whole: (forced) assimilation into Babylonian culture and society.

As part of this assimilation, Daniel and his companions were given Babylonian names (v. 7). Most likely, all four of these names had religious significance, though only two of them clearly refer to foreign (Babylonian) deities. Belteshazzar, the name assigned to Daniel, balāṭ-su-uṣur probably means “May {X} protect his life”, with a deity {X} assumed as the protector. This deity is specifically identified as Bel, according to 4:8, which may reflect a popular etymology of the name. Abednego, the name assigned to Azariah, is generally recognized as an intentional (?) distortion of Abad-Nabû, “Servant of (the god) Nabu”. These name changes anticipate the issue of accommodation to Babylonian religion, involving the worship of deities other than YHWH, which becomes a key theme in chapters 2-6.

Assimilation of Judeans into Babylonian culture involved more than a change of name; it also entailed the (expected) adoption of many other customs and practices. And, indeed, this becomes the focus of the remainder of the narrative (vv. 8-21). The issue that forms the point of conflict in the narrative relates to the young men’s diet—consumption of food and drink, which had been determined by the king’s officials, and was to be allotted to them on a regular/daily basis (v. 5). With regard to this challenge involving cultural assimilation, Daniel’s response was as follows:

“Daniel put (it) upon his heart that he would not defile himself with (the) delicacies of the king and with (the) wine of his drinking-feasts…” (v. 8)

The verb la^G` II means “pollute, defile”; here it is used in the reflexive Hitpael stem, i.e., “defile oneself” —that is, by what one eats and drinks, and also by the setting in which such food is consumed. This ritual purity in matters of food and drink functions as a thematic motif in the narrative on several different levels. First, it alludes to the dietary regulations of the Torah, something Judeans (and Jews) certainly had to face in a foreign culture where prohibited foods would have been encountered on a regular basis. Second, the dietary regulations stand in a broader sense for the covenant with YHWH as a whole; this can be seen by the fact that, in an ancient Near Eastern cultural setting, food frequently carried a strong religious association (consecration to deities, temple-worship, festivals, etc). Third, and more generally, there is the threat to the Israelite/Judean cultural-religious identity that is exposed when one chooses to partake in the food and drink (and feasting, etc) of the surrounding nations.

Since there is no indication in the text that Daniel’s scrupulousness was specifically related to Torah dietary regulations, it should be assumed that a more comprehensive viewpoint is being put forward by the narrative. What is at stake for Daniel and his companions is faithfulness to the covenant with YHWH and the distinctive (Israelite/Judean) cultural-religious identity which such faithfulness assumes and entails. This is altogether in keeping with other Jewish texts from the exilic and post-exilic period, particularly as one moves into the Hellenistic Age and the Maccabean era. For example, note the concerns expressed in Greek Esther 14:17; Jubilees 22:16; Judith 12:1-4; 1 Maccabees 1:61-62, and, particularly, the parallel to Daniel in Tobit 1:10-11 (cf. Collins, pp. 142-3):

“After I was carried away captive to Assyria and came as a captive to Nineveh, everyone of my kindred and my people ate the food of the Gentiles, but I kept myself from eating the food of the Gentiles.” (NRSV translation)

Prayer is not specifically mentioned in chapter 1, but Daniel’s expressed intent to remain faithful and pure certainly reflects a devout attitude. One may fairly assume that his approach to the challenge (vv. 10-16) included regular and heartful prayer to God. YHWH responded to Daniel’s devotion by giving/showing favor to him. This is presented at two distinct points which, at the literary level, function to divide the narrative structurally into two main sections: vv. 9-16 and vv. 17-22. First, we have the statement in verse 9:

“And the Mightiest [i.e. God] gave The-Mighty-One-is-my-Judge {Daniel} to (find) kindness and compassion before (the) face of (the) chief of the eunuchs.”

This chief official (over Daniel and the other select Judean youths) agreed to a trial period in which Daniel and his companions would be allowed to eat a special diet (of vegetables). God blessed the Judeans so that they were able to consume this diet and yet still remain strong and healthy and fully capable of carrying out all of their duties. Again, we find a parallel to this in Tobit (continuing the same passage cited above):

“Because I was mindful of God with all my heart, the Most High gave me favor and good standing with Shalmaneser…” (1:12-13, NRSV)

The second statement in verse 17 is:

“And these four youths, the Mightiest (also) gave to them knowledge and skill in all (manner of) accounting [rp@s#] and wisdom; and The-Mighty-One-is-my-Judge {Daniel} had understanding in all (manner) of vision and dreams.”

Just as in the case of Joseph in the famous Genesis narratives, Daniel and his companions were blessed by YHWH, enabled to gain a favored and honored position in a foreign culture, while still remaining pure (in both mind and body) and faithful/loyal to YHWH.

This is the thematic framework that informs the prayer-references and passages in the remainder of the book, and particularly in the first half (chaps. 2-6). In our next study, we will turn our attention to chapter 2.

References above marked “Collins” are to John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Heremeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1993).

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 3)

In Part 2 of this study, we explored the use of Daniel 7:13-14 in two Jewish writings from the first century A.D.: the Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch, and 2/4 Esdras (also known as 4 Ezra). The time-frame and eschatological orientation of these works is significant in relation to the Gospel Tradition—particularly with regard to the expression “(the) son of man”. Actually, this expression does not occur in 2/4 Esdras; however, the vision in chapter 13 clearly alludes to the “(one) like a son of man” in Dan 7:13f. There are similar allusions in the Similitudes of Enoch, along with specific (and repeated) use of the expression “son of man”, in three different Ethiopic (Ge‘ez) formulations. The Similitudes offer a much more robust work for comparison with the Gospel Tradition; and, since the treatment of Dan 7:13f in 2/4 Esdras is generally comparable to that in the Similitudes, we can use the Similitudes as the basis for consideration of the Dan 7:13f tradition in first-century Judaism.

The Similitudes of Enoch and the Gospel Tradition

There are actually a number of significant (and meaningful) parallels between the use of the expression “son of man” in the Similitudes and the expression, as applied to Jesus, in the Gospel Tradition. The following three points may be noted for comparison:

1. Daniel 7:13-14 is given an eschatological and Messianic interpretation, with the “(one) like a son of man” being understood as a Messianic figure. The specific title “(the) Anointed (One)” is applied to this figure.
2. This figure is referred to by several Messianic titles, derived from Scriptural tradition (interpreted in a Messianic way), most notably: “the Righteous (One)” (e.g., Isa 53:11), and “the Elect/Chosen (One)” (Isa 42:1).
3. Ultimately, this figure is identified with an exalted human being (“son of man”), a man who was exalted to a divine/heavenly position and status—namely, Enoch.

Let us briefly discuss each of these points.

1. Apart from the fact that the title “Anointed (One)” is used at 48:10 and 52:4, the general Messianic character of the “son of man” in the Similitudes is clear from his role in the end-time Judgment (cf. the discussion and references in Part 2)—acting as God’s representative in judging the nations, bringing punishment upon the wicked. At the same time, this figure functions as leader/ruler and protector of the righteous (the people of God). These are eschatological roles associated with several different Messianic figure-types, including the royal/Davidic type. The royal character of the “son of man” in the Similitudes is generally clear, even though specific references to his kingship tend to be avoided; for the author, it would seem that ultimately Kingship belongs to God, with the “son of man” as His subordinate ruler (and representative). The Davidic aspect of the royal figure-type is more or less absent from the Similitudes; this is a key point of difference with the Gospel Tradition, where Jesus’ specific identity as the Davidic Messiah (“son of David”) is very much emphasized (cf. Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

2. The Messianic titles “Righteous (One)” and “Elect/Chosen (One)” are applied to the “son of man” in the Similitudes (38:2; 39:6; 40:5; 45:3-4; 49:2, 4; 51:3, 5; 52:6, 9; 53:6; 55:4; 61:5, 8, 10; 62:1) and also to Jesus in the Gospels and early Christian tradition. For the title “(the) Righteous (One)” ([o(] di/kaio$), see Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Jn 2:1; cf. also 1 Jn 2:29; 3:7; Matt 27:19; 2 Tim 4:8. The title “Elect/Chosen (One)” ([o(] e)klekto/$) occurs in Luke 23:35 and John 1:34 v.l., with an equivalent title using the verbal noun (perfect participle) e)klelegme/no$ in Luke 9:35; cf. also 1 Peter 2:4, 6 (citing Isa 28:16). There is a clear correspondence between “the Righteous (One)” in heaven and the community of the “righteous (one)s” on earth; similarly, the title “Elect/Chosen (One)” relates to the righteous people as “elect/chosen (one)s”. A similar correspondence is found in the New Testament, with believers in Christ referred to as “righteous (one)s” and “elect/chosen (one)s” (for the latter, cf. Mark 13:20ff; Lk 18:7; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 1 Pet 1:1, etc). The righteous are also referred to as “(the) holy (one)s” in the Similitudes, even as they are in Daniel 7 (vv. 18, 21-22, 25, 27). The parallelism in Daniel 7 suggests that the title “Holy (One)” could be applied to the heavenly figure (“[one] like a son of man”), even though that title is not actually used. Nor is it used of the Messianic figure in the Similitudes; however, it is a title applied to Jesus the Messiah in the New Testament (Mark 1:24 par; John 6:69; Acts 2:27 [13:35]; 3:14; 1 Jn 2:20; cf. also Lk 1:35; Acts 4:27, 30; Rev 3:7 [cf. 6:10; 16:5]). Believers, of course, are regularly referred to as “holy (one)s” (i.e., ‘saints’).

3. Surely the most distinctive parallel between the Similitudes and the Gospel Tradition is that the heavenly “son of man” (from Dan 7:13-14) is identified with an exalted human being—Enoch (70:1; 71:14, 17) and Jesus, respectively. In this regard, it would seem that the author of the Similitudes (at least, the person who made this identification) understood the expression “son of man” in the concrete sense of a human being. That is to say, this figure is not simply “like a son of man” (Dan 7:13); rather, he is a “son of man” (human being). He is an exalted human being, raised to become “that son of man” seen in the heavenly visions (46:1ff). It seems likely that the original application of the Dan 7:13-14 tradition to the person of Jesus was also focused on his exaltation to heaven. This, certainly, is the emphasis in the Mark 14:62 par saying—particularly in the Lukan version of the saying (22:69, see the recent study on Acts 7:55-56). The use of Dan 7:13f in the context of Jesus’ subsequent return to earth (Mark 13:26 par) probably represents a secondary application, even though it came to be the primary association for early Christians by the end of the first century (see the prior study dealing with Revelation 1:7; 14:14). It is from Jesus’ exalted position in heaven (primary point of reference) that he will return to earth (secondary reference), as he ushers in the end-time Judgment.

The Enoch/Jesus parallel is striking indeed, especially when one combines all three points of comparison outlined above. Is it possible that this treatment of Enoch as the “son of man” in the Similitudes could have influenced the Gospel Tradition—and even Jesus’ own use of the expression “the son of man”? Many New Testament scholars would answer in the affirmative. A dating of the Similitudes in the early first century makes such a line of influence at least conceivable. Even if Jesus and/or the early Christians did not know or make use of the Similitudes directly, it is possible that the tradition(s) regarding Enoch’s exaltation (to become the “son of man” figure of Dan 7:13-14) could have been in circulation during the first century, to be utilized as a traditional type-pattern applied to Jesus.

Personally, I can find no clear evidence for any such influence, apart from the general (though definite) parallels cited above. It may well be that the parallelism is coincidental, reflecting (at best) certain basic currents in Jewish eschatology and Messianic thought, as they relate to the interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14. Once the possibility, that the heavenly “(one) like a son of man” referred to an exalted human being, was established, there were only a few candidates available for such an identification. Clearly, Enoch was one of these, based on the tradition(s) regarding his exaltation to heaven (cf. Gen 5:24); Moses and Elijah are two others. The exaltation of Jesus naturally would lend itself to a similar identification. The idea of his exaltation, however, is not rooted in Scriptural tradition, but in the immediate historical tradition of his resurrection (and ascension to heaven). According to the early exaltation-Christology, the Divine/heavenly status and position of Jesus—his Messiahship and Divine Sonship—was understood primarily in terms of his resurrection and exaltation to heaven (at God’s right hand): cf. the emphasis especially in the early kerygma (Gospel proclamation), [Mark 16:19]; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56 [Mk 14:62 par]; Rom 1:3-4; 8:34; Heb 1:3; 10:12; 1 Pet 3:22, etc. The place of the expression “(the) son of man” in the subsequent pre-existence Christology is less clear; it definitely played a role in the Johannine Christology (at least, in the Gospel). Some of the broader implications, in relation to orthodox Christology, will be discussed in the Conclusion to this series.

It is in the kerygma—the early Gospel preaching, as presented in the first half of the book of Acts—that the combination of elements found in the Similitudes is most clearly present: (1) Jesus as the Messiah, (2) the theme of his exaltation to heaven, and (3) the titles “Righteous (One)”, “Holy (One)”, and “Elect/Chosen (One)”; cf. the references above. In addition, the identification of Jesus with the “son of man” of Dan 7:13f is found in the context of the Acts sermon-speeches (7:55-56), where the emphasis is unquestionably on the exaltation of Jesus to heaven, echoing the Lukan version (22:69) of the “son of man” saying in Mk 14:62 par.

Another interesting parallel involves the use of the demonstrative pronoun in the Similitudes—viz., “that son of man”, utilizing the Ge‘ez demonstratives zekku (46:2; 48:2; 62:5, 9, 14; 63:11) and we’etu (69:26, 29; 70:1; 71:17)—and, in one case, “this son of man” (zentu, 46:4). In my studies on the Synoptic “son of man” sayings, I argued that translating the definite article (in the Greek “the son of man” [o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou]) effectively as a demonstrative, i.e., “th(is) son of man”, makes excellent sense for the use of the expression throughout the Tradition. Since, in the Gospels, Jesus is primarily using the expression as a self-reference, it becomes a way of referring to himself as ‘this particular person’. The demonstratives in the Similitudes have a different point of reference: they point back to the figure resembling a human being, whom Enoch sees in heaven in the vision (46:1ff)—that particular “son of man”. Still, one may note the general similarity of usage, whereby the expression “son of man” is used to refer to a specific, particular human being.

There is a further interesting use of the demonstrative pronoun—both ou!to$ (“this”) and e)kei=no$ (“that”)—in the New Testament, as a distinctive way of referring to Jesus. We see it, for example, at a number of points in the early Gospel preaching recorded in the book of Acts: 2:23, 32, 36; 4:11; 6:14; 17:3—where the usage is “this (one)” or “this Yeshua”. It is also part of the Johannine style, with the demonstratives frequently used in reference to Jesus—note, in particular, the use of e)kei=no$ (“that [one]”) in 1 John: 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17. The demonstrative pronoun often functions as the Divine subject within the Johannine essential predication: Divine subject | verb of being | predicate noun/phrase. Such statements provide essential information about Jesus (the Son)— “that/this (one) is …”. In terms of such essential predication, one may note the identification-statement made in John 5:27 (cf. the earlier study): “he is [e)stin] (the) son of man”. One is reminded again of the closing portion of the Similitudes (cf. Part 2), where Enoch also is identified as the “son of man”: “You (are) that son of man, who was born for righteousness…” (71:14).

Concluding Note on the Influence of Dan 7:13-14

There is no doubt that the sayings in Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars allude to Daniel 7:13f. It remains highly debatable, however, whether (or to what extent) the same tradition informs the wider Gospel usage of the expression “the son of man”. Given the allusion in Mark 13:26 par, where the reference (in the Gospel context) is clearly to the return of the exalted Jesus to earth at the time of the Judgment, it might seem natural to assume that the expression in sayings such as Mark 8:38; Matt 13:41; 16:27-28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39 [pars], 44; Luke 18:8 would also have Dan 7:13f in mind. However, in none of those sayings is there any wording or terminology that might indicate a conscious reference or allusion to Daniel 7:13-14—apart from the expression “son of man” itself. If the Daniel 7 tradition has influenced these eschatological sayings, it did so only in a most subtle or generalized way.

This raises the question again as to the authenticity of the eschatological sayings. For commentators who would maintain that they are not authentic sayings by Jesus, it is entirely plausible that early Christians fashioned the sayings, in light of the tradition in Mark 13:26 par, identifying Jesus—in his end-time return—with the heavenly “son of man” figure in Daniel 7 (cf. Revelation 1:7; 14:14). However, if the eschatological sayings (any or all of them) are considered authentic sayings by Jesus, then the influence of Daniel 7, in my view, become less likely. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus makes use of the expression “the son of man” primarily as a self-reference; there being no definite or obvious allusions to Daniel 7 in the eschatological sayings (apart from Mk 13:26 par), it is fair to assume that the same usage applies. Jesus is referring to his own end-time role (in relation to the Judgment, etc). Some commentators have theorized that Jesus originally used the expression, in the eschatological sayings, in reference to a heavenly figure separate from himself; if so, then an allusion to Daniel 7 becomes more plausible. But, as previously discussed, such a theory is highly speculative, with little hard evidence to support it. The eschatological sayings remain problematic, when considered as authentic sayings by Jesus; this is a matter which will be discussed again in the Conclusion to this series.

I am forced to reject the line of interpretation which explains the Gospel usage of the expression (by Jesus), as a whole, as influenced by Daniel 7:13f. Admittedly, when the “son of man” sayings are considered from the standpoint of orthodox Christology, such an interpretation becomes more favorable. If one examines the sayings under the assumption of a pre-existence Christology, then the Gospel sayings—even those such as Mark 2:10, 28 par; 10:45—could be explained in terms of the incarnation of a heavenly “son of man” figure (viz., the pre-existent Christ). Yet I find no evidence, whatsoever, that such a pre-existence Christology informs any of the Synoptic sayings. The situation is rather different for the Johannine sayings, where the expression unquestionably does refer to the incarnation of the (pre-existent) Son. Yet, as we have seen, the Johannine sayings show virtually no evidence of influence from the Dan 7:13f tradition—with the possible exception of the saying in 5:27 (cf. the earlier study on this verse).

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 2)

In the first part of this study, examining the influence of Daniel 7:13f on the use of the expression “the son of man” in the Gospels, the literary context, background, and interpretation of that passage were surveyed briefly. It remains to consider the evidence regarding the extent of the possible influence. As we have discussed, there are certainly allusions to Dan 7:13f in the Synoptic “son of man” sayings in Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars, but how does the usage in Dan 7:13 relate to the collection of “son of man” references as a whole?

There are a good number of scholars who view Dan 7:13f as the principal source of influence for the eschatological sayings, if not the entire Gospel usage. However, as support for this view, much depends on whether—or to what extent—Jews and early Christians, in the early-mid first century A.D., would have understood the expression “the son of man” (in Greek or in Aramaic) as a reference to the figure described in Dan 7:13-14. Based on the line of interpretation established by the analysis in Part 1, this means that the expression would refer to a heavenly being who would rule over the kingdom of God (and the “holy ones”) in the New Age. The eschatological setting and focus is clear enough in the context of Daniel, and it certainly seems to have prevailed for the interpretation and application of the passage in the Qumran Community as well (for the influence of Daniel 7 on the Qumran text 4Q246, see Part 1, and my earlier study on this passage). For the Qumran Community, as for early Christians, the eschatological outlook cannot be separated from their Messianic expectations. If “the son of man” is taken to refer to an eschatological figure, who will deliver God’s people (the “holy ones”) at the end-time and rule over the Kingdom of the New Age, then this corresponds quite closely to several of the Messianic figure-types attested among Israelites and Jews during the first centuries B.C./A.D.—including the royal/Davidic figure-type.

If Jesus, and/or the early Christians who made use of the expression “the son of man”, understood it fundamentally as a Messianic reference (or title), based on a Messianic interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14, then one must assume that many readers/hearers of the time would have been expected to understand it in much the same way. What evidence is there for such an understanding of the expression in the first century? It is actually very slight. In spite of the eschatological (and Messianic) significance of the book of Daniel for the Qumran Community, there is no indication that “(the) son of man” was ever used as a Messianic reference. As for other Jewish texts, written during the first centuries B.C./A.D., there are only two—the Similitudes of Enoch and 2/4 Esdras—which make use of the expression in such a way. For scholars who would argue that “the son of man” in the Gospels is likewise rooted in a Messianic/eschatological interpretation of Dan 7:13f, these two writings are essential.

The Similitudes of Enoch

The Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch refer to chapters 37-71 of the book of 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch). These chapters are not among the portions of 1 Enoch found in the Qumran caves, and scholars are in general agreement that they represent a distinct (and separate) work that was later included in the book of 1 Enoch. The date of the Similitudes, however, continues to be disputed. This is significant with regard to the use of the expression “the son of man”. If the Similitudes are to be utilized as evidence for a Messianic use of the expression “the son of man” at the time of Jesus (and/or among early Christians), then it is more meaningful if the Similitudes are dated to the early- or mid-first century (at the latest).

Most scholars today would date the Similitudes to the first-century A.D., though there is less agreement when attempts are made to narrow this window to a more a precise date. Nickelsburg, in his critical commentary (1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37-82, Hermeneia [Fortress Press: 2011]), dates it to the late first-century (as does Bauckham, in his “Son of Man”, Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature [Eerdmans: 2023]); however, other commentators prefer an early first-century date. There has recently been a shift toward favoring an early date; this can be seen from the 2005 Enoch Seminar (in which the Similitudes were the focus, with essays published in Boccaccini, Enoch and Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables [Eerdmans: 2007]), and also, for example, in the Charlesworth-Bock collection of essays Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (T&T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series, Bloomsbury: 2013).

Part of the difficulty with judging the relation of the expression “the son of man” to the Similitudes is the language (Ethiopic, Ge‘ez) of the work as it has come down to us. It is generally agreed that the Ethiopic is a translation of, most likely, an Aramaic original, possibly through an intermediary translation in Greek. As it happens, there are three Ethiopic expressions that generally correspond to Aramaic [a]vn[a] rb (or Hebrew <da[h] /b), and which probably represent translational variants of that underlying expression (cf. Bauckham, pp. 32-3):

- walda sab’ (46:2, 3, 4; 48:2)
- walda be’esi (62:5; 69:29 [bis]; 71:14)
- walda ’egwala ’emaḥeyāw (62:7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26, 27; 70:1; 71:17).

Interestingly, in all but four of the sixteen occurrences, a demonstrative pronoun is used (viz., “that son of man”)—zekku (46:2; 48:2; 62:5, 9, 14; 63:11) or we’etu (69:26, 29 [bis]; 70:1; 71:17)—or, in one case, “this son of man” (zentu, 46:4); Bauckham, p. 33. The significance of this usage will be discussed (in Part 3); however, it strongly suggests that “son of man” is not being used as a title in the Similitudes—in contrast with the apparent titles “Righteous (One)” and “Elect/Chosen (One)”, cf. below.

The expression “son of man”, in the three Ethiopic variant forms noted above, occurs in two main portions of the Similitudes:

- In chapters 46-48 (46:2-4; 48:2), part of the Second Parable (chaps. 45-57)
- In chapters 62-63 and 69 (62:5, 7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26-27, 29), part of the Third Parable (chaps. 58-69)

There are also important occurrences in the closing section (epilogue), chaps. 70-71 (70:1; 71:14, 17). As the work progresses, it becomes clear that the “son of man” is to be identified with the heavenly figure otherwise called “(the) Elect/Chosen (One)” and “(the) Righteous (One)”. Those titles— “Righteous” (ṣādeq) and “Elect/Chosen” (—eruy)—connect the heavenly figure with the human people of God: the “righteous (one)s” and “elect/chosen (one)s”. This can be seen clearly in 38:1-2 (for the term “righteous”) and in 39:6ff (“elect/chosen”). The heavenly figure is the ruler and protector of the humans, in the eschatological context of the Judgment. The righteous/chosen ones are also referred to as “holy (one)s”, as in Daniel 7:18, 21-22, 25, 27. There is thus a clear parallel, and close relationship, between the heavenly figure and the community of the righteous/holy ones (on earth); cf. the parallel between the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:13-14 and the “holy ones” in vv. 22-27.

While allusions to Daniel 7 can be found throughout the Similitudes (cf. the Table in Casey, p. 107 for a list of 32 possible allusions), the specific use of Dan 7:13f is established in 46:1:

“There I saw one who had a head of days,
and his head was like white wool.
And with him was another, whose face was like the appearance of a man;
and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

In v. 2, Enoch asks about who this person resembling a human being is, since the presence of a human in heaven is rather unexpected and unusual. Angels are typically described this way, and yet the emphasis throughout the Similitudes is on the human nature of this figure—he is not simply “like a son of man”(Dan 7:13), he is a “son of man”. The significance of this becomes clear in the conclusion (chaps. 70-71), cf. below. Here, Enoch asks “about that [zekku] son of man—who he was and whence he was (and) why he went with the Head of Days”. The answer comes in verse 3:

“This is the son of man who has righteousness,
and righteousness dwells with him,
and all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal;
For the Lord of Spirits has chosen him,
and his lot has prevailed through truth
in the presence of the Lord of Spirits forever.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

Again, we see emphasized the fundamental characteristics of “righteousness” and of being “chosen” by God. Almost certainly, this terminology derives from the Deutero-Isaian usage, most notably in 42:1 (“Chosen [One]”) and 53:11 (“Righteous [One]”), by way of a well-established Messianic interpretation and application. Daniel 7:13-14 is applied in much the same way. Indeed, the role of this “son of man” in the end-time Judgment is clear from verse 4ff—it is a role that is emphasized even more strongly in chapters 62-63ff (note how 62:2ff alludes to Isaiah 11:2-4ff), being further summarized at the close of the Parables in 69:26-29.

While the punishment of the wicked (i.e., the nations) is given prominence, the role of the “son of man” as ruler/judge also entails the care and protection he provides for the righteous. We find this latter aspect expressed most clearly in chapter 48. This “son of man” (v. 2), the Righteous and Chosen One (see vv. 3-7ff), will protect and deliver the righteous in the time of the Judgment. Here, the “son of man” is also called “(the) Anointed (One)” (v. 10, cf. also 52:4), utilizing the familiar Messianic title—to designate the eschatological judge and ruler, though the Davidic aspect of this figure-type (cp. Psalms of Solomon 17) is downplayed, and scarcely even mentioned by the author.

In the Epilogue (chaps. 70-71), the exaltation of Enoch to heaven is narrated, being described briefly (at first) in 70:1-2, how he was “lifted up”, while he was still living, “into the presence of that [we’etu] son of man and into the presence of the Lord of Spirits”. Later on, at the very close of the work (71:13-17), it is revealed to Enoch that he, himself, is “that son of man” (v. 14, cf. also v. 17) and the Righteous/Chosen (One):

“You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness,
and righteousness dwells on you,
and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

In Part 3 of this study, we shall explore further the interesting parallels between the Similitudes and the Gospel Tradition, regarding this use of the expression “son of man”, and also consider the extent to which the Similitudes (and/or the eschatological thought expressed in them) may have influenced the Gospel usage.

2/4 Esdras

The deutero-canonical work known as 2 (or 4) Esdras can be dated rather securely to the end of the first-century A.D. The core treatise (chaps. 3-14) is a Jewish work, often referred to as “4 Ezra”, probably originally composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic), but which has come down to us today in Latin (and other versions) presumably by way of an intermediary Greek translation. It is the eschatological visions in chapters 11-12 and 13 which are related to Daniel 7. The “Eagle” vision in chaps. 11-12 is explicitly, and consciously, presented as a further interpretation on the four-kingdoms vision in Daniel 7, expounded here in 12:10-39. It is quite clearly a Messianic interpretation (and application) of the vision (12:32ff).

Much the same applies to the vision in chapter 13, of a man who comes up from the sea, just as the beasts came up out of the sea in the Daniel 7 vision (vv. 2-8). In this regard, the Esdras vision represents a reworking of the earlier Daniel vision:

“And I looked, and behold, this wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the sea. And I looked, and behold, that man flew with the clouds of heaven…” (13:3, Metzger/OTP)

Clearly, this alludes to Dan 7:13, and yet the author/seer has adapted it so that the “one like a son of man” comes up out of the sea, just like the beasts do; having risen from the sea, then he ascends on the clouds of heaven. In the remainder of the vision, the Daniel 7 scenario is supplemented by traditional eschatological references from Daniel 2 and Isa 11:2-4ff (see above), emphasizing this figure’s role in the end-time Judgment.

The interpretation of the vision comes in vv. 21-56; and, again, we see that the Scriptural traditions involved (including Dan 7:13-14) are given a Messianic interpretation (vv. 25ff), while the detail of the man’s coming up out of the sea is explained (rather unconvincingly) in vv. 51ff. There appears to be a certain disconnect between the vision and its interpretation, suggesting that they come from two distinct sources. In any event, the Messiah’s role in the Judgment is prominent—entailing a judgment upon all of the nations assembled together (vv. 37ff). The reference to the Messiah as God’s “son” (“my son”, vv. 33, 37, 52) is probably derived from a traditional Messianic interpretation of Psalm 2:7; indeed, there would seem to be allusions to Psalm 2 (par Isa 11:2-4) throughout the passage.

The use of Daniel 7:13-14 in 2/4 Esdras is quite similar, in a number of respects, to its use in the Similitudes of Enoch (see the discussion above). In each work, the Scripture has been given an eschatological and Messianic interpretation (and application), focusing on the end-time Judgment of the nations. The one “like a son of man” is explained as a Messianic figure, chosen by God, who is revealed at the end-time. His principal role is as the overseer of the Judgment—bringing punishment on the wicked (nations), but also protecting and delivering the righteous (people of God).

The distinctive element in the Similitudes is the identification of Enoch—an exalted human being (“son of man”)—with the heavenly/Messianic figure. Interestingly, while the motif of the “son of man” coming up from the sea (to heaven) in 2/4 Esdras 13 could be explained in a similar way—viz., as the exaltation of a human being—the interpretation in vv. 51ff does not follow this line at all, opting instead for a rather banal (and unconvincing) interpretation of the “sea” (v. 52). One suspects that the author/seer of the original vision (vv. 1-13) may have had something different in mind. In any case, the motif of a human being (“son of man”) exalted to heaven, so as to become “the/that son of man”, is obviously relevant to the Gospel Tradition, and to the early Christian understanding of the implications and consequences of Jesus’ exaltation. This will be discussed further in Part 3.

References above marked “Casey” are to Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (SPCK: 1979).
Those marked “Bauckham” are to Richard Bauckham, “Son of Man”, Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature (Eerdmans: 2023).
Those marked “Nickelsburg” are to George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters 37-82, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2012). “Nickelsburg/Hermeneia” marks the translation of the Similitudes in the Commentary.
“Metzger/OTP” refers to the translation of 2/4 Esdras (4 Ezra) by Bruce M. Metzger in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (Doubleday: 1983), pp. 517-60.

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 1)

The Influence of Daniel 7:13-14

When it comes to the use of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=) in the Gospels, perhaps no issue has been so vigorously debated among New Testament scholars as the influence of Daniel 7:13-14. The matter has been addressed at a number of points in these studies. There can be no doubt that there are allusions to Dan 7:13f in the sayings of Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars (see the earlier study), but the extent to which the (Aramaic) use of the expression (in Daniel) influenced the Gospel Tradition in this regard continues to be much disputed. Some scholars believe that the entire Gospel usage of the expression is inspired by Dan 7:13f. More common is the view that the eschatological “son of man” sayings, as a whole, stem from that Scripture tradition—whether the appropriation is viewed as coming from Jesus himself (in authentic sayings), or as an interpretive creation by early Christians. Before proceeding with an analysis of the evidence for the influence of Dan 7:13f on the “son of man” sayings, it will be worth examining briefly the Scripture passage itself, in its literary context. (The following section is an adaptation of a supplemental study in the earlier series “Yeshua the Anointed”.)

Background and Interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14

Dan 7:13-14 holds a central place in chapter 7 of the book of Daniel (for the structure of the chapter, cf. below). It is part of the heavenly Throne-vision in vv. 9-12, similar to other such visions in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition—1 Kings 22:19ff; Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1; 3:22-24; 10:1, cf. also 1 Enoch 14:18-23; 60:2; 90:20, etc (Collins, p. 300). The throne is said to have wheels, and thus is to be understood as a chariot-throne, which draws upon ancient Near Eastern mythic imagery, associated with heavenly/celestial phenomena—i.e. the fiery chariot of the sun, etc—and the divine powers which control them. For chariot imagery related to God and Heaven in the Old Testament, cf. 2 Kings 23:11; Psalm 68:17; 104:3; Isa 66:15; Jer 4:13; Ezek 1:15-21; 10:2. The idea of God’s chariot-throne would play an especially important role among the Jewish visionary mystics of the Merkabah/Hekhalot tradition.

Interestingly the text of verse 9 reads “the thrones [pl. /w`s*r=k*] were set [lit. thrown, i.e. into place]”, and there is some question as to the use of the plural here. It probably should be taken as indicative of the setting—the heavenly Council or Court. In ancient Near Eastern (Canaanite) tradition, the high deity °E~l (generally identified with YHWH in the Old Testament) presides over the Council of the gods; in the context of Israelite monotheism, the “gods” (°¢lîm/°§lœhîm) are created heavenly beings (i.e. Angels) who sit in the Council—Psalm 82:1; 89:7; Job 1:6, etc. For an elaborate description of the Angels surrounding the chariot-throne of God, cf. the so-called “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” (4Q400-407, 11Q17) from Qumran (discussed in an earlier study), esp. 4Q405 frags. 20, 23 (11Q17 cols. 7-10); and in early Christian tradition, note Matt 25:31, as well as the (Christian?) corollary of human beings on the thrones surrounding God/Christ (Matt 19:28; Rev 4:2ff; 20:4). Cf. Collins, p. 301.

On the throne is seated the /ym!oy qyT!u^ (±attîq yômîn), usually translated as “(the) Ancient of Days”, with the adjective qyT!u^ understood (on the basis of its cognates in Hebrew) as “advanced”, either in the sense of age or of prominence and wealth (majesty, etc). This image is likely drawn from the mythic-religious tradition of depicting the high God °E~l as an elderly patriarch (with long white/grey beard), though here it has been adapted to traditional Israelite visionary images of the glory of God (El / YHWH)—Exod 24:9-11; 1 Kings 22:19ff; Isa 6:1-5; Ezek 1. Verse 9b-10a vividly depicts the divine figure seated on his fiery chariot-throne, with countless multitudes (of heavenly beings) serving him. The vision scene in 1 Enoch 14:15-23 provides an interesting comparison.

From verses 11-12 it is clear that the Heavenly Council is also the Court, with God ruling as Judge (Psalm 82, etc). Judgment is brought against the Beasts of the earlier part of the vision (vv. 2-8, cf. below)—a sentence of death is pronounced and executed against one Beast (the fourth), while the others are stripped of their kingdoms but allowed to live for a time. It is in this context that verses 13-14 must be understood:

“and, see!—with the clouds of the Heaven(s), (one) like a son of man [vn`a$ rb^K=]…”

This figure comes near and approaches the “Ancient of Days”, and is given authority/rule (/f*l=v*), honor/glory (rq*y+), and (a) kingdom (Wkl=m^), so that “all the peoples, nations and tongues [i.e. languages] would serve him”. The question as to the identity of this “(one) like a son of man” has long vexed commentators, leading to a variety of interpretations, some more plausible than others. In terms of the original context of the vision in the book of Daniel, I would suggest three basic possibilities regarding this figure:

1. Symbolic—he represents the Kingdom of God or the people of God (and their dominion)
2. Real, but archetypal—i.e. he is the heavenly archetype of humankind (“son of man”), specifically the righteous/holy ones (people of God)
3. Real, and personal—he is a real heavenly being, an Angel such as Michael who represents the people of God, supporting and protecting them, etc.

Sound arguments can be made for each of these:

1. The symbolic view is supported by the structure of the passage (chapter 7) itself, where the “(one) like a son of man”, and the kingdom he receives, is set parallel with the people of God (and they kingdom they receive), cf. below. Also, this figure resembling a human being is clearly meant as a contrast with the four “beasts” of vv. 2-8; since they are taken to represent four earthly kingdoms (in their savagery and violence), it is logical that the human being likewise represents the kingdom of the people of God.

2. The same parallelism could just as well be interpreted in an archetypal sense—that the heavenly “son of man” is the type/pattern for the righteous/holy ones on earth. This certainly seems to be the way that Daniel 7 was expounded and interpreted in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71, see the discussion below), and also, to some extent, by the Qumran community (cf. below).

3. It is the third view, however, which seems best to fit the immediate context and thought-patterns in the book of Daniel. Angels are prominent in the second half of the book, and are generally depicted in human terms (Dan 8:15; 9:21; 10:5; 12:5-7; cf. also 3:25), as they often are elsewhere in the Old Testament (Gen 18:2; Josh 5:13; Judg 13:6, 8, 16; Ezek 8:2; 9-10; Zech 1:8; 2:5, cf. Collins, pp. 306-7). A specific identification with the chief Angel (Archangel) Michael is possible, given his comparable role and position in Dan 12:1 (cf. also 10:13, 21). The “(one) like a son of man” should probably be understood as a real heavenly being, at least similar to an (arch)Angel such as Michael. This does not eliminate the parallelism or corollary with the people of God, as is clear enough by the evidence from Qumran (on this, cf. below).

Before proceeding, it may be helpful to examine the structure of Daniel 7 in outline form:

- V. 1: Narrative introduction/setting
- Vv. 2-14: The Vision of the Four Beasts
  - The Four Beasts (vv. 2-8)
  - The Ancient of Days who presides in Judgment over the Beasts (vv. 9-12)
  - The Son of Man who receives the everlasting kingdom/dominion (vv. 13-14)
- Vv. 15-27: The Interpretation of the Vision
  - Basic outline/explanation: Four Kingdoms (vv. 15-18)
  - The Kingdom of the Fourth Beast (vv. 19-25)
  - Judgment and the Kingdom of the People of God (vv. 26-27)
- V. 28: Conclusion

Verses 13-14 and 26-27 are clearly parallel in several respects:

- Judgment in the Heavenly Court (vv. 9-12, 26)
  - Kingdom taken away from the Beast(s)
- Everlasting Kingdom/Dominion
  - Given to the “one like a son of man” (vv. 13-14)
  - Given to the “people of the Holy Ones of the Most High” (v. 27)

Interestingly, we find the same basic paradigm, it would seem, in the Pseudo-Daniel (Aramaic) text 4Q246 from Qumran, which was certainly influenced by Daniel 7.

An important point lies in the way that heavenly and human beings are united in the term “holy ones” (Heb. <yvdwq, Aram. /yvydq). Although a few instances are uncertain or disputed, the majority of occurrences of the plural “holy ones” in the Old Testament would seem to refer to heavenly beings—Deut 33:2; Psalm 89:5, 7; Job 5:1; 15:15; Dan 4:17; Zech 14:5, and cf. also the LXX of Exod 15:11. The only clear instances where “holy ones” refer to human beings (on earth) are in Deut 33:3 (cf. the parallel with verse 2); Psalm 16:3; 34:10. Especially significant is the usage in the Qumran texts, which in many ways are close to the eschatological/apocalyptic imagery and thought-world of Daniel, and, indeed, were certainly influenced by the book. The Qumran Community saw itself as connected with the Angels—the holy/righteous ones on earth, corresponding to the Holy Ones in Heaven; this was a key aspect of their self-understanding, in particular, of their eschatological role and identity. Indeed, they referred to themselves as “congregation of the holy ones”, and in 1QM 10:10; 12:7; 1QH 11:11-12 we find the very expression (“people of the holy ones”) as in Dan 7:27; note also the variant formula “holy ones of the people” (1QM 6:6; 16:1). On the relation between the Community and the Angels, and their inter-connection, cf. especially in the War Scroll (1QM 12:7, etc), passages in the Rule documents (1QSa 2:8-9; 1QSb 3:25-26; 4:23-25), and in the Hymns (1QH 3:21-22; 4:24-25; 11:11-12). For these and other references, cf. Collins pp. 313-7.

In the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), which may well be contemporary with Jesus and the earliest Gospel tradition (see Part 2 of this study), there is an equally clear, and (in some ways) even more precise correspondence between the holy/righteous ones on earth and in heaven—1 Enoch 39:5; 47:2; 51:4, etc. It is indicated that their true nature and position will be revealed at the end-time Judgment (1 En 38:4-5). The Son of Man is their ideal/archetypal heavenly representative (the Righteous One, the Elect One); in the concluding chapters 70-71, we see how Enoch himself, as the first human being to be raised to heavenly status, is identified with this Son of Man, apparently merging/assimilating with him in some way.

What of the traditional interpretation of the “one like a son of man” with the Messiah in Jewish thought? Apart from the possible example of 4Q246 from Qumran, this association does not seem to have been clearly formed until the 1st century A.D. In the Similitudes of Enoch, the Son of Man figure, certainly inspired by Daniel 7, is specifically called “(the) Anointed One” (1 En 48:10; 52:4); cf. also the context in 2/4 Esdras 13 (late 1st-century A.D.). The Messianic interpretation came to be the dominant view in Rabbinic literature (b. Sanh. 89a; Num. Rabbah 13:14, et al); even the plural “thrones” in Dan 7:9 could be understood in this light (one throne for God, one for the Messiah), as traditionally expressed by R. Akiba (b. Chag. 14a; b. Sanh. 38b).

In the second part of this study, we shall examine in more detail the possibility that the expression “the son of man” could, at the time of Jesus, have been understood as a Messianic reference, and might have been applied to a Messianic figure (such as Jesus) as a shorthand title, referring specifically to the heavenly figure (“one like a son of man”) in Dan 7:13f

References marked “Collins” above are to John J. Collins’ commentary on Daniel in the Hermeneia series (Fortress Press: 1993), esp. pages 299-323.

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Acts 7:56; Rev 1:13; 14:14

The Expression “the son of man” in the Remainder of the New Testament

The expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) occurs just four times outside of the Gospels (compared with 82 in the Gospels). As we shall see, three of these four would seem to be influenced by the Gospel Tradition (esp. the sayings in Mark 13:26; 14:62 par), and can be considered as an extension of the use of this expression in the Tradition. This means that the expression is virtually exclusive to the Gospel Tradition, where it is almost always found on the lips of Jesus. There is little indication that the expression played any role among early Christians as a Messianic or Christological title (it is completely absent from Paul’s letters, for example). Indeed, it appears to have relatively little importance within early Christian theology. This seems to have been the case even in the Johannine churches, in spite of the fact that the expression carries distinctive Christological significance in the Gospel of John (cf. the conclusion to our studies on the Johannine sayings). The expression does not occur at all in 1 John, even though the incarnation (viz., the Son as a human being, “the Son of man”) was, by all accounts, at the heart of the Christological controversy addressed in this treatise (see esp. 4:2 [par 2 Jn 7]).

Broadly speaking, one may consider the Book of Revelation as a Johannine work, produced within the network of Johannine churches. Though it is very different in language, style, and theological emphasis, from either the Gospel or Letters, there are enough common features and points of similarity to suggest a shared cultural milieu and environment. The center of the Johannine Community has often been located in Asia Minor (the region around Ephesus); if this identification is correct, it would correspond to the provenance (and audience) of the Book of Revelation (1:4, 11; chaps. 2 and 3).

Revelation 1:13

The expression “the son of man” occurs twice in the Book of Revelation. The first occurrence is at the beginning of the work, in the first vision (1:9-20). In the description by the author/seer of the divine/heavenly being who speaks to him (“and I turned about to see the voice that spoke with me”, v. 12a), we read:

“…I saw seven golden lamp(stand)s, and, in the midst of the lamp(stand)s, (one) like a son of man [o%moion ui(o\n a)nqrw/pou]” (12b-13a)

It is noteworthy that, even though this figure is clearly to be identified as the exalted Jesus (v. 18, etc), the expression “(the) son of man” is decidedly not used as a title (nor is it in 14:14, see below). This accords with the Gospel usage, as a whole, in light of the Old Testament background of the expression—viz., “son of man” simply means a human being.

Yet this is certainly not an ordinary human being; rather it is the exalted Jesus, who was raised from the dead, and then elevated to a divine/heavenly position at the “right hand” of God (cf. below on Acts 7:55-56). In verse 13, this exalted personage is referenced in the manner of the heavenly figure of Daniel 7:13: “(one) like a son of man” (Aramaic vn`a$ rb^K=). In Greek [LXX & Theod], this is translated w($ ui(o\$ a)nqrw/pou (“[one] as a son of man”); the rendering here in the Book of Revelation, using the adjective o%moio$ (“like, resembling”), is a bit more precise. It makes clear that this heavenly figure resembles a human being (“son of man”). For more on the description in vv. 12-16, cf. my earlier note.

This allusion to Daniel 7:13 is all the more significant given the earlier reference to this passage in verse 7:

“See, he comes with the clouds!—and every eye shall gaze (openly on) him, even the ones who stabbed him, and all the offshoots [i.e. tribes/clans] of the earth shall beat (themselves) over him.”

The phrase “he comes with the clouds” (e&rxetai meta\ tw=n nefelw=n) alludes to the descriptive wording in Dan 7:13: “with (the) clouds of the heavens, (one) like a son of man was coming…” The peculiar Aramaic periphrastic verbal expression “was coming” (hw`h& ht@a*) is translated in the LXX by an imperfect form of the verb e&rxomai (“come”), h&rxeto (“was coming”)—suggesting a regular or continual action. Here in Rev 1:7, a present tense form is used (e&rxetai, “he comes”), implying an impending action (in the present). Our author also follows the Theodotion version, by rendering the preposition <u! (“with”) by the corresponding meta/ (“with”); the LXX has e)pi/ (“upon”), which is also used in 14:14 (cf. below).

It is all but certain that the author of the book of Revelation did not draw upon Dan 7:13f independently; rather, he inherited it from the Gospel Tradition. In particular, there are two Synoptic “son of man” sayings by Jesus (Mk 13:26; 14:62 par) which clearly refer to Dan 7:13f. Some scholars would see Dan 7:13f as the inspiration for all of the “son of man” sayings (or, at least all of the eschatological sayings). I will discuss the possible influence of the Daniel passage in a supplemental study. For now, I will limit any possible influence on the Book of Revelation to the Synoptic sayings in Mk 13:26 and 14:62 (discussed in an earlier study). Of these two sayings, the one in Mk 13:26 (part of the ‘Eschatological Discourse’ of chap. 13) is more straightforward in contextual meaning, but also more difficult when judged at the historical level. In context, it clearly refers to the ‘second’ coming (parousia) of Jesus—viz., the end-time appearance of the exalted Jesus, which will usher in the Judgment.

It is this same eschatological orientation which informs the allusions to Dan 7:13 here in Rev 1:7 and 13. The author/seer is unquestionably referring to the end-time appearance (on earth) of the exalted Jesus. Dependence upon the Gospel Tradition in this regard would seem to be confirmed by the fact that both Rev 1:7 and the Matthean version of the Mk 13:26 saying (Matt 24:30) have a combined allusion to Dan 7:13 and Zech 12:10. The quotation of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37, in reference to the crucifixion (‘stabbing/piercing’) of Jesus, allows us to conclude that the book of Revelation likely inherited this dual-reference through the Johannine line of Tradition.

The application of Dan 7:13f to the end-time return (second coming) of Jesus departs from the natural sense of the passage, and reflects an early Christian re-interpretation of the Scripture. In the original Daniel passage, the “one like a son of man” approaches God the Father (the ‘Ancient of Days’) in heaven. This would more naturally apply to the post-resurrection exaltation of Jesus, rather than his subsequent return to earth. Indeed, the use of Dan 7:13f in Mark 14:62 par would seem to have Jesus’ exaltation (to the right hand of God in heaven) as the saying’s primary point of reference. For more on this, see the discussion of Acts 7:55-56 below.

Revelation 14:14

Both aspects of the Dan 7:13f reference—exalted position in heaven and end-time appearance (at the Judgment)—as applied to Jesus, would seem to be present in the second occurrence of the expression, in 14:14. Unquestionably, vv. 14-20 provides a short but vivid (and intense) vision of the end-time Judgment, corresponding generally to the climactic section of the Eschatological Discourse (Mark 13:24-27 par). In both uses of the Gospel Tradition, the exalted Jesus is identified with the Danielic “one like a son of man”, coming in the clouds. Here is how the introduction to the vision of 14:14-20 reads:

“And I saw, and see—a white cloud! And upon the cloud was sitting (one) like a son of man [o%moion ui(o\n a)nqrw/pou], holding upon his head a golden wreath, and in his hand (was) a sharp plucking-tool.” (v. 14)

The time of harvest (reaping, qerismo/$) was a natural image for symbolizing the end of the current Age (and the end-time Judgment). It occurs a number of times in the teaching of Jesus and elsewhere in the New Testament—Matt 3:12 par; 13:30, 41-43 [cp Mk 13:27 par]; cf. also Mk 4:29; Matt 9:37-38 par; Jn 4:35; James 3:18. This eschatological harvest-imagery is largely derived from the motif as it occurs in the Prophets (e.g., Isa 24:13; Jer 50:16; 51:33); here the reference is principally to Joel 3:13ff (cf. also Isa 5:7). For more on vv. 14-20, see my earlier note.

Acts 7:56

If the references in Rev 1:7, 13 and 14:14 refer primarily to the eschatological tradition in Mark 13:26 par, the “son of man” reference in Acts 7:55 clearly refers to the tradition in Mk 14:62 par. Indeed, the author of Luke-Acts is drawing an intentional parallel between Jesus’ saying (Lk 22:69, during his interrogation before the Sanhedrin) and the visionary utterance of Stephen (Acts 7:55-56, also in the context of a Sanhedrin interrogation, 6:12-7:1ff). It is worth comparing these specifically; first, let us consider the Lukan version of the “son of man” saying:

“But from now (on), the son of man shall be sitting at the right (hand) of the power of God” (Lk 22:69)

There are several key differences between this Lukan version and the core Synoptic Tradition (Mk 14:62 par). Most notably, the Lukan version has essentially removed (or does not include) any detail that could be taken as a reference to the end-time return of the exalted Jesus. There is no mention of people (spec. members of the Sanhedrin) seeing the “son of man”; likewise, there is no mention of his “coming” (vb e&rxomai). The Lukan author has clearly shaped the tradition so that it refers only to the exaltation of Jesus (after his death and resurrection). The eschatological aspect of the second coming (Mk 13:26, par Lk 21:27) is retained by the Gospel writer, but only in the context of the Eschatological Discourse.

In the framework of Luke-Acts, the saying in Lk 22:69 functions strictly as a prophecy of Jesus’ exaltation, the fulfillment of which is confirmed by the vision in Acts 7:55f. Jesus has been raised and has ascended to heaven (1:9-11), and the first missionary preachers have declared that he is now at the “right hand” of God in heaven (2:33-34; 5:31), but Stephen’s vision provides eye-witness testimony in confirmation of this fact. The vision comes in 7:55:

“…full of the holy Spirit, (hav)ing stretched (to look) into the heaven, he saw (the) splendor [do/ca] of God, and Yeshua standing at (the) right (hand) of God”

There is actually no particular allusion here to Dan 7:13f; rather, it is Psalm 110:1 (cf. my earlier study on this reference), understood among early Christians as a prophecy of Jesus’ exaltation (cf. Acts 2:34-35; Heb 1:13), that is primarily in view. The reference to Dan 7:13f comes with the use of the expression “the son of man” in the utterance by Stephen, in v. 56:

“and he said: ‘See! I am looking at the heavens opened throughout, and (at) the son of man standing at (the) right (hand) of God!”

It is from this exalted position (alluded to in Rev 14:14, see above), that Jesus will return to earth (cf. Acts 1:11), to gather up the righteous (believers), and to usher in the Judgment (10:42; 17:31). In this regard, both the book of Acts and the book of Revelation, are closely following the Gospel Tradition. The “son of man” sayings in Mk 13:26 and 14:62 par are a key part of this Tradition and contain cornerstone teachings for the early Christian eschatology. It is one of the few aspects of Jesus’ use of the expression that was retained by first-century Christians (outside of the Gospels), largely because of the eschatological importance of Daniel 7:13 (and the book of Daniel as a whole).