Son of Man AS Ancient of Days?

[tonychanyt]

ESV, Da 7:

13 As my vision continued that night, I saw someone like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient One and was led into his presence.

Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 311:

he approached the Ancient of Days: The Old Greek reading, "he came as an Ancient of Days," is probably to be explained as a mechanical error (reading ... for ..., followed by grammatical hypercorrection). Nonetheless, it acquired theological importance, as can be seen in the fusion of the two figures in Rev 1: 13-14, and it is of interest in view of the later controversy about two powers in heaven.

Old Greek (OG) was the early Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture, predating LXX.

Goldingay, John E. Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 30, p. 337:

Two of the three mss of OG have ὡς “as” not ἕως

ὡς meant 'as'; ἕως meant 'approached'

(cf. Rahlfs; contrast Ziegler/ Munnich, which has ἕως; see The First Greek Translation of Daniel in the Introduction to this commentary). This reading suggests an identification of the human figure and the one advanced in years.

Re 1:

12 I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was One like the Son of Man, dressed in a long robe, with a golden sash around His chest. 14 The hair of His head was white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes were like a blazing fire.

Did the OG reading affect the early Christians' view of Jesus since he was called the Son of Man?

I don't think the OG variant reading contributed much to early Christians' view of high Christology. In the gospels, which predated the book of Revelation, Jesus called himself Son of Man and Son of God and told the Jews that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30). They didn't need the variant reading to prove their point. The variant reading didn't even claim oneness. There was no need to use a possibly erroneous OG reading to prove the point when they could use Jn 10:30.

 

[KevinT]

I agree, if we have the Son of Man being the same as the Ancient of Days, then wouldn't it be "He approached AS the Ancient of Days and was led into His [whose?] presence"?

KT

 

[CoreyD]

ESV, Da 7:


Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 311:


Old Greek (OG) was the early Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture, predating LXX.

Goldingay, John E. Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 30, p. 337:


ὡς meant 'as'; ἕως meant 'approached'


Re 1:


Did the OG reading affect the early Christians' view of Jesus since he was called the Son of Man?

I don't think the OG variant reading contributed much to early Christians' view of high Christology. In the gospels, which predated the book of Revelation, Jesus called himself Son of Man and Son of God and told the Jews that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30). They didn't need the variant reading to prove their point. The variant reading didn't even claim oneness. There was no need to use a possibly erroneous OG reading to prove the point when they could use Jn 10:30.

Varying the reading in that way is quite an extreme, but you would need to use another scripture besides John 10:30 to prove your point, since if you use that to prove a point, whatever point you use it to prove, must apply in the same way to John 17:11, and John 17:21.
Oneness in John 17:11, 21, is the same oneness as in John 10:30.