{to be or not to be} continued Ancient One & "SoM"
(DB) Daniel 7: In his prophetic narrative, we see two divine figures, one who is clearly marked as an ancient and one who has the appearance of a young human being.
The younger one has his own throne (that's why there is more than one throne set up to start with), and he is invested by the older one with dominion, glory, and kingship over all peoples of the world; not only that, but it will be an eternal kingship forever and ever. This is the vision that will become in the fullness of time the story of the Father and the Son.
From the earliest layers of interpretation and right up to modern times, some interpreters have deemed the "one like a son of man" a symbol of a collective, namely, the faithful Israelites at the time of the Maccabean revolt, when the Book of Daniel was probably written.
Other interpreters have insisted that the "[one like a] son of man" is a second divine figure alongside the Ancient of Days and not an allegorical symbol of the people of Israel (the one like a son a man as Michael: representing Israel, as its heavenly "prince," quite ex-plicitly in Daniel chapters 10-12: reality being depicted on two levels).
We can find in Aphrahat, the fourth-century Iranian Father of the Church, the following attack on the interpretation (presumably by Jews) that makes the "one like a son of man" out to be the People of Israel: "Have the children of Israel received the kingdom of the Most High? God forbid! Or has that people come on the clouds of heaven?" (Demonstration 5:21) Aphrahat's argument is exegetical and very much to the point. Clouds ~ as well as riding on or with clouds ~ are a common attribute of biblical divine appearances, called theophanies (Greek for "God appearances" by scholars. They made the point decisively: "The act of coming with clouds suggests a theophany of Yahweh himself.
If Dani'el 7/13 does not refer to a divine being, then it is the only exception out of about seventy passages in the O[ld] T[estament]!
It is almost impossible to read this narrative here of the setting up of thrones, the appearance of the Ancient of Days on one of them, and the coming to him of the like a son of man apart from stories of the investiture of young gods by their elders, of close gods by transcendent ones.
Some of the modern scholars support Aphrahat unequivocally. As (NOT) scholar Matthew Black puts it bluntly, "This, in effect, means that Dan. 7 knows of two divinities, the Old Head of Days and the Son of Man." Those two divinities, in the course of time, would end up being the first two divine persons of the Trinity. At least some of the later Rabbis also read this passage as a theophany (self-revelation of G d).
A passage from the Babylonian Talmud [5th or 6th century] clearly shows this & cites earlier Rabbis as well as seeing an important moment in the doc-trine of G d emerging here: One verse reads: "His throne is sparks of fire" (Dan. 7:9) & another (part of the) verse reads, "until thrones were set up & the Ancient of Days sat". This is no difficulty: One was for him & one for David! As we learn in an ancient tradition: One for him & one for David, these are the worst of Rabbi Aqiva. Rabbi Yosemite the Galilean said to him: Aqiva! Until when will you make the Shekhina profane?! Rather One was for judging & one was for mercy. Did he accept it from him, or did he not? Come & hear)!
One for judging & one for mercy, these are the words of Rabbi Aqiva.
Anyway, whatever the precise interpretation of this Talmudic passage (& this is discussed at length elsewhere), there may be little doubt that both portrayed Rabbis understood that this Daniel passage was a theophany. "Rabbi Aqiva" perceives two divine figures in heaven, one G d the Father & one an apotheosized King David?! No wonder that this "Rabbi Yose the Galilean" was shocked. Probably such was the original meaning of the text as well!?
't Blijft amazing, bodhitree, om in & uit te ademen, rond te kijken & te luisteren eten, drinken, plassen, poepen & wat al niet aan neus- & oorpeuterijen, oogwrijven, haarwassen & afdrogen!!! En wat 'n verschil/veeenkomst met 'daar' zijn, 't rondzwerven & naderhand blijven oppeuzelen & verwijderen van bedelvoedsel, overblijfselen & bijbehorende paardenvijgen ~~~