Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
John J. Collins' recent study of the interpretation of Dan 7.13 in the extant Jewish literature in the first century CE has provided a needed survey and background for those interested in the interpretation of Dan 7.13 in Christian circles during the same period. Collins identifies four common features between the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra 13. First, both books assume that the humanlike figure refers to an individual and is not a collective symbol. Secondly, both identify this figure as the messiah. Thirdly, in both the messiah is preexistent and both associate with the messiah prerogatives traditionally reserved for God in Jewish literature. Finally, the messiah takes a more active role in the defeat of the ungodly in the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra than in Dan 7.13. He argues that these common features between two works which do not exhibit any direct literary or theological dependence indicate certain common assumptions in the first century CE concerning Dan 7.13, but he also states that it is difficult to ascertain how widespread these assumptions might have been.
1 ‘The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism’, NTS 38 (1992) 448–66 (hereafter, Collins, NTS).Google Scholar
2 See my ‘Homoion huion anthropou in Rev 1.13 and 14.14’, BT 44 (1993) 359–60.Google Scholar H. Lietzmann had made a similar observation of the use of comparisons in Dan 7.13 and Rev 1.13 and 14.14 but did not take note of the pseudepigraphical literature (Der Menschensohn [Freiburg: Mohr, 1896] 56–7Google Scholar; cf. Krodel, G. A., Revelation [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989, 95 and 274 ]).Google Scholar
3 I hope to develop a study at a later date which concentrates on the NT itself.
4 See also Num 23.3_legacy9; Isa 56.2; Job 16.21, 35.8; Ps 146.3; Jer 49.18, 33; 50.40; 51.43; Jub. 4.18; 1 Esdr 4.37; Tob 7.7; Jdt 8.12,16; Wis 9.6; T. Levi 2.5; 3.3_legacy0; 4.1; Sir 17.30; 1 Enoch 60.10.
5 See, for example, Day, J., God's Conflict With the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (U. of Cambridge Oriental Publications 35; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1985) 151–78;Google ScholarGoldingay, J. E., Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas: Word, 1989) 137–72.Google Scholar
6 Walvoord, J. F., Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971) 167;Google Scholar see also, Briggs, C. A., Messianic Prophecy (New York/Edinburgh: Scribner's/Clark, 1886) 240.Google Scholar For an alternative view, see Driver, S. R., The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1922) 212–50.Google Scholar
7 Walvoord, 168.
8 For example, Shea accepts the Babylonian provenance (‘The Neo-Babylonian Historical Setting for Daniel 7’, AUSS 24 [1986] 31–6)Google Scholar, while Collins espouses a second century Syrian-occupied Palestine provenance (‘Daniel and His Social World’, Int 39 [1985] 131–43Google Scholar). I find Collins' arguments more persuasive.
9 For example, Kraeling, C. H., Anthropos and Son of Man (New York: Columbia Univ., 1927);Google ScholarMowinckel, S., He That Cometh (New York: Abingdon, 1954);Google ScholarNoth, M., ‘Die Heiligen des Höchsten’, Norsk teologisk tidsskrift 56 (1955) 146–61;Google ScholarEmerton, J. A., ‘The Origins of the Son of Man Imagery’, JTS 9 (1958) 225–42;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMorgenstern, J, ‘The “Son of Man” of Dan 7.13f: A New Interpretation’, JBL 80 (1961) 65–77;Google ScholarBorsch, F. H., The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967)Google Scholar and also The Christian and the Gnostic Son of Man (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1970); Kvanvig, H. S., Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988).Google Scholar
10 Mowinckel, 346–450.
11 Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 142–3.Google Scholar For critiques of Mowinckel and Cullmann, see Wilson, F. M., ‘The Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature’, Studia Biblica et Theologica 8 (1978) 28–52.Google Scholar
12 C. Colpe, ‘ό νíός τοῦ ἀvθρώπου’, TDNT 8.406–30; see also Collins, J. J., The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977 [hereafter Collins, AVD] 123–17Google Scholar and The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984 [hereafter Collins, AD 78–86;Google Scholar see also Day, Emerton and Morgenstern cited above. For a critique of this position, see Wilson, 36.
13 Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark (Montreal: McGill Univ. 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Scholars with similar views include Driver, S. R. (mentioned above); Manson, T. W., ‘The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels’, BJRL 32 (1949–1950) 171–93;Google ScholarMuilenburg, J., ‘The Son of Man in Daniel and the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch’, JBL 79 (1960) 197–209;Google ScholarCasey, M., Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979 [hereafter Casey, Son of Man])Google Scholar; Leila, A. A. Di, ‘The One in Human Likeness and the Holy Ones of the Most High in Daniel 7’, CBQ 39 (1977) 1–19;Google ScholarRussell, D. S., Daniel (Edinburgh/Philadelphia: St Andrew/ Westminster, 1981);Google ScholarAnderson, R. A., Signs and Wonders (International Theological Commentary; Edinburgh: Handsel/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984).Google Scholar
14 Hooker, p. 11; see also n. 1.
15 Hooker, 14.
16 Hooker, 20–1; quote from 21.
17 Hooker, 23–9; quote from 29.
18 Hooker, 46.
19 Hooker, 49–66.
20 Di Leila, 3.
21 Schmidt, N., ‘Was bar nash a Messianic Title?’ JBL 15 (1896) 36–53Google Scholar and ‘The “Son of Man” in the Book of Daniel’, JBL 19 (1900) 22–8.Google Scholar It is this Schmidt to whom Hooker referred whose solution was ‘too-neat’.
22 See Emerton cited above.
23 E.g., Noth, cited above; Dequeker, L., ‘Daniel vii et les Saints du Trés-Haut’, ETL 36 (1960) 353–92Google Scholar and ‘The Saints of the Most High in Qumran and Daniel’, OTS 18 (1973) 108–87;Google Scholar Collins, AVD, 96–101; cf. Kearns, R., Die Entchristologisierung des Menschensohnes (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988).Google Scholar For a contrasting view, see Hasel, G. F., ‘The Identity of the “Saints of the Most High” in Daniel 7’, Bib 76 (1975) 173–92.Google Scholar
24 J. Day, 168, esp. n. 81.
25 Collins, AVD, 123–47; AI, 84–6; cf. Day, 167–78. For a critique of these writers, see Ferch, A. J., ‘Daniel 7 and Ugarit: A Reconsideration’, JBL 99 (1980) 75–86.Google Scholar
26 Krodel, 95 and 274; so too Hooker, 11–12; Di Leila, 3; Kraeling, 142–4.
27 See, e.g., Bowman, J., ‘The Background of the Term “Son of Man”’, ET 59 (1948) 285;Google ScholarFeuillet, A., ‘Le Fils de l'homme de Daniel et la tradition biblique’, RB 60 (1953) 180–9;Google ScholarScott, R. B. Y., ‘Behold, He Cometh with Clouds’, NTS 5 (1958-9) 127–32;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDelcor, M., Le Livre de Daniel (Paris: Gabalda, 1971) 302–4;Google Scholar Day, 157–8; Wilson, 37.
28 Cf. Driver, 215; Towner, W. S., Daniel (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1984) 90–103;Google ScholarCollins, J. J., Daniel (FOTL 20; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984 [hereafter Collins, FOTL]) 87.Google Scholar
29 Translations of 1 Enoch are Knibb's, M. A. in Sparks, H. F. D., ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984).Google Scholar See also Reddish, M. G., ed., Apocalyptic Literature: A Reader (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990 [hereafter, Apocalyptic Literature]).Google Scholar
30 Cf. Collins, NTS, 452–3.
31 Cf. Wilson, 40–2.
32 E.g., Di Leila, 10–11; Walvoord, 191; Towner, 103; Emerton, 236–8; Feuillet, 181–91; Russell, Daniel, 119,124–5; Montgomery, J. A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC 22; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960) 346;Google ScholarPorteous, N. W., Daniel: A Commentary (rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979) 108,127.Google Scholar
33 E.g., Lacocque, A., The Book of Daniel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976) 167–73, 206–13;Google Scholar Goldingay, 213–15, 290–2; R. A. Anderson, 99–103, 124–8; Driver, 212–14, 256–64; Collins, FOTL, 87, 96–104; Walvoord, Daniel, 191, 248–9; Towner, 117,152–3; Russell, Daniel, 152–8; 195–202; Manson, 177; Montgomery, 345–8, 413–20; Porteous, 127–30,154–6; Casey, 27–8.
34 See, e.g., Collins, NTS, 452–9; Reddish, Apocalyptic Literature, 163–6. For a different point of view that the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra have had contact with Christianity, see Campbell, J. Y., ‘The Origin and Meaning of the Term Son of Man’, JTS 48 (1947) 145–55;Google ScholarHindley, J. C., ‘Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch: An Historical Approach’, NTS 14 (1967-8) 551–65;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSim, D. C., ‘Matthew 22.13a and 1 Enoch 10.4a: A Case of Literary Dependence?’, JSNT 47 (1992) 3–19.Google Scholar
4 Ezra and the Apocalypse of Abraham do have Christian interpolations but not in the verses which we shall examine.
35 Milik, J. T., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 4–135.Google Scholar
36 See, for example, Charlesworth, J. H., ‘The SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminars at Tübingen and Paris on the Books of Enoch’, NTS 25 (1978-9) 315–23;CrossRefGoogle ScholarNickelsburg's, G. W. E. major review of Milik in CBQ 40 (1978) 411–19;Google ScholarKnibb, M. A., The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978)Google Scholar and ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review’, NTS 25 (1978-9) 345–59;Google ScholarMearns, C. L., ‘Dating the Similitudes of Enoch’, NTS 25 (1978-9) 360–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Reddish, Apocalyptic Literature, 164–5.
38 See discussion in Collins, AI, 155–86.
39 Cf. Caragounis, C. C., The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986) 116–19.Google Scholar
40 Collins agrees and argues that 1 Enoch 71.14 may also be a form of direct address (NTS, 456). I am open to that possibility.
41 Translations of 4 Ezra come from the Revised Standard Version (RSV).
42 Cf. Reddish, Apocalyptic Literature, 58 and Collins, AI, 156.
43 For contrasting views, see Box, G. H., ed. and trans., The Ezra-Apocalypse (London: Pitman & Sons, 1912) 286;Google ScholarStone, M. E., Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 207–13;Google Scholar Kvanvig, 522–31.
44 Cf. Charlesworth, J. H., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 683, nn. 15–16.Google Scholar See also Collins, Al, 180–1.
45 Rowland, C., ‘The Vision of the Risen Christ in Rev. 1.13ff.: The Debt of an Early Christian Christology to an Aspect of Jewish Angelology’, JTS 31 (1980) 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 Kraeling notes the use of comparisons in Daniel, 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra but not in Ezekiel nor the Apocalypse of Abraham (142–4).
47 Cf. Collins, NTS, 464–5.
48 Cf. Wilson, 49–50; Myers, J. M., I and II Esdras (AB 42; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974) 302–16;Google ScholarTheisohn, J., Der auserwählte Richter (SUNT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 145;Google Scholar Collins, NTS, 464–6, who states that 4 Ezra 13 is reminiscent of traditional theophanies of the divine warrior.
