The Corporate Interpretation of 'One like a Son of Man' (Dan. VII 13) at the Time of Jesus

The Corporate Interpretation of 'One like a Son of Man' (Dan. VII 13) at the Time of JesusAuthor(s): Maurice CaseySource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 18, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1976), pp. 167-180Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560560 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 06:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560560?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Novum Testamentum, Vol. XVIII, fasc. 3

THE CORPORATE INTERPRETATION OF 'ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN' (DAN. VII 13)

AT THE TIME OF JESUS

BY

MAURICE CASEY Durham, England

Jesus inherited an interpreted bible, but it is often difficult to know what interpretations he inherited. A major difficulty has been that the biblical exegesis already current in Judaism is frequently uncertain because contemporary sources are so meagre. A less obvious aspect of this difficulty has been the domination of the study of early Christianity by Christian scholars who have not utilised later Jewish source material. Techniques for recovering early exegesis from late sources are now available, and I will apply them here to a comparatively simple case. Was the corporate interpretation of 'one like a son of man' in Dan. vii 13 alive in Judaism at the time of Jesus? The question is of obvious relevance to the Son of Man problem 1). It can be answered empirically.

The book of Daniel itself provides a terminus a quo. The angelic interpretation in Daniel vii tells us that the man-like figure is a symbol of the "Saints of the Most High", by which the author meant pious Jews 2). The terminus ad quem is given by later Jewish

1) Cf. especially T. W. MANSON, "The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels", BJRL 32 (1949-50), pp. 171-93. Reprinted, T. W. MANSON, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, pp. 123-45. L. GASTON, No Stone on Another (Suppl. to Nov. Test. XXIII, 1970), esp. pp. 370-409. I do not wish to imply that I think the solution to the Son of Man problem is actually to be found along these lines.

2) Not angels, see especially C. H. W. BREKELMANS, "The Saints of the Most High and their Kingdom", OTS XIV (1965), PP. 305-329. The view I have taken of the man-like figure is that of e.g. J. A. MONTGOMERY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC, 1927). Both these points are still in dispute, and I will discuss them in detail on another oc- casion. As against individual interpretations of the man-like figure, the absence of any individual in the angel's interpretation should be regarded as decisive, and one notes that recent supporters have advocated different individuals-the anonymous Messiah, Michael, Judas Maccabaeus and even Daniel himself. See, respectively, E. DHANIS, "De filio hominis in Vetere



168 MAURICE CASEY

evidence. This will not be found by consulting STRACK-BILLER-

BECK, who expressed the universal opinion of modern scholarship: "Daniel vii 13 f. ist von der alten Synagoge nirgends kollektiv auf das "Volk der Heiligen" (= Israel, Daniel vii 27), sondern durch- gingig individuell auf den Messias gedeutet worden" 8). As so often, they have correctly interpreted most of the evidence, but what they have misinterpreted and omitted is interesting, and can be assessed only after considerable work on the original sources. We must examine in detail two passages of rabbinical literature, namely Midr. Ps. 21, 5 and Tanch. Tol. 20. I shall argue that both have preserved the original corporate interpretation of the man- like figure as a symbol of the people of Israel.

Midr. Ps. 21, 5 is a standard kind of passage from the formal point of view, consisting in the reconciliation of two apparently contradictory O.T. quotations. The quotations are from Dan. vii 13 and Jer. xxx 21, and the latter has been an important factor in the usual messianic interpretation of this whole passage 4). The part quoted runs wehiqravtiw weniggash 'elay "And I will bring him near and he will approach me". The suffix of wehiqravtiw refers to the ruler of Israel, who is the subject of this verse 5). But there is evidence that a different interpretation was current in ancient times: some interpreters took the suffix to refer to the people of Israel, who were thus assumed to be the subject of niggash. I shall

Testamento et in Judaismo", Gregorianum 45 (1964) PP. 5-59; J. J. COLLINS, "The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel", JBL 93 (1974), PP. 50-66, with recent bibliography; H. SAHLIN, "Antiochus Epiphanes und Judas Makkabaeus. Einzige Geschichtspunkte zum Ver- staindnisse des Danielbuches", Stud. Theol. 23 (I969), pp. 41-68; H. SCHMID, "Daniel, der Menschensohn", Judaica 27 (1971), pp. 192-220.

3) H. L. STRACK and P. BILLERBECK, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol. I (1922), p. 956. The only exception I have noted is a passing remark by H. K. McARTHUR, NTS 4 (1957-8), p. 157.

4) As STRACK-BILLERBECK put it, "WiThrend die Schriftbelege von einer Einzelpers6nlichkeit (Messias) handeln, denkt die Auslegung an eine Mehr- heit" (op. cit., vol. I, p. 957). They dispose of the Mehrheit by reading 'otho twice with Yalq. Ps. 21 (Op. cit., vol. I, p. 486). But this alteration of the text is methodologically unsound. On the parallel version in Yalq. Ps. 21, see further below, pp. 174 f.

5) This is the general opinion of the commentators, expressed clearly by ORELLI. "Das suff. in wehiqravtiw geht nicht auf das Volk, sondern auf der Herrscher oder K6nig in Israel, der in diesem Vers das subj. ist" (Kurz. Kommentar Alten Testamentes, hrsg. H. STRACK und 0. ZOCKLER, vol. 4 (1887), ad loc.). I see no reason to dispute this, as an interpretation of the original author's meaning.



ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN (DAN. VII 13) 169

argue first that this is the interpretation of the LXX and Targum 6); I shall go on to show that this was the interpretation followed by the author of Midr. Ps. 21, 5 which may then be seen to make consistent sense, without any need to alter its text; this sense involved the corporate interpretation of the man-like figure from Dan. vii 13.

First, then, the interpretation of Jer. xxx 21, beginning with the LXX: xort

auvoio o',ro6 x

?x & Otoarpi4ouaL p67 c6q 7). Here

aro6\s is plural because it represents the suffix of wehiqravtiw interpreted of the people: & xoorap4+ouaL is likewise plural, because the people have been taken to be the subject of weniggash. But there is a major difficulty in that the problems posed by the LXX of Jeremiah are still unresolved: it is not obvious that the LXX of any given passage really is a translation of the existing Massoretic text. Therefore we cannot assume it here, especially when auv&iyC and

drooa pcyg are so rare, and, one might suppose, unexpected, as renderings of qrb and ngsh. It must therefore be demonstrated that the LXX xo t auv&o ocr'o6 xat &toarpeiouaL 7tp6 [t is perfectly comprehensible as a translation of the MT 8).

We shall begin with qrb. Its Hiph. occurs a further 164 times in the O.T., but the LXX has no other examples of auv'y

as a translation of it. The explanation of this is a matter of the context of the occurrences. In the vast majority of cases, the context is one of the presentation of offerings to God. Hence the use of rpoayp~o

6) Midrashic interpretations of Jer. xxx 21 are not of any assistance. I have found only three-bGit. 56a, bSan. 98b, bQid. 7ob. None of them is concerned with the relevant part of Jer. xxx 21.

7) I quote from the following editions: MT - Biblia Hebraica Stuttgarten- sia, vol. 8 (1970). LXX - Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctori- tate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, Vol. XV. leremias. Ed. J. ZIEGLER (1957). Targum - Ed. A. SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. III. The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (1962).

8) A retroversion was produced by G. C. WORKMAN, The Text of Jeremiah (1889), p. 343, who conjectured an original Hebrew text weqibbaztim weyashu- vu 'elay. This is very literalistic, simply utilizing the commonest equivalents of auvciyo and &rnoarpLkpo. Driver was justly critical of Workman's general theory-S. R. DRIVER, "The Double Text of Jeremiah", The Expositor, Third Series, vol. IX (1889), pp. 321-337. Streane dissented from Work- man's view of this particular passage: "This v. bears conspicuously the marks of an unskilled translator. In the middle the reference of the obj. Pron. is changed from the sing. to the plural. weniggash is rendered xca &7oarpkgouatv (Q however has ta'r.) and lagesheth by &noap4o ac (AQ &nt- acphoat)". (A. W. STREANE, The Double Text of Jeremiah (1896), p. 211). However, there is still no detailed discussion of this passage.



170 MAURICE CASEY

(78 times) and npoacio (45 times) 9). Likewise the presentation of offerings to a king or governor: xpoayppco and 7pooyqo, twice each 10). Yet even within this rigid delimitation of context there are exceptions: &vacpco, A3pvco, and yy~Wco, once each 11). There are no examples of auvayco because it does not have the right meaning for these contexts. The majority of the remaining examples do have a group of people as the object of the verb. The context is one of cultic presentation again, and though auvoyco would make sense, the words used are a more accurate representation of the Hebrew, with 7tpoaoyco 15 times, npoacipco once, and a second example of XoqLPivO 12). Two of these examples are however worthy of note, Jos. vii 16 and I Sam. x 20; they are the only two of the 164 examples of the Hiph. of qrb which have the whole people as the object. Here, perhaps, some hesitation is in order. Might not auvycoi have been utilized? It might, but need not. Two observa- tions are more relevant. In Jos. vii 14-18 qrb occurs not once but several times. Most instances are translated with npoayco. But the first example is rendered xxi auvocXZOaeaw0. The context is a good parallel to the one instance in Jos. vii 16 that we noted. The means of translation, the Niph. of qrb by the passive of auvia'yo, is an excellent parallel to auvcyco in Jer. xxx (xxxvii) 21. The second observation is numerical. We are not now trying to explain auvi'yo once in 165 possibilities, but twice in, at most, a handful. And to explain that, it is sufficient to note that it is less obvious and straightforward than 7poaoyo. Num. xvi 9-1o also deserves special mention, because here God is the subject as well as a group of people the object. But again the context is cultic, and npoaoyco

9) tpooapipc Ex. xxix 3, Lev. i 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, ii I, 4, 8, II, 12, 13, 14 (bis), iii 6, 9, vi 13, vii 3, 9, II, 12 (bis), 13, 18, 29, 33, 38, ix 2, 15, 16, 17, x I, xii 7, xvii 4, xxi 6, 8, 17, 21, xxii 18 (bis), 21, 25, xxiii 16, 37, Num. iii 4, v 9, 25, vi 16, vii 2, lo, II, 12, ix 7, xv 4 (bis), 7, 9, 13, xvi 35, xvii 3, 4, xviii 15, xxvi 61, xxviii 2, 26, xxix 8, xxxi 50, Ezek. xliii 23, 24, xliv 7, 15, 27, xlvi 4, Ezra viii 35 (I Esd. viii 63), I Chron. xvi I.

0npoayc0 Ex. xxix

10, Lev. i 2, 3, Io, iii I (bis), 3, 7 (bis), 12, iv 3, 14, v 8, vi 7, vii 8, 14, 16, 25, viii 18, 22, x 19, xiv 12, xvi 6, 9, 20, xxii 20, 22, 24, xxiii 8, 18, 25, 27, 36 (bis), Num. vi 14, vii 3, xv 27, xvi 5, 17, xxviii 3, II, 19, 27, xxix 13, 36, 2 Chron. XXXV 12.

10) npoaipo Jud. iii 17, 18; npoa0yco Mal. i 8, Ps. lxxii Io.

11) &vab pcop Lev. iii 14, Xap3&vco Ezek. xliii 22 (clioq3&vo also for lqh at xliii 20, 21), kyyEco Hag. ii 14.

12) 7pobaycO Ex. xxviii I, xxix 4, 8, xl 12, 14, Lev. viii 13, 24, Num. viii 9, lo, xviii 2, Jos. vii 16, 17, 18, I Sam. x 20, 21. npoamppco Lev. viii 6.

,aoP&vco Num. iii 6.




accurate where auv&yco would not do. The remaining examples are less homogeneous and cannot be grouped together: the same verbs are used, and auviyo is out of the question in every instance 13). Similarity of meaning demands inclusion of the Piel; the few examples lack any dominant context. Four have eyy~wo, accurately and unremarkable, and two are corrupt 14). But at Ps. lxv 5, xpoaXohciv3V. The choice is interesting because it is unique. Even more so is Ezek. xxxvii 17, which produces another compound of a6v, namely auvoix&r 15). As a rendering of qrb this is unique: moreover it is idiomatic and perfectly sound. Again we have to record no instances of auvokyo: it would not fit any of these six references. One more compound of atv should be recorded, au?LEy- vutL for the Qal of qrb at Ex. xiv 20. Again it is unique and idiomatic.

Jer. xxx (xxxvii) 21 is different. Here, if the suffix is taken as a reference to the people, the thought is that God in some sense brings his people near to him. It is not a thought which is found in any of the other occurrences of the Hiph. of qrb, and that explains why the LXX translator used a word which is not found as a translation of the Hiph. of qrb anywhere else in the LXX.

auv0yom was a logical and intelligible choice. It was, of course, a common word, and HATCH and REDPATH give no less than 50 words translated by it in the LXX 16). That God will gather his people together is an idea which really is to be found in the context; for its representation by auv'yco again we need look no further than Jer. xxxi (xxxviii) 8. That this idea should be found at xxx (xxxvii) 21 as an interpretation of God bringing his people to him should not now be surprising.

For ngsh, Qal and Niph. only are relevant. There are 84 further occurrences, including another in Jer. xxx (xxxvii) 21. &BoaCrpkp

13) One more cultic act-Lev. ix 9 xpoaqmpco. A dispute is brought before Yahweh Num. xxvii 5 npoaaryc; difficult cases are to be brought before Moses Deut. i 17 &vaqcxqp. Jael presented Sisera with curds Jud. v 25 tpoa0y- yl( A or npoaqppco B. A person is brought before others, for different reasons, all npoad&yo Num. v 16, xv 33, Jos. viii 23. Ahaz moved his altar 2 Kings xvi 14

~poadyo. qrb is rightly used, but its semantic area goes beyond x7oaqp&o

and npoa&yco, and kyyEca is called upon Is. v 8, xxvi 17, Ezek. xxii 4. Cor- ruption or misunderstanding at Num. xxv 6 7poadyca and Lev. vi 14 OuaEx.

14) yy~l?O Is. xli I, xlvi 13, Ezek. ix I, xxxvi 8. Corruption at Hos. vii 6, Job xxxi 37.

15) Not the easier auvk&yc, read by Q. 16) E. HATCH and H. A. REDPATH, A Concordance to the Septuagint (1897:

reprinted 1954), s.v.



172 MAURICE CASEY

is used twice in Jer. xxx (xxxvii) 21, and nowhere else. The majority of examples are divided between the usual words for approaching in different ways: &yy?&o, CpoaoyyltL, 7poCepXoOp.uL, xpoa&yW, 7opr6o0.t1L and

Xpoa-ope6o~p~L 17). The unique and idiomatic is more interesting

(the vagaries of I Ks. xviii 36 may be left aside)--&cpar LL Gen. xix 9; E eapxoyoou Ex. xx 21; xevrhciPivco Am. ix I3; xoXA? Job xli 8 18); nap,rca I Chron. xix 14; IoCL ... -6xov Is. xlix 20. It is to this class that oiroarpecpw belongs 19). Elsewhere it is used of turning away from sins, and, frequently, in the sense of 'return'. This is its sense here. Having taken wehiqravtiw of God's gathering together his people, the translator interpreted niggash as denoting their return to him. This is natural, logical and idiomatic, and should not provoke incredulity.

The LXX is, therefore, best regarded as a translation of the Hebrew text, part of which is quoted in Midr. Ps. 21, 5. The significance of this for our purposes is that the translator thought that the suffix of wehiqravtiw referred to the people, who were, therefore, the subject of niggash.

The Targum should cause us less trouble; its interpretative expansions are not so productive of textual conjecture. For the translation of qrb it naturally uses the same verb, but it is important

17) &yy(~ Gen. xviii 23, xix 9, xxvii 21, 22, 26, 27, xxxiii 3, xliv 18, xlv 4 (bis), Ex. xix 22, xxiv 2 (bis), xxxiv 30, Lev. xxi 21, 23, Jud. ix 52, xx 23B, 2 Sam. xi 20, 2 Kings ii 5, iv 27, v 13, Is. xxix 13, xli I, 1 8, lxv 5, Ezek. ix 6, xliv 13, Ps. xci 7, 2 Chron. xviii 23. npoacyyt?(a Gen. xxxiii 6, 7 (bis), Num. viii 19, Deut. xx 2, Jud. xx 23A.

;poasipXotial Gen. xxix Io,

xliii 19, Ex. xix 15, xxxiv 32, Lev. xxi 21, Num. xxxii 16, Deut. xxi 5, xxv I, 9, Jos. xiv 6, xxi I, I Sam. xvii 40, 2 Sam. i 15, x 13, I Kings xx 13, 22, 28, xxii 24, Jer. xlii I, Ruth ii 14, Ezra iv 2, ix I (I Esd. v 65, vi 65). xpoar&y& Jos. iii 9, I Sam. vii Io, ix 18, xiv 38, (xvii 16), xxx 21, 2 Sam. xi 21, I Kings xviii 21, 30 (bis), Jer. xlvi 3, Ezek. xliv 13, Joel iv 9, 2 Chron. xxix 31. xope60o~~ Jos. viii II.

xpoaxop,6o~3y Ex. xxiv 14, xxviii 43, xxx 20,

Num. iv I9. 18) In fact this is Theodotion creeping into a defective LXX. 19) Some Mss read c'narp cc: but it is better to read &8oarpk9&a twice in

Jer. xxx (xxxvii) 21, as do both ZIEGLER (in his edition, cited n. 7 above) and RAHLFS (Ed. A. RAHLFS, Septuaginta. 2 vols, 1935). The attestation of &doa-rpkcp is strong, and ntma-rpca seems the easier reading. The LXX uses it frequently of turning to God and this may not be said of &7oa'rpkcp& (Jer. iii ioA only)-though there is some doubt as to the correct reading in a large proportion of examples (G. BERTRAM, TWNT, p. 732), a fact related to the overlap between the semantic areas of the two words (cf. W. L. HOLLADAY, The Root 94bh in the Old Testament (1958), p. 27).

&7tLapcP o would certainly

have been appropriate here; the people respond to God bringing them near by turning to him.




to note that it uses a plural suffix instead of the singular of the MT. For weniggash 'elay the translation seems less straightforward- weyithnehon lephulhani. For Qal and Niph. of ngsh, the Targums almost always use qrb, but here it should indeed be avoided because it was used to translate the previous word. None of the words used elsewhere is common enough to be expected 2o). Four times only is God the object. pulhan is used at Jer. xxx 2Ib and Ezek. xliv 13. Ex. xix 2 has a different circumlocution of similar meaning. Only Ex. xxiv 2 is more direct, as befits the approach of Moses. Jona- than provides three more examples of pulhan after qrb representing the Hebrew qrb used of approach to God 21). pulhan is standard usage in the circumstances; given that for once qrb should be avoided, weyithnehon is logical interpretation. Note again that it is plural. The Targum also has plural suffixes throughout the opening of the verse, and for the same reason, namely that the suffixes have been interpreted of the people 22). Finally the clarity of the Targum is noteworthy: it was to achieve this clarity that the translator consistently used the plural.

It is therefore to be concluded that in the LXX and Targum we have two witnesses to an interpretation of Jer. xxx 21 which took the suffix of wehiqravtiw as referring to the people of Israel, who were consistently with this regarded as the subject of niggash. Is this the interpretation which was assumed by the author of Midr. Ps. 21, 5? The repeated plural 'othan should not admit of doubt. The author of this midrash says explicitly that he thinks both these scriptural passages are dealing with a plural entity, and since both passages are known to have been interpreted elsewhere of the people of Israel, that is how he must have interpreted them too. In the case of Dan. vii 13, that means he thought that the man-like figure was to be interpreted of the people of Israel.

A translation may now be given: like the LXX and Targum, I have had to use the plural in translating Jer. xxx 21, in order to prevent the meaning from becoming unnecessarily obscured.

"Rabbi Berekiah said in the name of Rabbi Samuel: One Scrip-

20) crc, the commonest, no more than three times-i Sam. ix 18, xxx 21, Am. ix 13.

21) Ezek. xl 46, xliv I5, Zeph. iii 2. 22) The Targum is supported by variants in the LXX; these are however

perhaps most easily understood as inner Greek corruptions-given the LXX text with the singular acrou representing singular suffixes in the Hebrew it is not surprising that copyists should sometimes prefer the easier ao&ov.



174 MAURICE CASEY

ture says 'And he came to the Ancient of Days and they brought him before Him' (Dan. vii 13), and another Scripture says 'And I will bring them near and they will approach me' (Jer. xxx 21). How can both these Scriptures be right? The angels will bring them to their region and the Holy One, blessed be He, will stretch forth His hand and bring them near to Him. Hence it is said 'And I will bring them near' "

The problem posed by the apparently contradictory O.T. texts is that in Dan. vii 13 the angels (assumed as the subject of 'they brought') are said to bring the man-like figure, the symbol of the people of Israel, before God: whereas in Jer. xxx 21, God says that he himself will bring them near. The problem is solved by supposing that the angels bring them most of the way, as far as the place where the angels dwell; God then stretches out his hand and brings them the rest of the way.

There is a parallel version of this midrash in the Yalqut to Ps. 21. It reads the singular 'otho twice where Midr. Ps. 21, 5 has the plural 'othan; similarly a singular suffix giving 'his region' instead of 'their region'; and it inserts lo-"the Holy One, blessed be He, will stretch forth His hand to him". With these readings, the subject of the whole midrash is the messiah, not the people of Israel, and both O.T. quotations are interpreted of him. Mechanical error is not a sufficient explanation of these four variants which provide a consistent change of sense: we are dealing with deliberate alteration, and we have to decide which version is the more original, and what was the origin of the later one. If the readings of Midr. Ps. 21, 5 are original, the alterations are readily comprehensible. Although corporate interpretations of both Dan. vii 13 and Jer. xxx 21 are found elsewhere among the Jews, they are not obvious; when one is faced not simply with these texts, but with the isolated parts of them quoted in the actual text of this midrash, which deal entirely with a singular entity and have lost altogether the context which suggests that that entity is a corporate one, a corporate interpretation is not only not obvious, it is positively obscure. A messianic interpretation which was also established for both scriptural quotations elsewhere, looks more straightforward altogether. Someone, no doubt the man who collected this piece from Midr. Ps. into the Yalqut, hence supposed that the plural 'othan must be wrong, and altered it twice to 'otho. He now had a more straightforward midrash, but to make things quite clear he made




the other alterations too. If, on the other hand, the readings of Yalqut to Ps. 21 are held to be original, the supposed alterations to the straightforward midrash which it contains are not similarly explicable. Therefore the version found in Midr. Ps. is the more original one.

We conclude therefore that the original version of our midrash is found in Midr. Ps. 21, 5 and that this preserves the original corporate interpretation of 'one like a son of man' as a symbol of the people of Israel.

We turn next to Tanch. Tol. 20. Here Dan. vii 13 is quoted as scriptural support for the interpretation of 'anani in I Chron. iii 24 as the messiah. This interpretation is also found in the Targum of I Chron. iii 24, but without the quotation of Dan. vii 13. The midrash which occupies the whole of Tanch. Tol. 20o has a parallel in Agg. Ber. 44, which however lacks this interpretation of 'anani and the attendant quotation of Dan. vii 13. How are these facts to be explained?

The parallel at Agg. Ber. 44 is very close. Despite minor variations, it is clear that we have here a version of exactly the same midrash. This midrash begins and ends with Ps. cxxi I, but the chief passage round which it is woven is Zech. iv 7, 10. The general reason for the quotation of I Chron. iii Io ff. is that here is to be found a family tree of the Davidic line. It was natural that Jewish interpreters should conclude that the messiah was to be found at the end of the Davidic line. But there are two variations of this view. The first sees the messiah in 'anani, the last real name in this list. This view is found in Tanch. Tol. 20o and Tg. I Chron. iii 24. The second sees the messiah in shiv'ah, the last word of the list. This view is found in Tanch. Tol. 20/Agg. Ber. 44. Now the specific purpose of the quotation of I Chron. iii 10-24 in the midrash Tanch. Tol. 2o/Agg. Ber. 44 is to establish the line of descent David- Zerubbabel-shiv'ah. These last two are to be found in Zech. iv 7, io, the passage which is so fundamental in the development of this midrash. Thus it is the interpretation of i Chron. iii 24 shiv'ah as the messiah which is native to our midrash. The interpretation of 'anani as the messiah contradicts this and is absent from Agg. Ber. 44. Therefore it was not originally part of this midrash 23).

23) That it appears in the somewhat truncated version of this midrash in Yalqut on Zech. iv 7 merely indicates that the compiler of the Yalqut knew the version which we find in Tanchuma.



176 MAURICE CASEY

But if this interpretation of 'anani is an addition from the point of view of this midrash, it is certainly older than the compila- tion of Tanchuma. It is found in the Targum, and its appearance where it is not really suitable in Tanchuma is only comprehensible as the collection of an already existing piece of exegesis of the biblical text utilised there. It does not seem possible to date it more exactly. Is the quotation of Dan. vii 13 an original part of this piece of exegesis? That is hardly possible to decide. Two separable thought processes are involved. The first, beginning from the assumption that the messiah is the last person in David's line, observes that 'anani is the last person of the Davidic line in I Chron. iii 24, and concludes that he is the messiah. The second finds scriptural support for this conclusion in Dan. vii 13. But these two points might have occurred to the same person almost simul- taneously, or the second might have occurred to a second person only long after the first, since it is in accordance with the normal methods of rabbinic exegesis, but it is not obvious. If the first point was held without the second, it is perfectly explicable that Dan. vii 13 was added later, as per Tanchuma. If the whole thing was thought of at once, it is perfectly understandable that the exegetical support should be left out, above all in a Targum, which is not replete with O.T. quotations.

When Dan. vii 13 was used for exegetical support as in Tanchuma, how was it understood? STRACK-BILLERBECK are quite happy to classify Tanch. Tol. 20 under the general heading of the messianic interpretation of 'one like a son of man', adding, with an evident desire to explain, "'Anani wird in diesen Stellen gedeutet = der mit den 'Wolken' kommende" 24). But we have seen that 'anani is being interpreted as a name of the messiah, on the basis of I Chron. iii 24. It is therefore not a title, and should not be translated. All that is required is that we take it to be the name of the messiah instead of a word for 'clouds'. ". . . and behold: with 'anani of heaven one like a man was coming". 'One like a man' is then a symbol of Israel in accordance with one of the standard interpretations of this verse, and the verse is held to contain what so many people would have liked it to contain-both the people of

24) Op. cit., vol. I p. 486. Similarly G. VERMES, Jesus the Jew, (1973) pp. 171-2 explains the interpretation in English "i.e. Cloud-Man" and links it with what he regards as other evidence of the messianic interpretation of Dan. vii I3 in antiquity.




Israel and their Messiah. The other exegetical tradition, which interprets the man-like figure as the messiah, is not compatible with finding the messiah in canane.

The reasons for the choice of Dan. vii 13 as exegetical support for finding the messiah in canani of I Chron. iii 24 emerge clearly from a consideration of alternative possibilities. In the consonantal text of the O.T., the word occurs in another 15 passages 25). In fact these are all examples of caneni, meaning 'answer me'. But that is of no consequence. The question is whether any of them could be reinterpreted to produce the required exegetical support for canani. Most of them offer no hope at all, the most plausible possibility being the isolation of mhr 'nni from Ps. lxix 19, cii 3 or cxliii 7 with the sense "'anani hastens". Dan. vii 13 is much simpler, for what we actually find in Tanchuma is the straightforward use of an actual sentence interpreted in one of the two ways which were standard throughout the rabbinical period with only the one small vowel change to bring in 'anani as required. And it is to this that bSan. 98b provides such an excellent parallel 26). A translation will, despite the inevitable distortions, illuminate the exegesis of the scriptural passages quoted.

"What is his (sc. the messiah's) name? The school of R. Shila said 'His name is Shilah, as it is written "until Shilah comes"' (Gen. xlix io). The school of R. Yannai said 'His name is Yinnon, as it is written "May his name be for ever: before the sun existed his name was Yinnon"' (Ps. lxxii 17). The school of R. IHanina said 'His name is iHaninah, as it is written "where I will not give you IHaninah"' (Jer. xvi 13). And there are some who say "His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, as it is written "for Menahem, the restorer of my soul, is far away" ' (Lam. i 16)".

The inadequacies of the Hebrew alphabet are especially irritating here, where they were so useful to rabbinic exegetes. But the main point is, I think, clear. The messianic exegesis of shlh in Gen. xlix Io was standard 27). So was the messianic exegesis of Ps. lxxii, in-

26) I Kings xviii 37, Ps. iv 2, xiii 4, xxvii 7, Iv 3, lx 7, lxix 14, 17, I8, lxxxvi 1, cii 3, cviii 7, cxix 145, cxliii I, 7.

26) For our purposes the parallels to these sayings elsewhere, notably Lam. R. I, I6, 51 and the similar saying of R. Abba of Sargunin in Gen R. I, 6 and parallels, may be ignored. On the names of the messiah cf. H. L. STRACK and P. BILLERBECK, op. cit., vol. I, p. 64 f.

27) See A. POZNANSKI, Schiloh (1904).

12



178 MAURICE CASEY

cluding verse 17 28); the Targum ad loc. is especially interesting as providing a messianic exegesis of this verse and certainly not regarding ynn as a messianic name, as some other rabbinic passages certainly do 29). Jer. xvi 13 and Lam. i 16 both provide pictures of national distress. Only their actualisation is required for the absence of the messiah to fit this picture perfectly 30). Thus we have here four examples of slight changes being made to accommodate the name of the messiah in an appropriate context. The same was done with Dan. vii 13 to accommodate the messianic name 'anani. This is the only O.T. text capable of accommodating 'anani in this way, and it is this, not the tradition of specifically messianic interpretation of the man-like figure, which explains the choice of Dan. vii 13 to support the identification of 'anani with the messiah. With the man-like figure taken as a symbol of the people of Israel in triumph, a perfect context for the insertion of the messiah is found.

We conclude therefore that this passage provides further evidence of the corporate interpretation of 'one like a son of man'. It has also emerged that 'anani is not a title created by Dan. vii 13, but a name drawn from I Chron. iii 24.

We now have two passages of rabbinical literature in which the original corporate interpretation of 'one like a son of man' has been preserved. Can we say anything useful about their date? Tanch. Tol. 20 does not take us safely further back than the compila- tion of Tanchuma-probably as late as the ninth century. Our saying in Midr. Ps. 21, 5 is attributed to Samuel: we could follow the conventions of rabbinical scholarship, identify him as Samuel bar Nachman, date him c. 260 A.D., and note his tradent R. Berekiah, a frequent tradent of Samuel bar Nachman's work, dated c. 340 A.D.31). But the conventions of rabbinical scholarship are not adequate, and the reliability of the traditional method of dating sayings by means of the rabbis to whom they are attributed has not been subjected to adequate critical investigation 32). For

28) See the passages collected by H. L. STRACK and P. BILLERBECK, Op. cit., index s.v.

29) E.g. bPes. 54a, PRE 32. 30) For an example of the actualizing exegesis of Lam. i 16, see Lam. R.

ad loc. 31) The dates are from H. L. STRACK and P. BILLERBECK, op. Cit., vol. V,

s.v. these rabbis. The other information about them from W. BACHER, Die Agada der Paldstinensischen Amorder, vol. I, (1892), p. 348.

32) On rabbinical scholarship in general, see Neusner's devastating ap-




our purposes, however, this need not cause serious concern. Our terminus a quo has been established in the book of Daniel: the precise date of the terminus ad quem is immaterial.

Confirmation of the existence of this interpretation among the Jews is provided by two more straightforward sources which are dateable. Rashi (1045-1105) and Ibn Ezra (Io89-II64) preserve it in their commentaries on Daniel 33). For Rashi we need, not the comment on verse 13 (often quoted, and indeed messianic), but the comment on verse 14. "He has compared the nations to beasts; Israel, however, he has compared to a son of man, because they are meek and faultless". For Ibn Ezra the most straightforward comment (it is not the only one) is to be found at verse 18. "Now here is the interpretation of the expression 'one like a son of man', that at the end the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and they will take possession of the kingdom for ever and ever".

Thus the corporate interpretation of the man-like figure was in use from the time of the composition of the book of Daniel onwards. In rabbinical literature, it is outnumbered by the messianic interpretation, but this is not difficult to explain. The grounds are formal. The corporate interpretation of 'one like a son of man' renders it generally unsuitable for midrashic use. It is significant that the one straightforward use of Dan. vii 13 in this sense, Midr. Ps. 21, 5, is not an example of its use as exegetical support for a statement of Jewish triumph, and has been misunderstood. In the second passage in which it is found, Tanch. Tol. 20, it was the only text that could provide the kind of exegetical support required, and again it has been misunderstood. It is in fact too obscure to be genuinely useful. The corporate interpretation of 'one like a son of man' may be clear enough in its context, where it is replaced in the angelic interpretation by the "saints of the Most High": but this context is removed when it is cited in the course of a midrashic exposition. This, together with the small quantity of the evidence, means that we cannot determine the relative strength of the two interpretative traditions, neither in the rabbinic period, nor in New Testament times, when the current exegesis of Dan. vii 13 is of such interest. pendix to his pioneering work-J. NEUSNER, Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees (1972), vol. 3, PP. 320 ff.

33) In the case of Ibn Ezra, I refer to the longer recension (the shorter recension has the messianic interpretation). For this, and for the text of Rashi, I have used the 1864 rabbinical bible.



180 MAURICE CASEY

The important result, however, is that the fact of the existence of this interpretation in the time of Jesus has been established. Moreover the place where the evidence has been found, and the means by which this conclusion has been established, are of general significance for historians of Christian Origins and of contemporary Judaism. Rabbinical literature and the mediaeval Jewish commentators are almost untapped as sources of early exegesis. This study has shown the original interpretation of 'one like a son of man' preserved: an outline of the original interpretation of the rest of Dan. vii was also preserved, mostly in Christian sources, but more relevantly by R. Hayyim Galipapa (1310-1380) 34). How much more early exegesis is to be found in these later sources we do not know, but further investigation of Jewish exegesis of O.T. passages known to have been important in the earliest period of Christianity might be very profitable.

34) Galipapa's work is apparently not extant: an account of his interpretation of Dan. vii is given by Joseph Albo, Sefer Ikkarim IV. 423-7. It is probable that Galipapa held the corporate interpretation of the man-like figure, as this explains Albo's silence on this point. A full account of the patristic evidence must be given elsewhere.



The Corporate Interpretation of 'One like a Son of Man' (Dan. VII 13) at the Time of Jesus

Documents

Transcript of The Corporate Interpretation of 'One like a Son of Man' (Dan. VII 13) at the Time of Jesus