Daniel 7:14

[John Reece]

From The International Critical Commentary, Daniel, by James A. Montgomery (pages 303-304):

.... The seer beholds, wafted in the upper atmosphere with a nimbus of a cloud, a human figure coming (AV ignores the climax of the syntax of the original); he comes to (literally, 'arrives at') the Ancient, he is presented before him, as is the custom in royal courts, and to him is then given universal and everlasting dominion.

....

The passive 'he was presented' (JV 'he was brought near') is the proper rendering of the Aramaic idiom of the act. pl.; cf. verse 5 and Note at 2:12. The idea is of a royal audience; cf. the identical קרבתיך קרם סנחאריב, 'I presented thee before Sennacherib,' .... Also וַיַּצִּנַם לפני פריה, English versions 'presented them,' Gen. 47:2. There follows in verse 14 the description of the viceregal investiture of the humanlike being. The the attribution of dominion and glory and sovereignty, cf. the similar terms used of Nebuchadnezzar's imperial power, 4:33, 6:18. The verse depends with its expression of an incorruptible kingdom upon 2:44. ....

[John Reece]

Excerpts from Hermeneia, Daniel, by John J. Collins (pages 304-311, selectively):

13. Excursus: "One like a human being" one like a human being: Scarcely any passage in the Hebrew Bible has engendered as much controversy as this phrase. .... The philological meaning. There is nearly universal consensus that the phrase means simply 'one like a human being.' The corresponding Hebrew phrases בן אנושׁ (Ps 144:3) or, more commonly בן אדם are found only in poetic or solemn diction in the Hebrew Bible. It is often used in parallelism with a generic word for humanity, for example, in Job 25:6 "how much less man (אנושׁ) a maggot/the son of man (בן אדם) a worm." .... The preposition כ , "like" is best understood as indicating the mode of perception proper to a vision, so that "like a son of man" means "a human figure seen in a vision," where the figure may or may not represent something other than a human being.

....

13. with the clouds of heaven : .... The preposition עם "with" is variously rendered in the versions. Montgomery sees here a theological nuance, arguing that a deity would come on the clouds, but there is no basis for the distinction. The text does not indicate whether the figure is ascending or descending or moving horizontally.

The entourage of clouds gives rise to the epithet ענני, applied to the messiah in rabbinic tradition. The clouds were identified as angels by Pseudo-Saadia.

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 ὡς for ἕως, followed by a 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.

14. to him was given dominion: The language of this verse echoes earlier verses in Daniel 1-6. The sovereignty, glory, and dominion recall the kingdom given to Nebuchadnezzar in 2:37; 5:18. The peoples, nations, and languages constitute a cliché, found already in 3:4, among others. The indestructibility of the kingdom recalls that of 2:44 but more particularly the sovereignty attributed to God in 3:33; 6:27. The first, Babylonian kingdom provides the main standard of glory, which the eschatological kingdom will surpass. These echoes of the terminology of the earlier chapters provide continuity between chapter 7 and the older parts of the book.

[robrecht]

I've been asking for the opinions of actual linguists since this thread started. If you can give me one, I would appreciate it. But it seems that all anyone wants to talk about is the opinions of theologians.

Actually, you are attempting a primairly theological interpretation, in addition to minimizing the work of scholars who attempt first to understand the text from a liguistic perspective, and in addition to misrepresenting my question to you and being insulting, which you still have not taken responsibility for. Your OP asked if anyone could make a plausible case for what is in fact your own theological view. As far as I know, no one has made a plausible case for this view. No reputable scholar would make a plausible linguistic case for your theological view because your view introduces ideas, characters, and theology that are anachronistic and foreign to the text itself, rather than looking at the text in its multiple original contexts. If you just want to understand the Aramaic grammar, we can go down that road, if you show yourself to be a responsible partner in disussion. If one ignores good linguistic methodology, which takes seriously the original contexts of the text, you could say that the antecedent of the particular pronoun you want to focus on is ambiguous from a strictly grammatical perspective, in Aramaic as also in English, but such a purely grammatical analysis does not make for a plausible argument in support of any particular interpretation. When there are multiple pronouns continuing to interact, it is not a strong argument to claim that the preceding pronoun or noun or participle must be the antecedent. Much more important in a case such as this is the 'logic' of the text and context, for example where and how the Ancient of Days and one like a son of man function in the larger context, and how these figures were understood in the cultural context of the original author and readers. In these respects, the lingusitic commentaries that John has posted and the questions I have posed to you are entirely relevant. Your responses of minimizing the work of linguistic scholars and misrepresenting and insulting will not serve you well in trying to find a plausible argument for your view or to understand the plausible arguments of others.

[Obsidian]

If you just want to understand the Aramaic grammar, we can go down that road, if you show yourself to be a responsible partner in disussion. If one ignores good linguistic methodology, which takes seriously the original contexts of the text, you could say that the antecedent of the particular pronoun you want to focus on is ambiguous from a strictly grammatical perspective, in Aramaic as also in English

This is basically all I wanted to know. I respect the opinions of people who know things that I do not, such as foreign languages. I do not respect the opinions of others when it comes to theology.

[robrecht]

This is basically all I wanted to know. I respect the opinions of people who know things that I do not, such as foreign languages. I do not respect the opinions of others when it comes to theology.

Nor are you able to be respectful of others in a civil discussion.

[robrecht]

This is basically all I wanted to know.

No, this is not what you asked in your OP. Here is what you asked:

Can a plausible argument be made that God is receiving the kingdom from Jesus, rather than the other way around?

And precisely this is what you deleted from my sentence you just misquoted:

... but such a purely grammatical analysis does not make for a plausible argument in support of any particular interpretation. When there are multiple pronouns continuing to interact, it is not a strong argument to claim that the preceding pronoun or noun or participle must be the antecedent. Much more important ...

[Obsidian]

I meant to imply an interest in foreign language simply by posting in the Biblical Languages subforum. So far, all the objections that I am hearing are theological (the verses just don't mean that) or sociological (the Jews didn't think that way).

Ultimately, I think it is possible that "clouds" refers either to saints (as in Hebrews 12:1), or else just to power in general (as in Psalm 97:2). If the son of man already has a swarm of saints, or already has great powerful thunderclouds at his disposal, then it doesn't make sense why he would still need to receive power from God. It makes more sense that he would be turning his authority over to God.

I am open to the idea that this belief is false. However, the chronology of Daniel 7 makes no sense if this verse is referring to Jesus's ascension. As we already discussed, Jesus did not receive praise from all peoples at his ascension. Secondly, there was no little horn that was destroyed at his ascension.

[John Reece]

However, the chronology of Daniel 7 makes no sense if this verse is referring to Jesus's ascension.

I have probably caused some confusion by taking Jesus' allusion to the Son of Man in Daniel 7 to imply an interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14.

An allusion to does not necessarily mean an interpretation of, at least not in the sense of the original/primary meaning.

From Hermeneia, Daniel, by John J. Collins (page 281):

Literary influence ordinarily involves tearing motifs or patterns from the context and transferring them to another. To take a familiar example, there is no doubt that Mark 13:26 ("then they will see the son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory") is influenced by Daniel 7. The Markan passage reproduces very little of Daniel's vision: it is not presented as a dream or vision, there is no mention of the sea or beasts or the Ancient of Days, and so forth. Yet the particularity of the description of the Son of Man is intelligible only if we catch the allusion to Daniel. The allusion is assured by the fact that a few motifs are clustered together (Son of Man, clouds, power and glory), but the correspondence between the two texts is by no means complete. What is required, then, is not holistic correspondence but that the use of a particular image be rendered intelligible by analogy with the proposed prototype.

As I understand it now, Daniel 7 helps to understand Mark 13:26 (for me, in terms of France's exegesis); however, Mark 13:26 does not help to understand Daniel 7.

The little horn was most likely a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, whose life and fate long predated that of Jesus.

To find Jesus at all in the original meaning of Daniel 7 seems to be a case of projecting a subsequent-in-time historical personage backwards into a text that was not primarily or originally about Him.

[robrecht]

Exactly so.

[Obsidian]

Antiochus Epiphanes doesn't fit Daniel 7 whatsoever.

The difference between Mark and Daniel is that in Daniel, the son of man is going toward God whereas in Mark, the son of man is (seemingly) coming toward the Jews. Hence, Daniel 7 makes the most sense as referring to either the ascension (as preterists often argue, but which I don't think makes sense, for the reasons listed above) or to some other event where Jesus is proceeding toward God. Hence, my idea. Jesus is done fighting and is turning things over.

[robrecht]

Antiochus Epiphanes doesn't fit Daniel 7 whatsoever.

The difference between Mark and Daniel is that in Daniel, the son of man is going toward God whereas in Mark, the son of man is (seemingly) coming toward the Jews. Hence, Daniel 7 makes the most sense as referring to either the ascension (as preterists often argue, but which I don't think makes sense, for the reasons listed above) or to some other event where Jesus is proceeding toward God. Hence, my idea. Jesus is done fighting and is turning things over.

Again, have you found any scholars who agree with you? If not, why do you suppose that no scholars agree with your reading of the text of Daniel?

The gospel of Mark does not merely cite the text of Daniel but also modifies and interprets it in a new context. Note that Jesus says to the chief priests, elders and scribes of Jerusalem that they will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. This same allusion to Daniel 7 is found already in Mark 8,38-9,1 and again in 13,26-30 in the discourse on the destruction of the temple and both times referring to something that will occur in that very same generation.

[John Reece]

To quote a world-class scholar, 'exactly so'.

[robrecht]

To quote a world-class scholar, 'exactly so'.

Characteristically, you are too kind, John. We are all amateurs when it comes to understanding God's word and putting it into practice. I wouldn't have it any other way because love is the only motivation worthy of the task.

[John Reece]

Characteristically, you are too kind, John. We are all amateurs when it comes to understanding God's word and putting it into practice. I wouldn't have it any other way because love is the only motivation worthy of the task.

Even better: an appropriately humble world-class scholar.