Son of Man

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

A few examples will suffice. C. H. Kraeling, beginning from the assumption that there was a Son of man concept in Judaism, argued that in order to demonstrate that the Anthropos constituted the origin of the Son of man he had to show (1) that the Jewish figure in question cannot be explained adequately as a product of Hebrew thought; (2) that it and the proposed foreign prototype are basically homogeneous; (3) that the suggested prototype was actually adaptable to the expression of those Jewish ideas which it served to convey in the new environment. The trouble here lies right at the beginning, where his assumption that there was a Jewish Son of man concept which cannot be explained adequately as a product of Hebrew thought rests on his inability to understand Daniel 7 and the Similitudes of Enoch. With the failure of (1) the foreign prototype becomes irrelevant. Then 'basically homogeneous' conceals so many differences that only his difficulties in understanding the Jewish documents themselves could make his second point plausible.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

Bentzen has suggested that Daniel 7 is an eschatologizing of Psalm 2, which he thinks is derived from the enthronement ceremony celebrated at the New Year in Israel. There is some uncertainty as to whether there ever was an Israelite enthronement festival; there is no doubt that when Daniel was written no such ceremony had been celebrated in Israel for centuries. Daniel 7 has important contacts of thought with Psalm 2, but there is not sufficient evidence of the direct dependence that Bentzen seeks. On the contrary, there are important differences which he has to minimize. Above all Daniel 7 has no proper equivalent to the Anointed One in the Psalm: it is simply tendentious to claim that the man-like figure is his equivalent, when he is a symbol of the Saints and is not enthroned at all. Bentzen supposes that one of the thrones mentioned in verse 9 is reserved for him, but this is not stated in Daniel and has to be assumed to make Daniel 7 more like its posited source.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

Bentzen's position has been further developed by J. A. Emerton. Here again failure to understand the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra 13 is important, for Emerton puts them together with Daniel 7 and Sib. Or. V, 414-33 to get the Son of man imagery whose origin he seeks. Emerton then assimilates 'the Son of man' to a divine figure. This is just what the man-like figure is not. The author of Daniel 7 was a traditionalist defending the ancient Israelite faith against against foreign encroachment; nothing he says leads one to the improbable notion that he chose a time of desperate persecution for his faith to introduce a second deity into the monotheistic faith of Israel. The clouds function as a means of transport for the man-like figure and symbolize the fact that Israel was the chosen people of God. That in the Old Testament that God comes with them is no excuse for turning another figure coming with them into a deity. God may be likened to a man in Ezek. 1.26; that men are like men is more obvious, that angels are likened to men in Daniel and elsewhere is well-known, and that the author used a man as a pure symbol of the people of Israel is now comprehensible. Jebusite conjectures cannot be determinative for the views of a second-century conservative and Emerton's reliance on Canaanite evidence leads him to make a classic formulation of the faults of this line of this investigation. 'It is not explicitly stated that the Son of man kills the fourth beast, but the Canaanite parallels suggest that this occurred in the underlying myth.' This is to twist Daniel forcibly in a Canaanite direction. The fact is that in the Danielic text the man-like figure does not kill the fourth beast at all. The judgement is carried out by God alone, with the assistance of such assessors as may be. But the man-like figure does not come on stage until after the destruction of the fourth beast, so that he can symbolize the Israelite triumph. Canaanite parallels suggest otherwise because they are not sufficiently parallel; above all the pious Jew has not given us a second God.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

Mowinckel argues from the fact that 'with the clouds of heaven' is not interpreted that the author must have been using an existing mythological figure from which he got this item that he did not use. But from this it follows only that our author's interpretive style was not as rigid a Mowinckel imagines it should have been. The clouds perform an important symbolic function, associating the Saints of the Most High with God by providing their symbol with a heavenly origin, and they function as a means of transport. They are not interpreted simply because the author was not constructing a precise allegory. The origin of the beasts 'from the sea' is not interpreted, the peculiar features of the first three beasts are not interpreted, much of the symbolism of verses 9-10 is not interpreted either. This is not because the author could not understand his own symbolism, or took it over wholesale from a previous source. It is because he had sufficient literary and dramatic sense to construct a colourful dream to put forward his message. In the interpretation he concentrates on essentials. If the symbolic part of his dream were deprived of all features that do not appear in the interpretive part, it would be too feeble to form an effective piece of literature. That the author drew on previous sources for his imagery is true enough, but we should not assume he lacked creative originality by supposing that he must have drawn it wholesale in large units.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

The mythological interpretation of the man-like figure is therefore to be rejected. Beginning from an inability to interpret Jewish texts against a background of Jewish thought, it has utilized weak similarities in order to assert dependence on foreign material so alien as to necessitate frequent assumptions that the Danielic and other texts must once have meant something other than what they mean in their surviving form. These assumptions have not been justified.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

One of the most important recent theories about the man-like figure is that in some real sense he suffers. This theory arises from the Son of man problem in the New Testament, and its application to the text of Daniel is forced and unconvincing. It appears to have been broached first by C. F. D. Moule. He argues that in Daniel 7, as it now stands, 'the saints are symbolized by the Human One―not identified with, but represented by him: and if the saints are partially and temporarily eclipsed, only to be subsequently glorified, then exactly the same may be presumed to be appropriately predicated of the Human Figure'. It may not be presumed at all. It is nowhere stated, and it is inconsistent with his choice of a man as a symbol of triumph. The author could easily have said it in further extension at verse 8, which he could have had instead of the present insertion at verses 21-2. He did not do so, both for dramatic effect and because he in fact chose his man symbol as a symbol to portray Israel's triumph. 'If so, then the "Son of Man" already means "the representative of God's chosen people, destined through suffering to be exalted".' There are two further reasons why it does not: one is that the man-like figure is a pure symbol, so that the term 'representative' conceals an important difference between this figure and what Moule regards as the 'Son of man' in the Gospels. The second is that 'the Son of man' does not occur in Daniel at all: כבר אנשׁ is a figure like a son of man.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

Moule's position has been further developed by M. D. Hooker. Hooker realizes that the author 'may well have felt that the human figure was an inappropriate symbol for the people of Israel during their tribulation', but she nevertheless continues 'but the Son of man clearly represents in some way the saints of the Most High, and there can be no doubt at all that they suffered'. They did; but when the author meant this he said it, as in verse 21. She goes on 'unless we detach him from them and regard him as a separate figure with independent experiences we cannot dissociate him from what happens to them'. But it is not that the man-like figure has independent experiences; he is a pure symbol with no experiences at all, other than the symbolic ones in verses 13-14. To that extent he is a separate figure and he is to be disassociated from the suffering of the Saints. The author's hope of deliverance by God was not 'based on the fact that Israel is already the Son of man'. It was based on his faith in a reliable God who would deliver his people. Our author did not believe that Israel is, was, or would be 'the Son of man'; he simply chose a man-like figure to symbolize Israel in triumph. We should not suppose that he believed Israel was 'the Son of man' because that is not what he says; and he does not say that 'the Son of man', or the man-like figure, suffers either.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

The conclusions of this discussion may now be summarized. The man-like figure is a pure symbol of the 'Saints of the Most High', the faithful people of Israel. In choosing this symbol of them our author used old and simple Jewish ideas. He chose it to represent them coming in triumph, so that they are not mentioned as suffering under the little horn until the man-like figure has been interpreted as the Saints of the Most High. His coming in triumph to be given sovereignty by God symbolizes the forthcoming triumph of the Jews over Antiochus Epiphanes and the Macedonians, a triumph which was to be achieved by means of divine intervention.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

An interpreting angel now appears in Daniel's dream. He undertakes to provide the interpretation of what Daniel has seen, and goes straight into the summary interpretation of verses 17-18, where he says that the four beasts represents four kings who will arise from the earth. This is simply a way of saying that they represent the four kingdoms. The king represented his kingdom in a very straightforward way, and Daniel's interpreters often identify the beasts either as kingdoms or by means of their most outstanding kings, evidently regarding both as symbolically interchangeable. The main function of this summary interpretation is to identify the man-like figure as the Saints of the Most High, so that Daniel can see them suffer under the little horn before a fuller interpretation is suppled. Most interpreters have supposed that the Saints of the Most High are the Jewish people, but in recent years their identification has been a subject of considerable debate, and the opinion has been growing that they are in fact angels. Stated by Procksh, this view has been properly developed by Noth and Dequeker, and refuted by Brekelmans and Hasel. One of the most significant statements of the evidence is that of Dequeker, who in his second attempt to advocate the view that the 'Saints' are angels has to admit 'Reading the verses 21 and 25 for themselves, without taking into account the Redaktionsgeschichte of the chapter, one comes necessarily to the conclusion that "the Saints" must be understood as the faithful Jewish people, persecuted by Antiochus Epiphanes'. Quite so, and Noth had already admitted as much. This is important, because it means that even if Noth and Dequeker are right, the interpretation of the Saints as the Jews was held in 166-165 B.C., and this supplies a terminus a quo for the corporate interpretation of the man-like figure as a symbol of the Jewish people. It is also an admission which undermines much of their argument.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

The fundamental statement is that of 7.27. It is the author's longest and most explicit statement of the triumph of the Saints, and here he calls them 'the people of the Saints of the Most High'. The use of the term עַם, 'people', enables us to deduce that this is the Jewish people in triumph. Noth argued that עם here means 'host', and sought to justify this by appealing to 1QH III, 21. In that passage, however, we must follow most scholars (including Dequeker) in interpreting עם as עִם, 'with'. This makes excellent sense, saying that the psalmist will be united in community with the angels. עַם is never employed either at Qumran or in the O.T. with reference to angels or celestial beings. In Daniel 7.27 it should be taken in a straight forward way as a reference to the Jewish people. The triumph of 'the people of the Saints of the Most High' in verse 27 is clearly the same event as the triumph of 'the Saints of the Most High' in verses 18 and 22, and of 'the Saints' in verse 22. Therefore these phrases also refer to the Jewish people. Therefore the expression עם קדישׁי עליונין in verse 27 begins with a use of the construct state equivalent to an epexegetical genitive and it may be rendered (over literally, to bring out the construction and meaning) 'the people which consists of the Saints of Most High'.

From The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Eerdmans, 1984, 1998), by John J. Collins (page 106):

The link between the holy ones and the Jewish people is clarified in Daniel 7:27, which says that "the kingdom and the dominion of the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High." The genitival relationship of the people to the holy ones is analogous to that of the holy ones to the Most High.* Daniel 7:27 compliments 7:18, where the holy ones receive the kingdom. In view of the homology between the holy ones, a kingdom that is given to one is given to the other.

The interpretation of the holy ones as angels fits naturally with the identification of the one like a son of man as Michael, the leader of the heavenly host. The relation between this figure and the holy ones, then is not identity but representation. ....

....

Daniel 7 does not mention Michael by name, as indeed it does not mention any proper names. The suppression of proper names lends an air of mystery to the whole vision. The specific identification of the one like a son of man is not of ultimate importance. What matters is that there is a heavenly savior figure who represents the righteous community on the supernatural level. This figure is specified in various ways in different texts. Michael is named explicitly in Daniel 10―12 and 1QM. Melchizedek in 11QMelch, "that son of man" in the Similitudes of Enoch, the man from the sea in 4 Ezra 13, and the Son of Man in the New Testament all fill this function with varying nuances. Apocalyptic thought allows for considerable fluidity in its mythological conceptions. Although there is now general agreement that the Son of Man was not a title in pre-Christian Judaism, the mysterious figure in Daniel represents a type that is widespread in the apocalyptic literature.

....

*Contra Casey, who takes it as "the people consisting of the holy ones" (Son of Man, 41).

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

This makes excellent sense of all of the author's statements about the Saints of the Most High. The summary interpretation of verses 17-18 provides a summary statement of their triumph. At verse 21 Daniel sees the little horn making war on the Saints. Antiochus' persecution of and war against the Jewish people called forth the Book of Daniel, so that prominent mention of the war is natural. Verse 22 has the controversial statement

ודינא יהיב לקדישׁי עליונין

Most scholars have argued that it means that judgement was given in favour of the Saints of the Most High, but some have suggested that it means that judgement was given into the hands of the Saints of the Most High, that is, they became the judges.. Both are sound in Aramaic, and there is not justification for emending the text. LXX and Theodotion both imply יְהַב, but none of the versions helps with the point in dispute. Parallels are adduced from Wisd. 3.8; Matt. 19.28; 1 Cor. 6.2; Rev. 20.4: the first especially suggests what our author might have believed, but none tells us what he in fact meant, for this must be extracted from the text of Daniel, which is decisively in favour of the first possibility. That judgement was entered in favour of the man-like figure is presupposed by the symbolism of verses 13-14. That judgement was given in favour of the Saints is presupposed in their triumph in verses 18 and 27. The same cannot be said of the other view. In the symbolic account, God judges with the assistance of his angelic court. The man-like figure does not judge at all. In the interpretive comments, there is no suggestion of the Saints becoming the judges in verse 18, which might be dismissed as too short for that purpose, or in verses 26-7, where its absence would be remarkable. Moreover, the destruction is the result of a judgement that must be given before the destruction can take place. The Saints of the Most High would be in no position to be judges until they had been delivered.

The next statement about the Saints is at 7.25,

ולקדישׁי עליונין יבלא

'and he will wear out the Saints of the Most High'. This is the interpretation of verse 21, so that some reference to Antiochus' activity against the Jewish people is required, and comparative philology provides an appropriate sense for יבלא. Brekelmans pointed out that the Akkadian balu/belu is used in the intensive of destroying people, and Hasel notes the similar use of the Hebrew בלה. Noth's objection that יבלא in the sense of 'wear out, destroy' should should not have a personal object is therefore inaccurate. Antiochus offended God and attacked the people of God, so that the parallelism here is perfectly sound and may not be held to favour the view that the Saints are angels. It is difficult to be certain whether this verse concludes with another statement about the Saints, because the subject of 'and they shall be given' is problematical. Is it the Saints of the Most High from verse 25a, or is it the previous words 'times and the Law'? On balance, it is perhaps better to take the Saints as the subject, on the ground that this makes the more straightforward sense. The whole verse now makes excellent sense in accordance with the view that the Saints of the Most High are the Jewish people. To interpret them as the angels not only creates difficulties at this level, but also involves the omission of the suffering of the Jewish people under Antiochus from the main interpretive section of the dream. On general grounds, that is not a probable result; when the text can be interpreted of them so easily, it is willful to do otherwise.

It should be noted that קדישׁי עליונין is linguistically ambiguous as to whether it means "the Saints of the Most High (i.e., people), or "the Holy Ones of the Most High" (i.e. angels). That fact should be borne in mind as one reads Casey's thesis and compares it with comments by scholars such as John J. Collins. More will be presented in that regard as the thread continues.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

There is no statement about the Saints in verse 26, but this verse is directly relevant because it deals with the heavenly court. From the opening words 'and the court sat' it is clear that the court really exists and is not merely symbolism in verse 10. The collocation of verses 26 and 27 makes it clear that the Saints benefit from the decision, and do not constitute the court. If the Saints are the Jewish people, this is straightforward. The court are the reason for the plural number of יהדעון, 'and they shall take away'. The destruction of the power of Antiochus for ever necessarily accomplishes the demise of the whole fourth kingdom, and the triumph of the people of the Saints of the Most High follows in verse 27. The suffix in מלכותה picks up the last mentioned singular עם so that we would translate 'their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom', and the remainder of the verse accurately portrays the situation symbolized in verse 14 in much the same language. Dequeker asserts that it refers to the Most High, but his assertion is accompanied by more dogma than argument. Daniel 3.33 [= 4:3 in English versions]; Psa. 145.13 do not count against the usual view; it should be clear enough that the sovereignty which the Saints receive remains the sovereignty of God when they have received it, and it was celebrated elsewhere as such. To assert that פלח in Daniel refers only to the gods is arbitrary and of unsound method. The Aramaic word פלח has a semantic range which includes service to human beings (necessarily of unusually exalted status). To say that an author uses only part of a word's semantic area x times is not to demonstrate that he could not use the rest of it too (especially when x has a low value, here no more than 6). The evidence of the text before us is that Daniel used it of service to human beings in verse 27, and symbolized this by his use of it in the case of a pure symbol in verse 14. But the basic trouble with Dequeker's view is his failure to understand the man-like figure in verse 13.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

It is therefore to be concluded that all statements about the 'Saints', 'the Saints of the Most High' and 'the people of the Saints of the Most High' in Daniel 7 make excellent sense on the traditional view that they are the Jewish people. Some of them do not make sense in any other view, and the theories of redaction history on which these other views depended have been shown to be unsound. The view that the 'Saints' are the Jewish people is therefore correct. It fits well with the evidence of the rest of the book, and with the general cultural background. A corresponding dream and interpretation, form the hand of the same author, is to be found in Daniel 2. God will set up his kingdom, 'and his kingdom will never pass to another people' (2.44) because the Jewish people, the chosen people of God, have got it forever. There is not mention of angels at all. Daniel 8.24 is difficult because of textual uncertainty, but at least it is clear that Antiochus will be persecuting 'the people of the Saints', that is again, the Jewish people. The parallelism of the dream and the interpret ion cannot require that the people of the Saints are the host and the stars in the dream, though they may indeed be symbolized by them. Chapter 12 supports the same picture: it is the Jewish people who will be delivered in 12.1, 'the holy people' as they are called in 12.7.

The following comment on pages 104-105 of The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Second Edition (Eerdmans, 1998), by John J. Collins, applies to the above as well as the next several paragraphs by Casey:

.... The expression "holy ones," used substantively, in the Hebrew Bible refers to angels or supernatural beings in the great majority of cases. ....

Although the philological evidence is not conclusive, it must be held to create a balance of probability. The probability is strengthened by the fact that the unambiguous occurrences in the book of Daniel itself (4:10, 14, 20; 8:13)* refer to angels, and the "holy ones," in 1 Enoch 14:22-23, a passage closely related to Daniel 7, are all clearly angelic.

Objections to taking the holy ones as angels have been raised mainly on the basis of Daniel 7:21 ("the horn made war on the holy ones and prevailed on them") and 7:25 ("He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High"). It is not, of course, disputed that the experiential datum that give rise to these assertions is the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus. The issue, again, is how that conflict is conceptualized and symbolized. We have seen that the battle between angelic forces is explicit in Daniel 10―12. In 11:26 we read that Antiochus will exalt and magnify himself above every god and "speak astonishing things against the God of gods." In a parallel passage in 8:10, the little horn "grew great, even to the host of heaven; and some of the stars it cast down to the ground and trampled on them." Here the horn quite explicitly fights with the heavenly host. The stars, which are cast to the ground, were commonly identified with angels or gods both in Israel and elsewhere in the ancient Near East. In the light of this passage the objection to the angelic interpretation in 7:21 and 25 cannot be sustained.

*The expression "holy people" (ʿam-qōḏeš [עַם־קֹדֶשׁ in] 12:7) cannot be regarded as an equivalent linguistic expression to "holy ones" (contra Casey, Son of Man, 44-45).

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

Remember the note at the bottom of this post as you read Casey's comment below and elsewhere.

This evidence is completely consistent. Only the terminology, 'Saints', 'Saints of the Most High', 'people of the Saints of the Most High', 'people of the Saints', 'holy people', is variable, and no one has yet given any satisfactory reason for thinking that the author should have been consistent. Nor should the terminology be regarded as surprising. The Jews had regarded themselves as a holy people for a very long time. The Hebrew language always permitted but never demanded that this be expressed by means of a nominal adjective קדושׁים in isolation. This certainly occurs, used of the pious, in Psa. 34.10. Some of them certainly termed themselves 'holy ones' in this intertestimental period, as event Dequeker says. Even Noth and Dequeker think that קדישׁין was so understood by the Maccabean redactor of Daniel 7. This is sufficient to undermine any argument that קדישׁין on its own ought to be understood of angels rather than men. Yet the main thrust of the argument has been towards showing that קדישׁין on its own could denote 'angels'. Certainly it could; it has next to be shown that it actually did in this chapter. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of that version of Daniel 7 which emerges from the work of Noth and Dequeker is that the Jewish people are left out of it altogether. This has suited some Gentile scholars, but it was hardly the purpose of a Jewish writer, nor is it a likely outcome of the use of 'opposition history'.

From John J. Collins (op. cit.);

We should emphasize that the interpretation of the holy ones as the angelic host does not in any case exclude reference to the persecuted Jews. Scholars who reject this interpretation have failed to grasp the nature of the homology between the heavenly and earthly worlds in ancient Near Eastern thought. In modern thinking we assume the priority of human experience and see the mythological world of the gods as a projection. In the ancient world, in contrast, the priority of the world of the gods is assumed, and earthly affairs are regarded as reflections of the greater reality. This homology is quite explicit in Daniel 10, where the struggle between Jews and Greeks is viewed as a battle between their angelic patrons. The link between the holy ones and the Jewish people is clarified in Daniel 7:27, which says that "the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High." The genitival relationship of the people of the holy ones is analogous to that of the holy ones of the Most High. Daniel 7:27 complements 7:18, where the holy ones receive the kingdom. In view of the homology between the people and the holy ones, a kingdom that is given to one is given to both.

[John Reece]

Son of Man

Continuation of Chapter 2, titled 'Daniel 7', in Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, by Maurice Casey:

The general background material has finally been straightened out by Hasel. He concludes his survey of it: 'From the traditio-historical perspective the dual attribution of holiness to beings in the celestial and terrestrial realms not only antedates the usage of adjectives derived from the root q d s in the book of Daniel but also reflected in later extra-canonical Jewish literature of the pre-Christian era'. Noth's attempt to limit reconsideration of the evidence to the substantival use of the adjective is linguistically absurd and generally of unsound method. Any attempt to set up a general presumption on favour of 'the holy ones' being angels is therefore unsound. The decision as to whether they are angelic or human beings must therefore be made on the basis of the evidence of Daniel 7 alone, and we have seen that this demonstrates decisively that the reference is to the Jewish people.

From John J. Collins, op. cit.:

The link between the holy ones and the Jewish people is clarified in Daniel 7:27, which says that "the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High. The genitival relationship of the people of the holy ones is analogous to that of the holy ones of the Most High.* Daniel 7:27 complements 7:18, where the holy ones receive the kingdom. In view of the homology between the people and the holy ones, a kingdom that is given to one is given to both.

*Contra Casey, who takes it as "the people consisting of the holy ones" (Son of Man, p. 41). Note, however, the interpretation of Goldingay, Daniel, 143, 146, who takes the phrase as "the holy ones on high."