The interpretation of Daniel VII in Jewish and patristic literature and in the New Testament: an approach to the Son of Man problem

Daniel vii was written by one conservative Jew in 166-5 B.C. The man-like figure of vs 13 is an empty symbol of faithful Jews, the Saints of the Most High, in triumph. The Maccabean victory of I64. B.C, gave rise to two exegetical traditions. The "syrian" tradition identified the Maccabean victory as the predicted triumph, and preserved a complete outline of the original author's interpretation of Daniel vii. The "western" tradition retained the eschatological orientation of vss 9-14, and continually revised its interpretation of the chapter in accordance with an actualizing exegesis. The Jewish version of this tradition preserved the original corporate interpretation of the man-like figure. Other ‘western’ Jews identified him as the Messiah, and one early group identified him as Enoch. The western Christian tradition identified him as Jesus at his second coming. There was no "Son of man concept” in Judaism. No trace survives of any use of Daniel vii by the historical Jesus. There are no formula quotations of it in the New Testament, and the only New Testament writer who made much use of it was the author of Revelation. It was influential in the formation of one group of Son of man sayings: Mk xiii.26, xiv.62, viii.38c, Mt xxiv.44//Lk xii.40, Mt x.23, xvi.28, xxv.31, Lk xviii.8. All these sayings are to be attributed to the early church, some of whose members searched the Old Testament for the return of their Lord and found it at Daniel vii.13.14. These sayings probably originated in Greek. Mark and Matthew both recognized some use of Da vii.l3, and belonged to the western Christian tradition. The origin of the Gospel term “the Son of man” is to be found elsewhere