Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.

4 (2011) 453–461

Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14

and Matthew’s Son of Man

h. daniel zacharias
acadia divinity college

The earliest witnesses to Old Greek Dan 7 equate the Son of Man with God and
represent a perspective of Dan 7 that likely existed in the first century a.d. This
throne vision coheres with the Son of Man sayings in Matthew and indicates that
the evangelist was familiar with a similar textual tradition. The evangelist has the
Son of Man coming on (not with) the clouds, puts the angels in his charge, and
places him on the glorious throne where he judges the nations. All of this coheres
with Dan 7 as represented by the Old Greek.
Key Words: Daniel, Gospel of Matthew, Old Greek, Theodotion, LXX, Son of Man

Introduction
There are three ancient versions of Daniel—the Masoretic Text (MT), the
Old Greek (OG), and the Theodotion (Θ) versions. Besides the obvious addi-
tions to Daniel present in the Greek versions, Θ-Dan is otherwise a pedantic
translation of the Semitic version. This is not the case with the OG version of
Daniel—at several places the OG can be understood quite differently. One
such passage, and a favorite of the synoptics and presumably Jesus, is the
vision of Dan 7 and the one like a “Son of Man” (SM). It is recognized by
Matthean scholars that the evangelist preferred the LXX 1 or a comparable
Greek text. At times, the LXX version is unique, and “from time to time
the point Matthew wants to make depends on a form of text preserved
in the LXX.” 2 This may be the case when the OG version of Dan 7:13–14
is placed alongside Matthew’s discussion of the SM. The purpose of this
article is to show that the evangelist likely knew a textual tradition very
similar to the throne vision preserved in OG-Dan 7, and the peculiarities
of the OG tradition helped to shape Matthew’s portrait of the SM 3 and

1.  Though Matthew shows preference for the LXX, this is not exclusive. See, for ex-
ample, R. T. France’s discussion on the formula quotations: Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 173ff.
2.  John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 29.
3.  This paper is in part a fuller attempt to understand the similarities of OG-Dan 7:13
with Matthew that Timothy McLay has already pointed out. See R. Timothy McLay, The Use of
the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 155–58.

Offprint from: Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.4 (2011)

ç Copyright 2011 The Institute for Biblical Research.
All rights reserved.
454 Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.4

Table 1. Daniel 7:13 in Θ, MT, and OG

Theodotion Masoretic Text Old Greek
ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς ‫חזה הוית בחזוי ליליא‬ ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς
καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν ‫וארו עם ענני‬ καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ‫ׁשמיא כבר אנׁש‬ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου
ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ ‫אתה הוה ועד־עתיק‬ ἤρχετο καὶ [ἕ]ὡςa παλαιὸς
τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασε ‫יומיא מטה‬ ἡμερῶν παρῆν
καὶ προσήχθη αὐτῷ ‫וקדמוהי‬ καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν
προσηνέχθη [Rahlf’s = καὶ ‫הקרבוהי‬ [προσήγαγον]b αὐτῷ
ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ προσηνέχθη]
a.  The epsilon is placed in brackets by Ziegler and Munnich, who believe the missing
epsilon was a scribal error.
b.  Zeigler and Sharon Pace Jeansonne (The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12 [CBQMS
19; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988], 98) argue that the Pap. 967
(early 3rd century) and 88-Syh (7th century) reading of παρῆσαν is a secondary corruption of
προσήγαγον, which is attested in the 88-Syh margin and Justin Martyr, Dial. 31. This may be
true, but the earliest witnesses do not have προσήγαγον and the manuscript evidence leads to
the conclusion that Matthew, if he was familiar with OG-Daniel or a similar tradition, may
have been familiar with Greek Daniel, as it is represented by Pap. 967.

consequently contributed to Matthew’s high Christology. The following

sections will (1) analyze OG-Daniel’s textual and lexical differences with
the MT/Θ, (2) describe how the author of Matthew used Mark’s SM say-
ings, and (3) compare five SM sayings in Matthew with OG-Dan 7:13–14.
The differences between the OG version of Dan 7:13–14 and the MT
and Θ versions are significant. Table 1 compares Dan 7:13, utilizing Olivier
Munnich’s 4 critical edition of the OG (but see discussion).

The Text of Daniel

While Θ is a fairly pedantic rendering of the MT, the OG version exhibits
clear and distinctive characteristics. There are three lines of argument for
explaining the differences in the OG:
1. One initial scribal error (the dropping of the epsilon from ἕως)
was followed by several hyper-corrections (either all at once or in
stages) of παλαιοῦ to the nominative, προσήγαγον to παρῆσαν, and
finally αὐτοῦ (αὑτόν) to the dative form αὐτῷ. S. Pace Jeansonne as
well as A. Yarbro Collins have argued this point. 5

4.  Joseph Ziegler and Olivier Munnich, Susanna—Daniel—Bel et Draco. Editio secunda:
Versionis iuxta LXX interpretes textum plane novum constituit Olivier Munnich (Septuaginta: Vetus
Testamentum Graecum 16/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999). Munnich’s updated
edition reiterates Ziegler’s original conclusions and reconstruction at 7:13.
5. Jeansonne, Old Greek, 97–98; and Adela Yarbro Collins, “The ‘Son of Man’ Tradition
and the Book of Revelation,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed.
James H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 554–55. Although these two scholars have
argued for the error hypothesis, Loren Stuckenbruck notes that they were not the first. James
 Zacharias: Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man 455

2. The Semitic Vorlage of the OG may have been different. 6

3. The motivation for change had to do more with theological
motivation to equate the SM with the Ancient of Days, as is
argued by Loren T. Stuckenbruck. 7
My purpose is not to enter into the discussion of how the differences of the
OG arose but to recognize the important implications of the OG version. 8
R. Timothy McLay states:
Regardless of whether it originated with the OG translator or very
soon afterwards, at some point at least some (the only three manu-
scripts for OG Daniel that we have did!) witnesses to OG Dan 7:13
read and he came as the Ancient of Days. Thus, the textual evidence sug-
gests that during the NT period the text of OG Dan 7:13 could have
been read as identifying the Son of Man with the Ancient of Days. 9
What is important for the present discussion is that during the first century
the throne vision of Dan 7 seems to have been known in at least two forms,
those preserved in the OG and in the Θ/MT, with the OG version equating
the SM with the Ancient of Days.

The Distinctives of Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14

The OG has the SM coming as (ὡς) the Ancient of Days and the SM coming
on (ἐπί) the clouds rather than with the clouds 10 and concludes 7:13 with
καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ. Tim McLay’s translation is “the attendants
were present with him.” 11 Οἱ παρεστηκότες is functioning as a substantival
participle coming from παρίστημι, which describes someone “placed beside,

A. Montgomery suggested a scribal error in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Daniel (ICC; London: T. & T. Clark, 1927). See Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “ ‘One Like a Son of Man
as the Ancient of Days’ in the Old Greek Recension of Daniel 7,13: Scribal Error or Theological
Translation?” ZNW 86 (1995): 268–69.
6.  Johan Lust has cautiously suggested this possibility. See Johan Lust, “Daniel 7:13 and
the Septuagint,” ETL 54 (1978): 66.
7.  On the equating the SM with the Ancient of Days, see p. 463 n. 37; see also Stuck-
enbruck, “Scribal Error,” 268–76. It should be mentioned that A. Yarbro Collins argues against
this type of position by stating that “the use of prepositions in the OG of Daniel is not stan-
dardized, and ἐπί is the most common preposition. It is unlikely, as some have argued, that the
translator’s choice of ἐπὶ was theologically motivated” (Collins, “Book of Revelation,” 540–41).
Collins is incorrect on this point: ἐν is the most common preposition, used 221 times, followed
by ἐπί, which is used 178 times, and εἰς, 166 times. All of these prepositions in OG-Daniel are
following their stereotypical Greek translations.
8.  See Stuckenbruck, “Scribal Error,” 268–72, for a summary of the arguments for and
against the scribal error theory, as well as his footnotes citing all of the major contributors on
both sides of the discussion. I side with Stuckenbruck in this argument.
9. McLay, The Use of the Septuagint, 157.
10.  This difference in preposition is an important one and will be discussed at length
below. The Peshitta version of Dan 7:13 also agrees with OG-Daniel.
11.  Albert Pietersma and Benjamin C. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Sep-
tuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
456 Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.4

Table 2. ‫ ִעם‬in Theodotion Daniel

Translation (35 total) Number Percentage a
μετά 28 80%
datives, genitives, or left untranslated 4 11%
πρός 1 3%
εἰς 2 6%
a.  Percentages do not take into account the lacking counterparts. I have left the percent-
age column in tables 2 and 3 for comparison with table 4.

put at one’s disposal,” 12 making “attendant” a good choice for translation.

However, McLay is working from Munnich’s critical edition. Munnich be-
lieves that the earliest form of the OG is οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ. De-
spite this critical assessment, the earliest witness to the OG (Pap. 967) has
προσήγαγον instead of παρῆσαν. So while the critical edition by Ziegler may
represent the OG in its most primitive form, it does not seem to represent
the earliest extant OG version, which may have been the version Mat-
thew was familiar with. Oἱ παρεστηκότες προσήγαγον αὐτῷ can be translated
as “the attendants were at his disposal,” which more accurately reflects
πάρειμι, indicating the purpose of why something is present (to serve), not
just where it is spatially. 13 Not only does the SM come as the Ancient of
Days, but he also has “attendants at his disposal.” 14
It is certain from the context of all the versions of Daniel that these
attendants are angels; Daniel will approach an attendant (ἵστημι) in 7:16 to
seek understanding, likely an interpreting angel. 15 The same root form for
attendants at OG-Dan 7:13, παρίστημι, is also used by both Θ and OG in Dan
7:10, the “thousand thousands who served him, and ten thousand times ten
thousand who stood attending him (παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ).” The differences
between the versions of this throne vision are quite remarkable­—in the MT,
the Ancient of Days is being waited on by a myriad of angels and the SM is
presented to him, but in the OG the Ancient of Days, as an anthropomor-
phized SM, has the myriad of angels waiting on him. 16 I will return to this
important point when discussing the SM passages in Matthew.

12. “παρίστημι,” BDAG (Accordance electronic edition).

13.  “Available for use, at one’s disposal” (ibid.). The proposed translation takes the dative
pronoun as a dative of possession, in keeping with the two previous Greek words discussed.
14. As I mentioned above, Munnich and Jeansonne believe the original word was
προσήγαγον and not παρῆσαν. If προσήγαγον were the original rendering, then the nuance I am
suggesting of the “attendants at his disposal” would be translated as “attendants approached
him” (see ibid.). Even if this were the more primitive form, the sense of the passage would
still be that these attendants are angels, and they are approaching “one like a Son of Man.”
15.  John Joseph Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ed. Frank Moore Cross
Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 311.
16.  Stuckenbruck, “Scribal Error,” 274. Stuckenbruck also offers an attractive alternative
to understanding the SM as an anthropomorphism in the OG: “It seems that the humanlike
figure, though not necessarily the same being as God, is nevertheless made functionally identical
to God as God’s heavenly representative in judgment and, accordingly, becomes the recipient
of like honor” (p. 275).
 Zacharias: Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man 457

Table 3. ‫ ִעם‬in Old Greek Daniel

Translation (35 total) Number Percentage
μετά 17 63%
datives, genitives, or left untranslated 13 37%
παρά 1 3%
πρός 1 3%
ἀπό 1 3%
ἐπί 1 3%
ἅμα 1 3%

Is OG-Daniel Represented in the New Testament?

It is sometimes understood that both Greek versions of Dan 7:13 are rep-
resented in the NT, acting as witnesses to the earliness of the OG and the
Θ 17 version of Dan 7:13. The suggested parallels are as follows: OG-Dan
7:13 is reflected in Matt 24:30, 26:64, and Rev 14:14 while Θ-Dan 7:13 is in
Mark 14:62 and Rev 1:7. 18 None of these NT passages is a direct quotation
of Daniel; rather, the above parallels are better understood as allusions.
The only detail that has led some scholars to suspect that Matthew used
OG-Dan, while Mark used Θ-Dan, is the presence of the preposition ἐπί
instead of μετά. 19 Although the difference is only one preposition, Greek
stereotyped translation (i.e., the predominant translation choice) of ‫ ִעם‬sup-
ports the proposal that Matthew was familiar with a tradition similar to
the one reflected in OG-Dan.

The LXX’s Translation of ‫ִעם‬

Using the Accordance module The Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek
and Hebrew Bible, 20 stereotyped Greek translations of Hebrew can be

17.  I am aware of the anachronistic nature of saying the Theodotion text was known by
the NT writers because historically Theodotion had not yet begun his translating work. By
referring to the Theodotionic version of Daniel, I am referring to the possible pre-Theodotion
version which the historical Theodotion adopted and/or used. For a textual history of the Greek
versions of Daniel, see Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and
Theodotion-Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and
Peter W. Flint; VTSup 83; Boston: Brill, 2001), 586–607. For a theory of development of the
versions of Daniel, see R. Timothy McLay, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel iv–vi and the
Formation of the Book of Daniel,” VT 55 (2005): 318–22.
18. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 311 n. 295.
19.  It is clear from the table of Greek translational equivalents that any basis for arguing
that Θ-Dan 7:13 is represented in Mark 14:62 and Rev 1:7 is unfounded because ‫ ִעם‬would be
predominantly translated with μετά, making μετά an insufficient indicator of Θ influence. It is
often assumed that the pre-Θ version is in view whenever μετά appears. See Krister Stendahl,
The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (ASNU 20; Lund: Gleerup, 1968), 179;
Robert Horton Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Per-
secution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 53.
20.  This Accordance module is based on the Revised Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint
Studies (ed. Emanuel Tov and Frank Polak; version 1.2).
458 Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.4

Table 4. ‫ ִעם‬in the Entire Masoretic Text

Translation (1,070 total) Number Percentage
μετά 729 68%
datives, genitives, left untranslated, or no Greek 116 9.9%
counterpart
παρά 73 6.9%
πρός 56 5.2%
ἀπό 36 3.4%
ἐπί 20 a 1.9%
ἐν 19 1.8%
σύν (9), ἐναντίον (3), ἐνώπιον (3), ἅμα (3), ὑπό (1), εἰς 31 2.9%
(1), ὀπίσω (1), ἐκ (‫ ;מ ִֵעם‬5), κατά (3), ἔναντι (2)
a.  Of the times when ἐπί is used in the LXX with ‫ ִעם‬as its counterpart in the MT, the
surface number of 20 is quite generous. Of the 20 times that ἐπί is used (Josh 9:2; 1 Sam 13:5; 2
Sam 2:5 [2×]; 1 Kgs 8:17, 18 [2×]; 20:26[21:26]; Isa 25:11; Ps 94:16[93:16] [2×]; OG-Dan 7:13; 1 Chr
22:7; 28:2; 2 Chr 1:9; 6:7, 8 [2×]; 24:4; 29:10), 9 of the appearances are translating the construction
‫עם־ ֵלבָב‬,ִ which itself also appears 20 times in the MT (Deut 8:5; 15:9; Josh 14:7; 1 Kgs 8:17, 18
[2×]; 10:2; 2 Kgs 10:15; Ps 77:7[76:7]; 1 Chr 22:7; 28:2; 2 Chr 1:11; 6:7, 8 [2×]; 9:1; 16:9; 29:10). Of
these 20 times when ‫ ִעם־ ֵלבָב‬appears, it is translated with some form of ἐπὶ καρδία—νοῦς (once)
and ψυχή (twice) is used in place of καρδία as well. Of the nine remaining times when ‫ִעם־ ֵלבָב‬
is translated, the dative is used once, μετὰ is used twice, κατὰ is used once, and ἐν is used five
times. This means that ἐπὶ καρδία is the predominant, though not stereotyped, translation for
‫עם־ ֵלבָב‬.ִ This makes the number 20 in the above table even less conclusive, because 9 of the
appearances of ἐπὶ for ‫ ִעם‬are themselves part of the stereotyped translation for ‫עם־ ֵלבָב‬. ִ
Of the remaining 11, Josh 9:2 is also suspect. The portion of Josh 9:2 in Hebrew is ‫י ְַחָּדו‬
‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ַ ‫ ְל ִהּלָחֵם ִעם־יְהֹוׁש‬and is translated ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐκπολεμῆσαι Ἰησοῦν καὶ Ισραηλ, so it is
ְ ‫ֻע ְו ִעם־י‬
a distributive rendering referring to more than one Hebrew word. 2 Chr 1:9 is also suspect
because the LXX at this point seems to be translating from a different Vorlage: The reason for
the caution here is that ‫ ָּדבָר‬is translated with ὄνομα, which is the only time this is done in the
entire LXX. This leaves 9 times, one being Dan 7:13, when ἐπί translates ‫עם‬, ִ plus the 9 times it
translates the construction ‫עם־ ֵלבָב‬, ִ making the number in the table of 20 very generous. These
8 legitimate times when on its own ‫ ִעם‬was translated straight to ἐπί solidifies the conclusion
that Matthew would not have recalled the semitic version of Dan 7:13 and translated ‫ ִעם‬with
ἐπί on his own or attempted to change Mark to reflect the Aramaic of Dan 7:13 better. It also at
least ought to caution scholars in assuming a linear relationship between the MT and OG—ἐπί
was a very unusual choice, and it is not the only difference observed in the verses.

determined with reasonable accuracy. The preposition ‫ ִעם‬appears 1,070

times in the MT, either on its own or with a suffix. Tables 2–4 summarize
the way ‫ ִעם‬was translated into Greek. 21 The tables shows that μετά is the
stereotyped translation for ‫עם‬,ִ with ἐπί being a rare choice. 22 Overall, OG
and Θ both follow the stereotypical usage of μετά (if we assume a linear
relationship between the OG and MT). The variety of prepositions used in
the OG (παρά, πρός, ἀπό, ἐπί, ἅμα) all occur in the Aramaic section of Daniel,

21.  The database used to generate these tables is based on Rahlf’s Septuagint, because
the Göttingen critical editions are still incomplete. Despite this limitation, the numbers would
probably not change much if the critical editions were available and utilized.
22.  See p. 455 n. 11 and p. 460 n. 25.
 Zacharias: Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man 459

Table 5. Allusions to Daniel 7:13 in the Synoptic Gospels

Matt 24:30 ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης
πολλῆς
Mark 13:26 ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις μετὰ
δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης
Luke 21:27 a ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλῃ μετὰ
δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς
Matt 26:64 καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
Mark 14:62 καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
a.  I include Luke’s use of Mark to show that Luke retained the preposition. All transla-
tions in this table are from the nrsv.
And they will see “the Son of
Man coming on the clouds of
heaven” with power and great
glory.
Then they will see “the Son of
Man coming in clouds” with
great power and glory.
Then they will see “the Son of
Man coming in a cloud” with
power and great glory.
and coming on the clouds of
heaven.
coming with the clouds of
heaven.

but μετά is still the stereotyped translation, and the similarity in percentage
ranges with the OG and the MT shows that, at least in the area of preposi-
tions, the OG’s translation tendencies were typical.
This study of stereotyped translation leads to two conclusions:
1. “Upon the clouds” is yet another distinctive of OG-Dan 7:13 that
sets it apart from the MT/Θ. I am not suggesting that a non-
Masoretic Vorlage should be posited behind every nonstereotyped
translation of ‫עם‬.
ִ But in OG-Dan 7:13 we have (a) the SM coming
as the Ancient of Days, (b) attendant angels at his disposal, and
(c) the SM on the clouds. Taken together, these three distinctives
make the OG form of Dan 7:13–14 unique indeed.
2. Understanding stereotyped translation helps us understand how
Greek writers, like the NT authors, would translate Hebrew and
Aramaic on their own. The results outlined in the tables above
lead to the conclusion that the author of Matthew likely would
not have translated the Aramaic ‫ ִעם‬with ἐπί, nor would the author
have fixed his Markan source by replacing μετά and ἐν with ἐπί in
hopes of better reflecting the semitic version of Dan 7:13. Yet these
are precisely the changes the evangelist made.

Matthew’s Son of Man Appearances

There are two particular instances in Matthew where the SM comes on (ἐπί)
the clouds, and both of these instances are times when Matthew is utilizing
Mark as a source (see table 5). 23

23.  I assume, along with the vast majority of NT scholars, Markan priority and Matthew
and Luke’s use of Mark as a source.
460 Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.4

Matthew’s Use of Mark 13:26 and 14:62

SM occurs 30 times in the Gospel of Matthew. Matt 24:30 and 26:64, taken
from Mark, specifically allude to Dan 7:13, utilizing the phrase SM as well
as its cloud imagery. Mark 13:26 reads “in the clouds” and Mark 14:62
reads “with the clouds.” The difference is the prepositions as well as the
case of “clouds,” with μετά being a stereotypical equivalent of ‫עם‬.ִ The case
of “clouds” is governed by the preposition used: for Mark 13:26 and Luke
21:27, ἐν has to be followed by a dative. In the second example, Mark 14:62
has “clouds” in the genitive case, because μετά can be followed by a geni-
tive or accusative. Significantly, in both instances the author of Matthew
has changed the preposition of his source to ἐπί. In the first instance, the
change to ἐπί did not necessitate the changing of the dative “clouds” to
genitive, because ἐπί can be coupled with genitives, datives, or accusa-
tives, but Matthew made the change nonetheless. The ἐν of Mark 13:26 is
retained by Luke (21:27) and Luke also retains the dative case of clouds,
although as a singular. 24 The author of Matthew also added “of heaven” as
well. Matthew’s deliberate changes make the phrase correspond exactly to
the phrase in OG-Dan 7:13, ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. In the second ex-
ample, the changes are not as stark, but again, the author of Matthew chose
to change the preposition to ἐπί, and once again the phrase corresponds
exactly to OG-Dan 7:13. This in itself is not a new realization, though the
significance and influence of the OG on Matthew has likely been under-
appreciated. Robert Gundry, recognizing this change, has suggested that
Matt 24:30 is a “targumic embellishment” 25 of the synoptic author. As will
be shown below, I think it better to believe the evangelist was bringing his
source into closer agreement with his preferred version of Daniel, not just
in these two instances, but in four or five other passages as well. As with
all of the evangelists, Matthew did this out of the firm conviction that Jesus
was the Son of Man. 26

24.  Luke may be offering a small correction to Mark here to singular cloud in order to
align better with Ezek 1:4 and 1:28, which only has a single cloud in the vision. Another pos-
sibility is that Luke is drawing a parallel with Exod 16:10 where the “glory of the Lord appeared
in the cloud.” See also Exod 19:9; 34:5; 40:38; Lev 16:2; Num 11:25; 12:5; Num 14:14; Deut 1:33;
31:15; Ps 99:7; Sir 24:4.
25.  This change of preposition in correspondence with the OG version is well recognized.
See Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference
to the Messianic Hope (NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 53.
26.  Otfried Hofius has argued against a messianic understanding of OG-Dan 7:13 with
the result that OG-Dan 7:13 does not prefigure texts such as Mark 14:62 (and par.) and Rev
1:12–15 (see Otfried Hofius, “Der Septuaginta-Text von Daniel 7,13–14: Erwägungen zu seiner
Gestalt und seiner Aussage,” ZAW 117 [2005]: 73–90). I find Hofius’s arguments both confus-
ing and unpersuasive. While on the one hand I agree that the original meaning of Dan 7 was
probably not messianic (most Daniel commentators would agree with Hofius on this point),
the “original meaning” of a text does not always come through to the NT use of that text. The
evangelists and the early church read their Scriptures Christologically, and their use of those
Scriptures clearly display a Christological interpretation—valid and valued in the light of Jesus’
death and resurrection. In the case of Dan 7:13–14, the passage (in any language!) was read
by the early church as referring to Jesus, with the historical Jesus likely using this passage to
refer to himself as well—irrespective of the “original meaning.”
 Zacharias: Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man 461

Coming “on the clouds” is a more pronounced idiom than coming

“with the clouds,” because it gives the impression of a regal rider. 27 This
is one of the reasons why some scholars see the OG as being a result of
theological tendency: the rider on the clouds is pictured in Canaanite im-
agery of Baal the storm god whose chariot is clouds. 28 J. Lust also adds to
this idea by stating that the use of “on the clouds” in OG-Dan 7:13 was
influenced by Ezekiel’s vision of “one ‘in the likeness of man’ sitting on
the ‘likeness of a throne.’ ” 29 However, the SM coming on the clouds is not
represented anywhere except Matthew 30 and OG-Dan 7:13, and of the two
times that someone is on the clouds in the MT, it is God. 31 Regardless of
how OG-Dan came to be that way, it has affinity only with Matthew. No-
where in the Similitudes of Enoch does the SM come on the clouds. In 4 Ezra
13:3 and Rev 1:7, he comes with the clouds, and in Rev 14:14–16 he is seated
on (ἐπί) the cloud, not coming on them. Idiomatic rendering or targum-like
alterations do not adequately explain Matthew’s usage and its similarity
to OG-Dan 7:13.

Five Appearances of Son of Man in Matthew

Scholars have recognized the connection of Matt 24:30 and 26:64 with OG-
Dan 7:13, and the above section has reinforced this connection. There are

27.  Ps 104:3, “you make the clouds your chariot”; Ps 68:4, “lift up a song to him who rides
upon the clouds.” See also Jer 4:13.
28.  See Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the
Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 17.
29.  Lust, “Daniel 7:13 and the Septuagint,” 68. Lust uses this connection in support of
his view that the OG is translating a different Vorlage which is closer to Ezekiel’s theology.
This indeed may be the case because there seems to be a noticeable development in throne
visions, traceable through 1 Kgs 22:19–22; Isa 6; Ezek 1, 8, 10; Dan 7; and 1 En. 14, 46, 60, 90.
In this development, the man-like figure represents a theophany of Yahweh, only at Dan 7
and the Enoch passages has the man-like figure taken on his own personage as a separate
entity. Walther Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1 [ed. Frank Moore Cross Jr. and Klaus Baltzer; Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 236) suspects Ezek 8:2 also represents this innovation, but Leslie
Allen disagrees, saying that “chaps. 8–11 has no room for an angelic interpreter,” Ezekiel 20–48
(WBC 29; Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 1:138. I suggest two possible scenarios: (1) either OG-Dan
7:13 represents a more primitive version, or different Vorlage, and the MT represents an in-
novation in the development of the throne-vision tradition, or (2) the OG version of Dan 7:13
came afterward (either by scribal error or theological translation) and represents a regression
in its portrayal of the throne vision, comporting toward Ezekiel’s portrayal. Alan Segal’s sug-
gestion broadly fits the latter thought: “The LXX apparently translated ‘the son of man’ vision
in such a way as to make one suspicious that very early ‘two powers’ traditions were being
challenged.” See Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity
and Gnosticism (Boston: Brill, 2002), 202. If the scribal error theory propounded by Collins,
Jeansonne, and Ziegler is correct, it is certainly convenient that the OG moved back toward
a more “orthodox” throne vision. In any case, OG-Dan 7:13 is not innovative, but the MT is,
if we are to assume a linear relationship between the two. See Matthew Black, “The Throne-
Theophany Prophetic Commission and the ‘Son of Man’: A Study in Tradition-History,” in
Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (ed. Robert Hamerton-Kelly and
Robin Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976).
30.  Justin Martyr interchanges the prepositions when referring to Daniel and the synop-
tics, using μετά in Dial. 31 and ἐπάνω in 1 Apol. 51 and Dial. 31.
31.  See n. 27 above.
462 Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.4

yet more aspects of the throne vision of OG-Dan 7—distinct from MT/Θ—
that may have contributed to five additional SM passages in Matthew. Let
us briefly consider the evidence.

Matthew 13:41

“The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his king-
dom all causes of sin and all evildoers.” 32 This verse is an extended part
of the so-called M material. The evangelist has done something unique in
placing the angels in subservience to someone other than God. This com-
ports with OG-Dan 7, which has the SM/Ancient of Days with attendant
angels at his disposal.
Throughout the MT, angels are in subservience to no one but God (e.g.,
Job 4:18; Pss 91:11, 103:20, 148:2). 33 In the Dead Sea Scrolls, like the MT, the
angels are only in subservience to God as well (e.g., 4Q185 1 II,8; 4Q185
l II,6; 4Q381 l, 10; 4Q434 l, 12; 4Q491 l III,3; 11Q5 26:12); likewise in the
Pseudepigrapha (e.g. T. Levi 19:3; 3 Bar. 7:4; T. Abr. (B) 8:5; Jos. Asen. 16:8).
Not even in the Similitudes of Enoch, where the SM figures so prominently,
is he given command of the angels. In the NT, there are a few places where
angels are in subservience to someone other than God. In Rev 12:7, the
war is between “Michael and his angels” and the “dragon and his angels.”
Another important occurrence is 2 Thess 1:7, where the author declares
that the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with “his mighty angels.”  34
Matt 13:41 is the first of three (possibly four) passages in this gospel where
the angels are in subservience to the SM. This coheres with OG-Dan 7:13,
where the SM/Ancient of Days has “attendants at his disposal.”

Matthew 16:27

“For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father.”
This section is part of reworked Markan material. Mark 8:38 says ἐν τῇ δόξῃ
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων. This is changed in Matt 16:27 to
ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ. Admittedly, the second
genitive pronoun may be placing the angels in subservience to the Father,
but considering the verse discussed previously, as well as 24:30–31, which
is discussed below, the angels are likely being placed in subservience to

32.  “His kingdom”: The idea of the kingdom being the SM’s kingdom is an interesting
one that seems somewhat dissonant in the gospel(s), where the idea of the “kingdom of God/
heaven” is so prominent. This may be explained by the thesis of this paper — that Matthew’s
version of Daniel equates the SM with God and therefore the SM’s kingdom and God’s kingdom
are one and the same. The translations in this section are from the nrsv.
33.  There are a number of places in the OT where the heavenly host are commanded by
someone other than God, such as Josh 5:13–15; cf. Deut 33:2, Judg 5:20, 1 Kgs 22:19–23, 2 Kgs
6:16–17.
34.  The distinction between the Thessalonians reference and Matthew’s is that the title
SM is used.
 Zacharias: Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man 463

the SM, for “Christological emphasis.” 35 This coheres again with the OG
version of Dan 7:13.

Matthew 19:28

“The SM shall sit on (ἐπί) his glorious throne,” is part of the independent
material of the evangelist. The reference to sitting on a throne likely recalls
Dan 7:9 and the Ancient of Days taking a seat on his throne. This apparent
blurring of the lines between the SM and the Ancient of Days occurs in
Rev 1:13–14 as well, where the SM is described in ways similar to God. 36
The description of the throne as glorious also merits attention. The Gospel
of Matthew often attributes glory to Jesus, as does the NT in general. 37 But
the sense of these verses is not that the SM is sitting on any throne but that
he sits on the glorious throne on which only God would sit. 38 This need not
be seen as a conundrum. Matthew’s preferred version of Dan 7 equates the
SM with the Ancient of Days.
This type of glorification of the SM is also found in 1 Enoch, where
the Elect One sits on “the seat of glory” (1 En. 45:3, 61:8). Other verses in
1 Enoch seat the SM 39 on his own throne (“seats himself upon the throne
of his glory” 1 En. 69:29; cf. 1 En. 62:5–6), but the “Lord of the Spirits” is
present in these verses as well. This is distinct from the portrait from OG-
Dan 7, where there is only one enthroned figure in view.

Matthew 24:30–31

Matt 24:30–31, “they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of
heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a
loud trumpet call.” Part of this section, already discussed above, continues
into v. 31, where Matthew has changed his Markan source by placing the
angels in subservience to the SM. This is the second time that Matthew
has reworked Markan material from “the angels” to “his angels,” which
coheres with the picture of the SM in OG-Dan 7:13–14. “Coming on the
clouds” signals the approach of God himself and again coheres with the
throne vision particular to OG-Dan 7.

35. Gundry, Matthew, 340.

36.  Collins, “Book of Revelation,” 536–68.
37.  G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, “δόξα,” TDNT 2:248: the NT “takes a decisive step by using
in relation to Christ a word which was used in relation to God.”
38. cf. 1 En. 60:1, “The Head of Days sat on the throne of His glory, and the angels and
the righteous stood around him.”
39.  While there may be several redaction and recension layers in the Similitudes, James
VanderKam is probably right that all of the titles are used of the same figure. See James C.
VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in The
Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Minne-
apolis: Fortress, 1992), 169–91.
464 Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.4

Matthew 25:31–32

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him,
then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the
nations, and he will separate them one from another.” This passage does
not as clearly place the angels in the charge of the SM, but because of the
other verses discussed this is probably the intention. Some commentators
have suggested that this section is a conflation of both OG-Dan 7:13 and
Zech 14:5. 40 The phrasing undoubtedly stems from Zech 14:5, but it should
be recognized that angels’ coming with the SM likely comes from OG-Dan
7:13. The SM is once again sitting on his glorious throne and has the nations
gathered around him for judgment. Glory is also ascribed directly to the
SM, whereas in Matt 16:27 glory was ascribed to the Father as well as the
heavenly throne in 19:28 and 25:31. The gathering of the nations is a further
allusion to Dan 7, specifically v. 14. The SM’s functioning as a judge is “a
role restricted to Yahweh in the OT.” 41 This blurring of the lines between
God and the SM in Matthew may be explained in large part by Matthew’s
use of OG-Dan 7 and “caps this high Christology” 42 of Matthew’s gospel.
The idea that the SM’s throne in Matthew may be a different throne
in heaven cannot be discounted; Jesus says in Matt 26:64 that “the Son of
Man is seated at the right hand of Power.” There are also instances in the
Pseudepigrapha, the NT, Qumran, and rabbinic literature that mention
other thrones in heaven. 43 In Matthew, the author mentions more thrones
for the disciples to judge the twelve tribes of Israel (19:28). Thus, the author
of Matthew appears to have no problem with discussing more than one
throne in heaven. But the throne of the SM in this verse is described very
much in the manner of God’s glorious throne, not a secondary throne. 44
The only throne in heaven surrounded by angels and where judgment is
passed is the throne of God, and it seems clear that this is the throne the
SM is sitting on. This scenario is not coming from the evangelist’s creativity
or later church tradition; rather it is in agreement with the throne scene
of OG-Dan 7:13–14.

Conclusions
The aim of this study has been to show that the OG version of Dan 7:13–14
as found in Pap. 967 influenced Matthew’s portrait of the SM. I have shown

40. Gundry, Matthew, 511; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew (2 vols.; WBC 33A–B; Dallas:
Word, 1993), 2:741.
41.  Ibid., 2:742.
42. Gundry, Matthew, 511.
43.  These thrones throughout the primary literature undoubtedly stemmed from the
mention of multiple thrones in Dan 7:9. See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel
according to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; New York: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 3:420–21, for a com-
prehensive list.
44.  Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary (ed. Helmut Koester; trans. James E. Crouch;
3 vols.; Hermeneia 61A–C; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 3:275.
 Zacharias: Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man 465

how unlikely it was that Matthew would have simply translated ‫ ִעם‬as ἐπί
in Greek, or corrected Mark using ἐπί to reflect the semitic original better.
Following this, I have shown that the other distinctives of the OG-Dan
7:13–14 are also represented in Matthew: the SM is seated on the glorious
throne, he is given the role of judging the nations, and the angels are placed
under his charge. The writer of Matthew did this utilizing his own sources
as well as changing his Markan source. I believe these passages provide
enough evidence for arguing that these were not simple editorial changes 45
but an attempt to reflect better the distinctive portrait of OG-Dan 7:13–14
as found in Pap. 967.
One final comment may be made in regard to 1 Enoch. The parallels
between Matthew and 1 Enoch’s SM sayings have been noted by many
scholars, and some have come to the conclusion that the evangelist knew
and made use of 1 Enoch. 46 I am open to this line of thinking; after all,
1 Enoch is used by Jude and has parallels elsewhere in the NT. However,
if the above thesis is tenable, then the idea that the author of Matthew in
particular made use of 1 Enoch may need to be reconsidered or articulated
better. In view of this essay, I would say the noted parallels between the
two compositions are due to the similarities with OG-Dan 7:13–14 and
Matthew. While it cannot be shown that the author actually had the OG
version of Daniel in front of him, the noted parallels make it clear that the
Dan 7 tradition with which the evangelist was familiar seems to be what
is represented by OG-Dan 7 from Pap. 967. It may be safer, especially in
view of the much debated date of the Similitudes, simply to speak of similar
veins of thought and reflection on the SM, one Jewish and one Christian,
both ultimately stemming from creative thoughtful reflection on Dan 7
and other Scriptures.

45.  As argued by Maarten J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the
Evangelist (BETL 173; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004), 221.
46.  See James D. G. Dunn, “The Danielic Son of Man in the New Testament,” in Book
of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint; VTSup 83; Boston:
Brill, 2001), 538; and Matthew Black, “The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date
and Contribution to Christological Origins,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), esp. pp. 161–67. Leslie
Walck has argued that Matthew knew and made use of the Similitudes. The strongest point
of contact, in my opinion, is the SM seated on his throne in both texts. See Leslie W. Walck,
“The Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch and the Gospels” (paper presented at The Enoch
Seminar, Camaldoli, Italy, 2005).