The Corporate Interpretation of 'One like a Son of Man' (Dan.

VII 13) at the Time of Jesus

Author(s): Maurice Casey
Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 18, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1976), pp. 167-180
Published by: BRILL
Stable 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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NovumTestamentum,
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

Jesusinheritedan interpreted bible,but it is oftendifficult

to
know what interpretations he inherited.A major difficulty has
been that the biblicalexegesisalreadycurrentin Judaismis fre-
quentlyuncertainbecause contemporary sourcesare so meagre.
A less obvious aspect of this difficulty has been the domination
of the studyof earlyChristianity by Christianscholarswho have
not utilisedlaterJewishsourcematerial.Techniquesforrecovering
earlyexegesisfromlate sourcesare nowavailable,and I willapply
them here to a comparativelysimple case. Was the corporate
interpretation of 'one like a son of man' in Dan. vii 13 alive in
Judaismat thetimeofJesus?The questionis ofobviousrelevance
to the Son of Man problem1). It can be answeredempirically.
The book of Daniel itselfprovidesa terminusa quo. The angelic
interpretation in Daniel vii tells us that the man-likefigureis
a symbolof the "Saints of the Most High", by whichthe author
meantpiousJews2). The terminus ad quemis givenby laterJewish

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 implythat I thinkthe solutionto the Son of Man problemis actually to
be foundalong 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 ofthe man-likefigureis that of e.g. J. A. MONTGOMERY, A Critical
and ExegeticalCommentaryon theBook 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 interpretationsof the man-like figure,the
absence of any individual in the angel's interpretationshould be regarded
as decisive, and one notes that recent supportershave advocated different
individuals-the anonymousMessiah, Michael, Judas Maccabaeus and even
Daniel himself.See, respectively,E. DHANIS, "De filio hominis in Vetere

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168 MAURICE CASEY

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

BECK,who expressedthe universalopinionofmodernscholarship:
"Daniel vii 13 f. ist von der alten Synagogenirgendskollektivauf
das "Volk der Heiligen"(= Israel, Daniel vii 27), sonderndurch-
gingig individuellauf den Messias gedeutetworden"8). As so
often,theyhave correctlyinterpreted most of the evidence,but
what they have misinterpreted and omittedis interesting, and
can be assessedonlyafterconsiderable workon theoriginalsources.
We must examinein detail two passages of rabbinicalliterature,
namelyMidr.Ps. 21, 5 and Tanch.Tol. 20. I shall arguethatboth
have preservedthe originalcorporateinterpretation of the man-
likefigureas a symbolofthepeopleof Israel.
Midr.Ps. 21, 5 is a standardkindofpassagefromtheformalpoint
of view,consisting in the reconciliationof two apparentlycontra-
dictoryO.T. quotations.The quotationsare fromDan. vii 13 and
Jer. xxx 21, and the latterhas been an importantfactorin the
usual messianicinterpretation of this wholepassage4). The part
quoted runs wehiqravtiw weniggash'elay "And I will bringhim
near and he willapproachme". The suffixof wehiqravtiw refersto
the rulerof Israel,who is the subjectof thisverse5). But thereis
evidencethat a different interpretation was currentin ancient
times: some interpreters took the suffixto referto the people of
Israel,whowerethusassumedto be thesubjectofniggash.I shall

Testamentoet 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 Geschichtspunktezum Ver-
staindnissedes 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, Kommentarzum Neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch,Vol. I (1922), p. 956. The only exceptionI have
noted is a passing remarkby 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 Auslegungan eine Mehr-
heit" (op. cit.,vol. I, p. 957). They dispose of the Mehrheitby reading 'otho
twice with Yalq. Ps. 21 (Op. cit., vol. I, p. 486). But this alterationof the
text is methodologicallyunsound. On the parallel version in Yalq. Ps. 21,
see furtherbelow, 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, sondernauf der
Herrscheroder 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 interpretationof the
originalauthor's meaning.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN (DAN. VII 13) 169

oftheLXX and Targum6);

arguefirstthatthisis theinterpretation
I shall go on to showthat thiswas the interpretation
followedby
the authorof Midr.Ps. 21, 5 whichmay then be seen to make
consistentsense, withoutany need to alter its text; this sense
involvedthe corporateinterpretation of the man-likefigurefrom
Dan. vii 13.
First,then,the interpretation of Jer. xxx 21, beginningwith
the LXX: xort o',ro6 x Otoarpi4ouaL
& c6q
p67 7). Here
auvoio ?x
is
aro6\s plural because it representsthe suffix of wehiqravtiw
interpreted of the people: &xoorap4+ouaLis likewiseplural,because
the people have been taken to be the subject of weniggash. But
thereis a majordifficulty in thatthe problemsposedby the LXX
of Jeremiahare stillunresolved:it is not obviousthatthe LXX of
any givenpassagereallyis a translationof the existingMassoretic
text. Therefore we cannotassumeit here,especiallywhenauv&iyC
and are so rare,and, one mightsuppose,unexpected,
drooapcyg
as renderings of qrband ngsh.It musttherefore be demonstrated
thattheLXX xot auv&o ocr'o6xat &toarpeiouaL 7tp6[t is perfectly
comprehensible as a translationofthe MT 8).
We shall begin withqrb. Its Hiph. occursa further164 times
in the O.T., but the LXX has no otherexamplesof as a
auv'y
translationofit. The explanationofthisis a matterofthe context
of the occurrences.In the vast majorityof cases, the contextis
oneofthepresentation ofofferings toGod.Hencetheuse of rpoayp~o

6) Midrashic interpretationsof Jer. xxx 21 are not of any assistance.

I have found only three-bGit. 56a, bSan. 98b, bQid. 7ob. None of them is
concernedwith the relevantpart of Jer.xxx 21.
7) I quote fromthe followingeditions: MT - Biblia Hebraica Stuttgarten-
sia, vol. 8 (1970). LXX - Septuaginta.VetusTestamentum GraecumAuctori-
tate Societatis LitterarumGottingensiseditum,Vol. XV. leremias. Ed. J.
ZIEGLER (1957). Targum - Ed. A. SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. III.
The LatterProphetsaccordingto TargumJonathan(1962).
8) A retroversion was produced by G. C. WORKMAN, The TextofJeremiah
(1889), p. 343, who conjecturedan originalHebrew text weqibbaztim weyashu-
vu 'elay. This is veryliteralistic,simplyutilizingthe commonestequivalents
of auvciyoand &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 fromWork-
man's view of this particular passage: "This v. bears conspicuously the
marks of an unskilled translator.In the middle the referenceof the obj.
Pron. is changed from the sing. to the plural. weniggashis renderedxca
&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, thereis still no detailed discussionof this passage.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170 MAURICE CASEY

(78 times)and npoacio (45 times)9). Likewisethe presentation of

offerings to a king or and
governor:xpoayppco 7pooyqo, twice
each10). Yet even withinthis rigiddelimitationof contextthere
are exceptions:&vacpco,A3pvco, and yy~Wco, once each 11). There
are no examples of auvaycobecause it does not have the right
meaningforthesecontexts.The majorityoftheremaining examples
do have a groupof people as the object of the verb.The context
is one ofculticpresentation again,and thoughauvoyco wouldmake
sense, the wordsused are a moreaccuraterepresentation of the
Hebrew, with 7tpoaoyco15 times,npoacipcoonce, and a second
exampleofXoqLPivO 12). Two oftheseexamplesare however worthy
of note,Jos. vii 16 and I Sam. x 20; theyare the onlytwo of the
164 examplesof the Hiph. of qrbwhichhave the wholepeople as
the object. Here, perhaps,some hesitationis in order.Mightnot
auvycoihave been utilized?It might,but need not. Two observa-
tionsare morerelevant.In Jos. vii 14-18qrboccursnot once but
severaltimes.Mostinstancesare translatedwithnpoayco.But the
firstexampleis renderedxxi auvocXZOaeaw0. The contextis a good
parallelto the one instance in Jos.vii 16 thatwe noted.The means
of translation,the Niph. of qrb by the passive of auvia'yo, is an
excellentparallelto auvcycoin Jer.xxx (xxxvii) 21. The second
observationis numerical.We are notnowtryingto explainauvi'yo
once in 165 possibilities,but twicein, at most,a handful.And to
explain that, it is sufficient to note that it is less obvious and
straightforward than7poaoyo.Num. xvi 9-1o also deservesspecial
mention,because here God is the subject as well as a group of
people the object. But again the contextis 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, xxviii2, 26, xxix 8, xxxi 50, Ezek. xliii23, 24, xliv 7,
15, 27, xlvi 4, Ezra viii 35 (I Esd. viii 63), I Chron.xvi I. 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,
0npoayc0
viii18,22, x 19, xiv 12,xvi6,9, 20,xxii20,22, 24, xxiii8, 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) &vabpcop Lev. iii 14, Xap3&vco Ezek. xliii 22 (clioq3&vo also for lqh at
xliii20, 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. npoamppcoLev. viii 6.
Num.iii 6. ,aoP&vco

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN (DAN. VII 13)
171

accuratewhereauv&yco wouldnot do. The remaining examplesare

less homogeneous and cannotbe groupedtogether:thesame verbs
are used, and auviyo is out of the questionin everyinstance13).
Similarityof meaningdemands inclusionof the Piel; the few
exampleslack any dominantcontext.Four haveeyy~wo, accurately
and unremarkable,and two are corrupt14). But at Ps. lxv 5,
xpoaXohciv3V. The choiceis interesting because it is unique.Even
moreso is Ezek. xxxvii 17, whichproducesanothercompoundof
a6v, namelyauvoix&r15). As a renderingof qrb this is unique:
moreoverit is idiomaticand perfectly sound. Again we have to
recordno instancesof auvokyo: it would not fit any of these six
references.One morecompoundofatvshouldbe recorded, au?LEy-
vutLfortheQal ofqrbat Ex. xiv 20. Again it is unique and idiomatic.
Jer.xxx (xxxvii) 21 is different. Here, if the suffixis taken as
a reference to the people,the thoughtis that God in some sense
bringshis people near to him. It is not a thoughtwhichis found
in anyoftheotheroccurrences oftheHiph.ofqrb,and thatexplains
why the LXX translatorused a word whichis not foundas a
translationof the Hiph. ofqrbanywhereelse in the LXX.
auv0yom
was a logicaland intelligible choice.It was, of course,a common
word,andHATCH and REDPATHgiveno lessthan50 wordstranslated
by it in the LXX 16). That God willgatherhis people togetheris
an idea whichreallyis to be foundin thecontext;foritsrepresenta-
tionbyauv'ycoagainwe needlookno further thanJer.xxxi(xxxviii)
8. That thisidea shouldbe foundat xxx (xxxvii)21 as an inter-
pretationof God bringinghis people to him should not now be
surprising.
For ngsh,Qal and Niph.onlyare relevant.Thereare 84 further
occurrences, includinganotherin Jer.xxx (xxxvii) 21. &BoaCrpkp

13) One more cultic act-Lev. ix 9 xpoaqmpco. A dispute is broughtbefore

Yahweh Num. xxvii 5 npoaaryc;difficultcases are to be brought before
Moses Deut. i 17 &vaqcxqp.Jael presentedSisera withcurds Jud. v 25 tpoa0y-
yl( A or npoaqppco B. A personis broughtbeforeothers,fordifferent reasons,
all npoad&yoNum. v 16, xv 33, Jos. viii 23. Ahaz moved his altar 2 Kings xvi
14 qrbis rightlyused, but its semanticarea goes beyondx7oaqp&o
and~poadyo.
npoa&yco, and kyyEcais called upon Is. v 8, xxvi 17, Ezek. xxii 4. Cor-
ruptionor misunderstandingat Num. xxv 6 7poadycaand Lev. vi 14 OuaEx.
14) yy~l?O Is. xli I, xlvi 13, Ezek. ix I, xxxvi 8. Corruptionat 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.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172 MAURICE CASEY

is usedtwicein Jer.xxx (xxxvii)21,and nowhereelse.The majority

ofexamplesare dividedbetweentheusualwordsforapproaching in
differentways: &yy?&o,CpoaoyyltL, 7poCepXoOp.uL,
xpoa&yW,7opr6o0.t1L
and 17). The unique and idiomatic is more interesting
Xpoa-ope6o~p~L
(the vagariesof I Ks. xviii 36 may be leftaside)--&cparLLGen.
xix 9; eapxoyoou
E Ex. xx 21; xevrhciPivco Am. ix I3; xoXA?Job
xli 8 18); I Chron. xix IoCL
14; ... -6xov Is. xlix 20.
nap,rca
It is to this class that oiroarpecpw belongs19). Elsewhereit is used
ofturningaway fromsins,and, frequently, in thesenseof 'return'.
This is its sensehere.Havingtakenwehiqravtiw of God's gathering
his
together people, the translatorinterpreted niggashas denoting
their return to him. This is natural,logical and idiomatic,and
shouldnot provokeincredulity.
The LXX is, therefore, best regardedas a translationof the
Hebrewtext,part of whichis quoted in Midr.Ps. 21, 5. The sig-
nificanceof this forour purposesis that the translatorthought
that the suffixof wehiqravtiw referredto the people,who were,
therefore, the subjectofniggash.
The Targum should cause us less trouble; its interpretative
expansionsare not so productiveof textual conjecture.For the
translation ofqrbit naturallyusesthesameverb,butit 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. Gen. xxix Io,
xliii 19, Ex. xix 15, xxxiv 32, Lev. xxi 21, Num.;poasipXotial
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).
Jos. iii 9, I Sam. vii Io, ix 18, xiv 38, (xvii 16), xxx 21, 2 Sam. xi 21,
xpoar&y&
I Kings xviii 21, 30 (bis), Jer. xlvi 3, Ezek. xliv 13, Joel iv 9, 2 Chron.
xxix 31. xope60o~~ Jos. viii II. Ex. xxiv 14, xxviii 43, xxx 20,
Num. iv I9. xpoaxop,6o~3y
18) In fact this is Theodotioncreepinginto a defectiveLXX.
19) Some Mss read c'narp cc: but it is betterto 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-rpcaseems the easier reading.The LXX uses
it frequentlyof turningto God and this may not be said of &7oa'rpkcp& (Jer.
iii ioA only)-though thereis some doubt as to the correctreadingin a large
proportion of examples (G. BERTRAM, TWNT, p. 732), a fact related to the
overlap betweenthe semanticareas of the two words (cf. W. L. HOLLADAY,
The Root 94bh in the Old Testament (1958), p. 27). o would certainly
God bringingthem near
have been appropriatehere; the people respondto&7tLapcP
by turningto him.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN (DAN. VII 13) 173

to notethatit uses a pluralsuffixinsteadofthesingularoftheMT.

For weniggash'elay the translationseems less straightforward-
weyithnehon lephulhani.For Qal and Niph. of ngsh,the Targums
almostalwaysuse qrb,but hereit shouldindeedbe avoidedbecause
it was used to translatethepreviousword.None ofthewordsused
elsewhereis commonenoughto be expected2o). Four timesonlyis
God the object.pulhanis used at Jer.xxx
2Ib and Ezek. xliv 13.
Ex. xix 2 has a different circumlocution of similarmeaning.Only
Ex. xxiv 2 is moredirect,as befitsthe approachof Moses.Jona-
thanprovidesthreemoreexamplesofpulhanafterqrbrepresenting
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 logicalinterpretation. Note again that it
is plural. The Targum also has plural suffixesthroughoutthe
openingof the verse,and forthe same reason,namelythat the
suffixes have been interpreted ofthe people22). Finallythe clarity
oftheTargumis noteworthy: it was to achievethisclaritythatthe
translatorconsistently used the plural.
It is thereforeto be concludedthat in the LXX and Targum
we have two witnessesto an interpretation of Jer.xxx 21 which
took the suffixof wehiqravtiw as referring to the people of Israel,
who wereconsistently withthisregardedas the subjectofniggash.
Is this the interpretation whichwas assumedby the authorof
Midr.Ps. 21, 5? The repeatedplural 'othanshouldnot admit of
doubt. The authorof this midrashsays explicitlythat he thinks
both these scripturalpassages are dealing with a plural entity,
and sinceboth passagesare knownto have been interpreted else-
whereofthepeopleof Israel,thatis howhe musthave interpreted
themtoo. In the case of Dan. vii 13, that meanshe thoughtthat
the man-likefigurewas to be interpreted of the people of Israel.
A translationmay now be given:like the LXX and Targum,I
have had to use the pluralin translating Jer.xxx 21, in orderto
the
prevent meaning from becomingunnecessarily obscured.
"Rabbi Berekiahsaid in the nameof Rabbi Samuel: One Scrip-
20) crc, the commonest,no more than threetimes-i Sam. ix 18, xxx 21,
Am. ix 13.
21)Ezek. xl 46, xliv I5, Zeph. iii 2.
22)The Targum is supportedby variants in the LXX; these are however
perhaps most easily understoodas innerGreekcorruptions-giventhe LXX
text with the singularacrou representingsingularsuffixesin the Hebrew it
is not surprisingthat copyists should sometimespreferthe easier ao&ov.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 MAURICE CASEY

turesays 'And he came to the Ancientof Days and theybrought

himbeforeHim' (Dan. vii 13), and anotherScripturesays 'And I
will bringthemnear and they will approachme' (Jer.xxx 21).
How can both these Scripturesbe right?The angels will bring
themto theirregionand the Holy One, blessedbe He, willstretch
forthHis hand and bringthemnearto Him. Hence it is said 'And
I will bringthem near' "
The problemposed by the apparentlycontradictory O.T. texts
is thatin Dan. vii 13 the angels (assumedas the subjectof 'they
brought')are said to bringthe man-likefigure,the symbolof the
people of Israel, beforeGod: whereasin Jer. xxx 21, God says
that he himselfwill bringthem near. The problemis solved by
supposingthat the angelsbringthemmost of the way, as far as
the place wherethe angelsdwell; God thenstretchesout his hand
and bringsthemthe restofthe way.
Thereis a parallelversionofthismidrashin the Yalqut to Ps. 21.
It reads the singular'othotwice whereMidr. Ps. 21, 5 has the
plural'othan;similarlya singularsuffixgiving'his region'instead
of 'theirregion';and it insertslo-"the Holy One, blessedbe He,
willstretchforthHis handtohim".Withthesereadings,thesubject
of the wholemidrashis the messiah,not the peopleof Israel,and
bothO.T. quotationsare interpreted of him. Mechanicalerroris
not a sufficientexplanation of these four variantswhichprovidea
consistentchange of sense:we are dealingwith deliberatealteration,
and we have to decide whichversionis the more original,and
what was the originof the later one. If the readingsof Midr.Ps.
21, 5 are original,the alterationsare readily comprehensible.
Althoughcorporateinterpretations of both Dan. vii 13 and Jer.
xxx 21 are found elsewhere among the Jews,theyare notobvious;
whenone is facednotsimplywiththesetexts,but withtheisolated
partsofthemquotedin theactual textof thismidrash,whichdeal
entirely witha singularentityand have lost altogether thecontext
whichsuggeststhat that entityis a corporateone, a corporate
interpretation is not only not obvious,it is positivelyobscure.
A messianicinterpretation whichwas also establishedfor both
scripturalquotationselsewhere,looks more straightforward al-
together.Someone, no doubt the man who collectedthispiece from
Midr.Ps. into the Yalqut, hencesupposedthat the plural 'othan
mustbe wrong,and alteredit twiceto 'otho.He now had a more
straightforwardmidrash, but to make things quite clear he made

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN (DAN. VII 13) 175

the otheralterationstoo. If, on the otherhand, the readingsof

Yalqut to Ps. 21 are held to be original,the supposedalterations
to the straightforward midrashwhichit containsare not similarly
explicable. Therefore the versionfoundin Midr.Ps. is the more
originalone.
We concludetherefore that the originalversionof our midrash
is foundin Midr. Ps. 21, 5 and that this preservesthe original
corporateinterpretation of 'one like a son of man' as a symbolof
the peopleof Israel.
We turnnext to Tanch. Tol. 20. Here Dan. vii 13 is quoted as
scripturalsupportfortheinterpretation of 'anani in I Chron.iii 24
as the messiah.This interpretation is also foundin the Targumof
I Chron.iii 24, but withoutthe quotationof Dan. vii 13. The
midrashwhichoccupiesthe wholeofTanch. Tol. 20ohas a parallel
in Agg. Ber. 44, whichhoweverlacks thisinterpretation of 'anani
and the attendantquotationof Dan. vii 13. How are thesefacts
to be explained?
The parallelat Agg. Ber. 44 is veryclose. Despiteminorvaria-
tions,it is clear that we have herea versionof exactlythe same
midrash.This midrashbeginsand ends with Ps. cxxi I, but the
chiefpassageroundwhichit is wovenis Zech.iv 7, 10. The general
reasonforthe quotationof I Chron.iii Io ff.is that hereis to be
founda familytreeofthe Davidic line. It was naturalthatJewish
interpreters shouldconcludethat the messiahwas to be foundat
the end of the Davidic line. But thereare two variationsof this
view. The firstsees the messiahin 'anani, the last real name in
thislist.Thisviewis foundin Tanch.Tol. 20oand Tg. I Chron.iii 24.
The secondsees the messiahin shiv'ah,the last wordof the list.
This viewis foundin Tanch.Tol. 20/Agg.Ber. 44. Nowthespecific
purposeofthequotationofI Chron.iii 10-24 in themidrashTanch.
Tol. 2o/Agg.Ber. 44 is to establishthe line of descentDavid-
Zerubbabel-shiv'ah.Theselast twoareto be foundin Zech.iv 7, io,
the passage which is so fundamentalin the developmentof
thismidrash.Thus it is theinterpretation of i Chron.iii 24 shiv'ah
as the messiahwhichis nativeto our midrash.The interpretation
of 'anani as the messiahcontradictsthis and is absentfromAgg.
Ber. 44. Thereforeit was not originallypart of this midrash23).
23) That it appears in the somewhattruncatedversionof this midrashin
Yalqut on Zech. iv 7 merelyindicatesthat the compilerof the Yalqut knew
the versionwhich we findin Tanchuma.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 MAURICECASEY

But if this interpretation of 'anani is an addition fromthe

point of view ofthis midrash, it is certainlyolderthanthecompila-
tion of Tanchuma.It is foundin the Targum,and its appearance
whereit is not reallysuitablein Tanchumais onlycomprehensible
as the collectionof an already existingpiece of exegesisof the
biblical text utilisedthere.It does not seem possibleto date it
moreexactly.Is the quotationof Dan. vii 13 an originalpart of
this piece of exegesis? That is hardly possible to decide. Two
separablethoughtprocessesare involved.The first,beginning from
the assumptionthatthe messiahis the last personin David's line,
observesthat'ananiis thelastpersonoftheDavidiclinein I Chron.
iii 24, and concludesthat he is the messiah.The second finds
scripturalsupportforthis conclusionin Dan. vii 13. But these
two pointsmighthave occurredto the same personalmostsimul-
taneously,or the secondmighthave occurredto a secondperson
onlylong afterthe first,sinceit is in accordancewiththe normal
methodsof rabbinicexegesis,but it is not obvious. If the first
pointwas held withoutthe second,it is perfectly explicablethat
Dan. vii 13 was added later,as per Tanchuma.If the wholething
was thoughtof at once, it is perfectlyunderstandablethat the
exegeticalsupportshouldbe leftout,above all in a Targum,which
is not repletewithO.T. quotations.
WhenDan. vii13 was usedforexegeticalsupportas in Tanchuma,
how was it understood?STRACK-BILLERBECK are quite happy to
classifyTanch. Tol. 20 underthe generalheadingof the messianic
interpretation of 'one like a son of man', adding,withan evident
desireto explain,"'Anani wirdin diesenStellengedeutet= der
mitden 'Wolken'kommende"24). But we have seen that 'anani is
beinginterpreted as a nameofthemessiah,on thebasis ofI Chron.
iii 24. It is thereforenot a title,and shouldnot be translated.All
that is requiredis 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
symbolof Israel in accordancewith one of the standardinter-
pretationsof this verse,and the verseis held to containwhat so
many people would have liked it to contain-boththe people of
24) Op. cit., vol. I p. 486. Similarly G. VERMES, Jesus the Jew, (1973)
pp. 171-2 explains the interpretationin 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.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN (DAN. VII 13) 177

Israel and their Messiah. The other exegeticaltradition,which

interpretsthe man-likefigureas the messiah,is not compatible
withfindingthe messiahin canane.
The reasonsforthe choiceof Dan. vii 13 as exegeticalsupport
forfindingthe messiahin canani of I Chron.iii 24 emergeclearly
froma consideration ofalternativepossibilities.
In theconsonantal
textoftheO.T., thewordoccursin another15 passages25). In fact
these are all examplesof caneni, meaning'answerme'. But that
is ofno consequence.The questionis whetherany ofthemcouldbe
reinterpreted to producetherequiredexegeticalsupportforcanani.
Most of themofferno hope at all, the most plausiblepossibility
beingtheisolationofmhr'nni fromPs. lxix 19,cii 3 or cxliii7 with
the sense "'anani hastens".Dan. vii 13 is muchsimpler,forwhat
we actuallyfindin Tanchumais thestraightforward use ofan actual
sentenceinterpreted in one of the two ways whichwerestandard
throughoutthe rabbinicalperiodwith only the one small vowel
changeto bringin 'anani as required.And it is to this that bSan.
98b providessuch an excellentparallel26). A translationwill,
despite the inevitabledistortions, illuminatethe exegesisof the
scripturalpassagesquoted.
"Whatis his (sc. themessiah's)name?The schoolofR. Shilasaid
'His name is Shilah,as it is written"until Shilah comes"' (Gen.
xlix io). The schoolof R. Yannai said 'His nameis Yinnon,as it
is written"May his name be forever: beforethe sun existedhis
name was Yinnon"' (Ps. lxxii 17). The schoolof R. IHaninasaid
'His name is iHaninah,as it is written"whereI will not give you
IHaninah"' (Jer.xvi 13). And thereare somewho say "His name
is Menahemthe son of Hezekiah,as it is written"forMenahem,
the restorerof my soul, is far away" ' (Lam. i 16)".
The inadequaciesoftheHebrewalphabetare especiallyirritating
here,wheretheywereso usefulto rabbinicexegetes.But the main
pointis, I think,clear.The messianicexegesisofshlhin Gen.xlix Io
was standard27). So was the messianicexegesisof 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 similarsayingof R. Abba of Sarguninin 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

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178 MAURICE CASEY

cludingverse17 28); theTargumad loc. is especiallyinteresting as

providing a messianic exegesis of this verse and certainly not
regarding ynnas a messianicname,as someotherrabbinicpassages
certainlydo 29). Jer. xvi 13 and Lam. i 16 bothprovidepicturesof
nationaldistress.Onlytheiractualisationis requiredfortheabsence
of the messiahto fitthispictureperfectly 30).Thus we have here
fourexamplesof slightchangesbeingmade to accommodatethe
nameofthemessiahin an appropriatecontext.The samewas done
withDan. vii 13 to accommodatethe messianicname 'anani. This
is theonlyO.T. textcapable ofaccommodating 'anani in thisway,
and it is this,not the traditionofspecifically messianicinterpreta-
tionoftheman-likefigure, whichexplainsthechoiceofDan. vii 13
to supportthe identification of 'anani withthe messiah.Withthe
man-likefiguretakenas a symbolofthepeopleofIsraelin triumph,
a perfectcontextfortheinsertionofthemessiahis found.
We concludetherefore thatthispassageprovidesfurther evidence
of the corporateinterpretation of 'one like a son of man'. It has
also emergedthat 'anani is not a titlecreatedby Dan. vii 13, but
a name drawn fromI Chron. iii 24.
We now have two passages of rabbinicalliteraturein which
the originalcorporateinterpretation of 'one like a son of man'
has been preserved.Can we say anythingusefulabout theirdate?
Tanch.Tol. 20 doesnottakeus safelyfurther backthanthecompila-
tion of Tanchuma-probablyas late as the ninthcentury.Our
sayingin Midr.Ps. 21, 5 is attributedto Samuel: we could follow
the conventionsof rabbinicalscholarship, identifyhim as Samuel
bar Nachman,date him c. 260 A.D., and note his tradentR.
Berekiah,a frequenttradentof Samuel bar Nachman's work,
dated c. 340 A.D.31). But theconventions ofrabbinicalscholarship
are not adequate, and the reliabilityof the traditionalmethodof
datingsayingsby meansoftherabbisto whomtheyare attributed
has not been subjectedto adequate criticalinvestigation 32). For

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

cit.,indexs.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 informationabout them fromW. BACHER,Die
Agada der PaldstinensischenAmorder,vol. I, (1892), p. 348.
32) On rabbinical scholarship in general, see Neusner's devastating ap-

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN (DAN. VII 13) 179

our purposes,however,this need not cause seriousconcern.Our

terminusa quo has been establishedin the book of Daniel: the
precisedate ofthe terminus ad quemis immaterial.
Confirmation of the existenceof this interpretation
amongthe
is
Jews providedby two more straightforwardsources whichare
dateable. Rashi (1045-1105) and Ibn Ezra (Io89-II64) preserve
it in theircommentaries on Daniel 33). For Rashi we need,not the
comment on verse13 (oftenquoted,and indeedmessianic),but the
commenton verse 14. "He has comparedthe nationsto beasts;
Israel,however,he has comparedto a son ofman,becausetheyare
meekand faultless".For Ibn Ezra the moststraightforward com-
ment(it is notthe onlyone) is to be foundat verse18. "Now here
is the interpretationofthe expression'one likea son ofman',that
at the end the saints of the Most High will receivethe kingdom
and theywill take possessionof the kingdomforever and ever".
Thus the corporateinterpretation of the man-likefigurewas
in use fromthe time of the compositionof the book of Daniel
onwards.In rabbinicalliterature, it is outnumbered by the mes-
sianicinterpretation, butthisis notdifficult to explain.The grounds
are formal.The corporateinterpretation of 'one like a son ofman'
rendersit generallyunsuitableformidrashicuse. It is significant
thatthe one straightforward use of Dan. vii 13 in thissense,Midr.
Ps. 21, 5, is not an exampleof its use as exegeticalsupportfora
statementof Jewishtriumph, and has been misunderstood. In the
secondpassagein whichit is found,Tanch. Tol. 20, it was theonly
text that could providethe kind of exegeticalsupportrequired,
and again it has been misunderstood. It is in facttoo obscureto
be genuinelyuseful.The corporateinterpretation of 'one likea son
ofman' maybe clearenoughin its context,whereit is replacedin
the angelicinterpretation by the "saints of the Most High": but
thiscontextis removedwhenit is citedin thecourseofa midrashic
exposition.This,togetherwiththe smallquantityofthe evidence,
means that we cannotdeterminethe relativestrengthof the two
interpretative traditions,neitherin the rabbinicperiod,nor in
New Testamenttimes,whenthe currentexegesisof Dan. vii 13
is ofsuchinterest.
pendix to his pioneeringwork-J. NEUSNER, Rabbinic Traditionsabout the
Pharisees (1972), vol. 3, PP. 320 ff.
33) In the case of Ibn Ezra, I referto the longer recension (the shorter
recension has the messianic interpretation).For this, and for the text of
Rashi, I have used the 1864 rabbinicalbible.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180 MAURICE CASEY

The importantresult,however,is that the factof the existence

of this interpretation
in the time of Jesus has been established.
Moreoverthe place wherethe evidencehas been found,and the
meansby whichthisconclusionhas beenestablished,are ofgeneral
significance of ChristianOriginsand ofcontemporary
forhistorians
Judaism. Rabbinical literatureand the mediaeval Jewishcom-
mentatorsare almostuntappedas sourcesof earlyexegesis.This
studyhas shownthe originalinterpretation of 'one like a son of
man' preserved:an outlineofthe originalinterpretationoftherest
of Dan. vii was also preserved,mostlyin Christiansources,but
more relevantly by R. Hayyim Galipapa (1310-1380) 34). How
muchmoreearlyexegesisis to be foundin theselatersourceswe
do not know,but further of Jewishexegesisof O.T.
investigation
passages knownto have been important in the earliestperiodof
be
might veryprofitable.
Christianity
34) Galipapa's work is apparently not extant: an account of his inter-
pretationof Dan. vii is given by Joseph Albo, SeferIkkarim IV. 423-7. It
is probable that Galipapa held the corporateinterpretationof the man-like
figure,as this explains Albo's silence on this point. A full account of the
patristicevidence must be given elsewhere.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:48:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions