THE POINT OF DEPARTURE of all binitarian speculations in Judaism is the enigmatic “Son of Man” in the biblical Book of Daniel. This book consists of various parts that were written at different times. It is certain that its final editing took place during the Maccabean period—that is, in the first half of the second century BCE. Four visions of Daniel are described in chapters 7 through 12 of that book; the key vision for our context is that of the four beasts and the one like a human being, or Son of Man, in chapter 7.
Let me briefly recount what happens in the vision in Daniel 7:9ff. Daniel sees that thrones are being set in place in heaven and an “Ancient One / Ancient of Days,” obviously God, takes his seat (Dan. 7:9). This is embedded in a vision of four beasts—a lion, bear, leopard, and fourth beast not identified more precisely, but a particularly terrifying one with ten horns and one extra horn. Directly after the Ancient One takes his place, the court sits in judgment, books are opened (v. 10), and the beasts are judged (v. 11–12). Then Daniel sees “one like the son of a man” (ke-var enash), coming with the clouds of heaven (v. 13). This is the notorious Son of Man in the Book of Daniel, whereby “son of a man” is an overly literal mistranslation of the Aramaic bar enash (ben adam in Hebrew); more accurate would be “someone who looks like a human being.” This marks the beginning of the long career of this Son of Man, which finally leads into the New Testament. The “human being”1 is presented in Daniel to the Ancient One, and given “dominion and glory and kingship” (v. 14) forever. Here are the critical verses in context:
(Dan. 7:9) I watched until thrones were set in place, and an Ancient of Days (‘atiq yomin) took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire.
(10) A river of fire issued and came forth from before him. Thousands upon thousands served him, and myriads upon myriads stood attending him. The court sat in judgment, and the books were opened. …
(13) As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him.
(14) To him was given dominion and glory and kingship; all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.
This vision is supplemented by an interpretation (peshar) by the biblical author. The beasts are four earthly kings, but the qaddishe ‘elyonin, usually translated as the “holy ones of the Most High,” will receive and possess the kingdom forever and ever (v. 18). The additional horn of the particularly terrifying fourth beast will make war with the holy ones (qaddishin), until the Ancient One comes and judgment is passed on the holy ones of the Most High (v. 22). The fourth beast is interpreted to mean the fourth kingdom; his ten horns are ten kings, and the additional, eleventh horn is another king (obviously the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes), the worst of all, who speaks arrogantly against God (v. 20) and makes war with the holy ones (v. 21). He will change their sacred seasons and law for a time (v. 25), but his rule is limited: his dominion will be taken away (v. 26) and given as an everlasting kingdom to the people of the holy ones of the Most High (‘am qaddishe ‘elyonin) (v. 27).
But who exactly is the Ancient One, who is the “one like a human being,” and who are the holy ones of the Most High? Regarding the first two questions, the Ancient One and the “one like a human being,” it has long since been noted that there is a striking similarity to the Canaanite Pantheon: El as the highest “father god,” and Ba‘al as the young warrior god, who rides on a cloud chariot.2 Following this, Daniel Boyarin explains the Daniel vision as a version of this old myth, which transforms the Canaanite God El into Israel’s God YHWH and the “one like a human being” into a second, as yet nameless divinity subordinate to the highest God YHWH; the former is an old God, and the latter is a young, aspiring, and ambitious God.3 In contrast to Boyarin, Michael Segal comes to the conclusion in his book on Daniel—confirmed through a careful analysis of the relevant biblical and nonbiblical parallels—that the Ancient One is indeed El.4 Yet it is not the Ancient One but rather the “one like a human being” who is equated with YHWH as the second divine figure, subordinate to El.5 Finally, with respect to the phrase “holy ones of the Most High,” qaddishe ‘elyonin, most exegetes interpret the plural ‘elyonin as a grammatical plural to refer to God, but with a singular meaning (like elohim),a that is, “the holy ones of the Most High (God),” whereby the “holy ones” can be understood to mean either the angels or the people of Israel (the latter is supported by the phrase “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” in verse 27).6 Segal’s bold argument against this traditional interpretation understands qaddishe ‘elyonin not as “the holy ones of the Most High” but rather as the “most high holy one” to be identified as YHWH, the second divine figure in the vision. This yields a direct correlation between the “one like a human being” (= YHWH) in the vision and the “most high holy one” (= YHWH) in the interpretation of the vision.
Without wanting to examine the philological details discussed extensively by Segal, I feel this explanation tends to obscure the difference between the vision and its interpretation in the Book of Daniel. In my opinion, vision and interpretation operate at two different levels—namely, in heaven and on earth. The vision refers to heaven, where dominion and kingdom are given to the “one like a human being.” The interpretation refers to the earth, where dominion and kingdom are transferred to the people Israel. That which is initially carried out in heaven is finally completed on earth: in other words, the Maccabees defeat the wicked King Antiochus IV Epiphanes. To be sure, vision and interpretation cannot be neatly separated from each other—elements of both overlap, and it is possible that the “one like a human being” in the vision influences the “holy ones” in the interpretation—but the key point of the peshar is to transfer to the earthly people of Israel that which first took place in heaven.
This interpretation of the vision and the peshar is of direct relevance for the question as to who the “one like a human being” is in the Book of Daniel. Is the dual godhead (El / Ancient One / YHWH and Ba‘al / Son of Man, according to Boyarin, or El / Ancient One and YHWH / Son of Man, according to Segal) only the late revival of an old myth, an “echo of its mythical sources” in Segal, or is it the beginning of something entirely new, as Boyarin says: two divine figures, “one apparently old and one apparently young,”7 whereby the as yet nameless young God will become the redeemer and eternal ruler of the world, leading in a direct line to the messianic Son of Man of the Similitudes in the First Book of Enoch, to Jesus in the New Testament, and to Metatron in the Hekhalot literature. Whereas Segal limits himself convincingly—albeit perhaps a bit too restrictively—to the biblical context, Boyarin goes too far in the opposite direction and actually reads the later development into the biblical Daniel text. He makes much ado in emphasizing that the “one like a human being” is a genuine divine figure and not just a symbol (which most exegetes would not doubt in any case, regardless of his claim to the contrary),8 and that this second divine figure in the vision is enthroned on a second throne next to God’s throne in heaven.9 Unfortunately, however, the Daniel text does not mention Boyarin’s desired two thrones but instead only unspecified “thrones” (in plural), and the obvious, literal sense of these thrones is that one throne is reserved for the Ancient One and the other thrones are meant for the heavenly court, of which verse 10 explicitly says that it “sat in judgment.” Boyarin’s two thrones—one for the old God and the other for the young Son of Man—are evidently inspired by Rabbi Aqiva’s famous exegesis of the plural thrones in the Babylonian Talmud, which I discuss later in greater detail.10
There can be no doubt that without the later tradition history, which Boyarin reads into the vision of Daniel, we would find neither two thrones in Daniel nor the enthronization of the Son of Man next to God in heaven.11 The “one like a human being,” the Son of Man, disappears in Daniel as suddenly as he appeared, and we do not know what happened to him. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to be content with reading Daniel’s vision exclusively within its biblical context and interpret it only from this inner-biblical context. We cannot rule out that something is introduced in the Book of Daniel that goes beyond the ancient Canaanite myth in its new biblical form (Daniel), which was so convincingly reconstructed by Segal—something that opens up the possibilities in the Book of Daniel itself that then unfolds more concretely in the later developments.12
This will become clearer if we adopt the identification of the Son of Man with the archangel Michael.13 This yields complete correspondence between the people of the holy ones of the Most High (Israel as an angel-like community) and the “one like a human being” (Michael as the guardian angel of this people). It is certainly no coincidence that the angels in the sections after Daniel 7 are expressly described as human beings—using varied terminology such as “man” (gaver), “human being” (adam), “human beings” (bene adam), and “man” (ish)14—and thus it makes sense to interpret also the “one like a human being” to be a particularly high angelic being, if not actually as the archangel Michael. Although in Ezekiel 1:26 (and only there), it is God who is described as a figure “that looked like a human being” (ke-mareh adam),15 this certainly is not sufficient proof for the theory that the “one like a human being” in Daniel is no one else but God.16 Even in the Book of Ezekiel, the expression “a figure that looked like a man” (ke-mareh ish)17 (Ezek. 8:2)—in the same figurative language as in Ezekiel 1—is clearly used for an angel and not God.
I would like to close by putting forward the thesis that it is likely that the “one like a human being” or the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is a highest angelic figure distinct from God, presumably the archangel Michael. Elevated to a godlike status, this angelic figure becomes the origin and point of departure for the later binitarian figures who will reach their culmination and end point in Metatron.
a “Elohim,” in addition to the tetragrammaton YHWH, is the second name for God used in the Hebrew Bible.