VISIONS OF MOSES

by David Ross

9 Dec 2000 - 28 April 2004

Introduction

The Book of Daniel is controversial, to say the least. Most agree that Daniel 3-6 are relatively early. However, Daniel 7 (in Aramaic) and 8-12 (Hebrew) represent visions of the end times which run at least as far as 165 BCE.

Christians believe that Daniel 7 was written by a prophet Daniel in the Persian court, circa 500 BCE. This would render Daniel 7 a prophecy of unprecedented accuracy. Atheists follow the ancient philosopher Porphyry and dismiss it as a prophecy after the event. Jews hedge their bets. Individuals and certain sects may believe it (as long ago as Qumran and Josephus) but Daniel officially belongs in the Writings: worth reading, not worth following.

Glenn Miller has entered the fray by noting that Daniel 7:9-15 is parallel to a Hellenistic tragedy called the Exagoge (another word for "exodus"), by Ezekiel of Alexandria. He argues that Ezekiel was dependent on Daniel. Since Ezekiel wrote before 165 BCE, that makes Daniel 7 a prophecy. (Miller points out that he does not have to prove that Daniel 7 was written in 500 BCE or even by the Daniel of Persia.)

This project will summarise Miller's allegations, and see if they have any merit.

The Texts

The relevant text of Daniel follows:

9

As I looked, thrones were set up (rmyw), and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.

10

A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.

11

"Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire.

12

(The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

13

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

14

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

15

"I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me.

To help Miller out here, there can be no pleading for any interpolations postdating Qumran. There are three copies of Daniel from Qumran that cover Daniel 7: 4QDan^a, 4QDan^b, and 4QDan^d. Admittedly they do not cover Daniel 7:9-10,13-14, although they do cover Daniel 7:11 and 7:15. However, they also cover 7:18, 22, and 27, which depend on 7:9-10,13-14 as part of the vision. When you add the Septuagint to the mix - which although different preserves 7:9-10,13-14 - the inevitable conclusion is that the form of Daniel 7 at Qumran did contain 7:9-10,13-14.

This is the passage of the Tragedian that Miller quoted, found only in Eusebius's Praeparatio Evangelica (that is, Preparation of, or for, the Gospel; or perhaps Proof of, or Demonstration of the Gospel) 9.28-29, as translated by R G Robertson, Charlesworth pp. 811-2:

And Ezekiel also speaks about these things in the Exagoge, including, in addition, the dream which was seen by Moses and interpreted by his father-in-law. Moses himself speaks to his father-in-law in dialogue:

68 'On Sinai's(?) peak I saw what seemed a throne
69 so great in size it touched the clouds of heaven.
70 Upon it sat a man* of noble mien,
71 becrowned, and with a scepter in one hand
72 while with the other he did beckon me.
73 I made approach and stood before the throne.
74 He handed o'er the scepter and he bade
75 me mount the throne, and gave to me the crown;
76 then he himself withdrew from off the throne.
77 I gazed on the whole earth round about;
78 things under it, and high above the heav'n.
79 Then at my feet a multitude of stars
80 fell down, and I their number reckoned up.
81 They passed by me like armèd ranks of men.
82 Then I in terror wakened from the dream.'

The Argument

Miller paraphrases Dr Robertson's footnote, "Ezekiel uses fwV (a poetic term for anhr) ... [to] represent God as a man" and adds, "and then God transfers sovereignty from Himself to Moses, seating Moses on His own throne."

Miller then noted the real Ezekiel:

Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown...

To this we should compare 1 Enoch 14:18-25: "a lofty throne - its appearance was like crystal... and the Great Glory was sitting upon it - as for his gown, which was shining more brightly than the sun, it was whiter than any snow... the flaming fire was round about him. None of the angels was able to come in and see the face" (Charleworth p. 21). Note that the "glory" had a face, a robe, and was able to sit.

Miller continued: "Notice the similarities between Ezekiel the Tragedian and Ezekiel the Prophet:" (and Enoch)

• there is a throne
• on the throne is a human-like form
• this figure is identified with the 'glory of the Lord'

Enoch further notices that the walls (but not the throne, yet) rise to the stars; and Ezekiel the Prophet mentions clouds, but in a context of fire, not height nor "of heaven". The Tragedian's Moses sees a throne that rises to the clouds. Moses ignores the fire and the radiance (and the white gown). Ezekiel and Enoch fall down; Moses awakens in terror; Daniel is "troubled in spirit".

Miller makes a number of convenient errors in the above. First, in Daniel the clouds of heaven are not touched by the furniture, as in the Tragedian, nor associated with the throne, as in Ezekiel. Plus Miller really ought to have mentioned the clouds in the other list above that concerned the two Ezekiels. Worst of all, there is no "Ancient of Days" in the Exagoge passage.

I am forced to admit, though, that Miller's omissions and even lies do not detract from Miller's argument. Miller recognises that his argument does not rest on Daniel / Ezekiel's "7 similarities versus 3 similarities" but their "dynamic versus static" contrast. "In other words, the Daniel passage is about the granting of divine authority to a human vice-regent, just like the EzekTrad passage is. In EzekTrad it is Moses, in Daniel it is the Son of Man." Miller noted that the translator Robertson had earlier highlit this as significant: "In terms of content there are some remarkable coincidences between Moses' dream and that of Joseph (cf. Gen 37:9) and the vision of Daniel (cf Dan 7:13, 14). Moses is portrayed as having been chosen by God to represent him as divine vizier" (p. 811, footnote z). Robertson then went on that the image of God as a fwV "is surely rooted in the figures of 'the Son of Man' and 'the Ancient of Days' in Daniel's vision". (p. 812, footnote b2) This, according to Miller, was why Robertson chose Daniel 7:13-14 over Ezekiel, "and, the likely reason EzekTrad picked the Daniel 7 passage--a perfect way to portray the power and grandeur of Moses to a pagan world."

Miller's conclusion:

"From Ezek-to-Daniel: Would a Maccabean Jerusalemite, in the middle of the Maccabean revolt, pick a couple of phrases from a couple of iambic trimeter verses from a Greek Tragedy (probably prepared for the Alexandrian stage, and probably unknown--or despised as being way too "hellenistic"--in Jerusalem at the time, cf. the polemic in Aristeas) to use in his apocalyptic section? This would be hugely counter-productive, in writing for the 'wise' of the second half of the book! [This, of course, assumes that he would have even had access to such a literary work in Jerusalem, which would be very questionable in itself.]

"From Daniel-to-Ezek: This direction is entirely plausible, for the Danielic image is the only image in biblical Judaism that would 'work' to exalt a human so highly. The only image that could accommodate such 'almost divine' honors for a human like Moses would be the same passage that would later be seen to refer to the Son of God. It would be a literary vehicle for Ezekiel, only, since he was not playing off the 'evocative force' of allusion, but merely using a 'sanctioned motif' to express his point. Even though his work was designed for Hellenistic audiences, it would still have been important for his Jewish audience to respect his 'orthodoxy'..."

Add to this that Robertson seems to be alone in dating the Tragedian to the second century BCE, even among scholars. Robertson only knew the transfer vision in a Danielic context; therefore he felt he had to date it after Daniel 7. He did not wish to ruffle feathers by dating Daniel 7 earlier. Thomas Kohn thinks Ezekiel the Tragedian lived "in the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (285-247 B.C.E.)."

The End is Nigh!

Not so fast. Glenn Miller has not considered a third possibility, that both used a pre-Qumran source we have not yet found. Granted he doesn't have to; I carry the burden of proof precisely because it has not been found. But this yoke is easy and the burden light. For Miller has mistakenly presented Daniel 7:9-15 and Exagoge 68-82 as unified compositions when comparing them to the other sources. 7:13-15 is "dynamic" because, to use SQL terms, it is an INSERT to the throne vision - not an UPDATE.

Daniel 7:9-14 is clustered into three units, kicked off with formulae of watching: "As I looked", "Then I continued to watch", and "In my vision at night I looked", respectively. vv. 9-10 sets the scene, vv. 11-12 recaps on the earlier horn vision, and vv. 13-14 introduces the "son of man". It is the first and third unit which the Exagoge parallels; the horn vision is nowhere found there.

Daniel 7:9-10 is static, as is Exagoge 68-73. Daniel 7:13-14 and Exagoge 74-82 are the dynamic parts. Also, Daniel 7:9-10 and Exagoge 68-73 have parallels in Ezekiel, Enoch, and even the Book of Giants. Daniel 7:13-14 and Exagoge 74-82 do not. With Daniel 7:9-10 and Exagoge 68-73, we can test whether it is more likely the Tragedian is dependent on Daniel, or on one of Daniel's sources. Only then can we posit Exagoge 74-82's most likely relationship to Daniel 7:13-14.

First Unit.

I will investigate pluses in the Exagoge absent from Daniel, pluses in Daniel absent from the Exagoge, and material shared by both.

Daniel and the Tragedian share a mention of clouds in the context of God's domain. Daniel had the clouds surround "the one like a son of man". The Tragedian had the throne touch the clouds.

Moving to prior texts, the clouds-touching throne cannot be found in Ezekiel, which only (like Daniel) had the clouds surround the Son of Man. The cloudy throne does exist in a prior text, though: the Book of Watchers in 1 Enoch 1-36. That particular book also agreed with the Exagoge 77-8 that the stars were important (1 Enoch 18:4, among others). In this case, the Tragedian and Daniel were using a shared source - Ezekiel the Prophet - independently of one another.

Miller did notice two real features the Tragedian and Daniel 7:9-10 share, even against Ezekiel: the clouds are "clouds of heaven", and both Moses and Daniel are explicitly dreaming. One could argue that these shared features are also coincidental. Moses was in Pharaoh's court, for which Joseph had interpreted dreams centuries before (Genesis 39). Likewise, if one assumes Daniel 4 was extant as a Danielic story at the time of Daniel 7, Daniel had interpreted dreams for his King too. Coincidental or not, these features are not unique to Daniel or the Tragedian as are the horn vision and Mount Sinai, respectively. Accordingly they cannot be used to establish a direction of dependence.

The Exagoge vv. 68-71 has two major pluses against Daniel 7:9-10: Mount Sinai and a crown-and-sceptre. Daniel is visiting the very Heavens from Babylon, and has no need to invoke Sinai; and Daniel does have an analogue to the crown-and-sceptre, but will handle it later on (as will I).

Those aside, Daniel has the lion's share of pluses for this tradition: rivers of fire and wheels; robes white as snow; thrones set up in heaven for an audience; and a heavenly host. Whether this was Daniel's work or not (and I have shown elsewhere that vv. 9-10 mostly retreads the Book of Giants) the Tragedian did not use any of it. Come to that, it would have been nice if the Tragedian had given any other hint that he had read Daniel - even Daniel 7:11-12, right in the middle of our vision - and at the same time lived before 165 BCE. Why haven't we seen more quotes in the early apologists? Where is Eusebius when we need him?

Daniel and the Tragedian share little enough in common. Where they diverge, Daniel's minuses against the Exagoge are easily explicable as irrelevant to Daniel. Daniel's pluses would not have been irrelevant to the Exagoge. They are only explicable as Danielic additions to a source that the Exagoge relays more closely.

Second Unit.

Moving on to Daniel 7:13-15, Daniel 7's Ancient of Days hands over "authority, glory and sovereign power". As for the recipient, "all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." For this scene, the Tragedian had a glorious man transfer a comparatively-lowly crown and sceptre ensemble.

This is not a case of dressing down the narrative for the sake of theatre. Had there been a scene where an actor playing God had performed such actions, Eusebius would have quoted that instead of relaying this second-hand account. Ezekiel was in any case a Jew and not prone to subject the Almighty to a casting call. (Only Moses deserved to see Him.) Elsewhere, the actor playing God recited his lines "from this bush" (v. 99), that is, off-stage. The crown and sceptre are not stage props, but a dream-symbol of the transfer of authority, which Daniel 7 took to an extreme.

But the real strain isn't between the second unit and the Exagoge, but between both and the rest of Daniel 7. In Dan 7:13, the Ancient of Days gives sovereignty to the one like a son of man, and all worship "him". Since the son of man is surrounded by clouds, like the Great Glory in Ezekiel 1, it certainly looks like the world is to worship the son of man. Dan 7:18, 22, and 27 parallel 7:13, but there the Lord grants sovereignty to the "holy ones, the people of the Most High" (7:27). The following sentence, "His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him", is in the singular, and so must refer to the Most High. Thus Daniel 7 has made the son of man of Daniel 7:13 symbolise all sons of man - that is, humans - who are loyal to the Lord. In doing so its redactor restored the unique divinity of the Ancient of Days, much as the final redactor of the Shepherd of Hermas protected the uniqueness of the Beloved Son.

In these explanations, Daniel also adapted the Wisdom branch of contemporary Judaism, which had held that "those who obey Her will judge the nations" (Sir 4:15), redirecting his people's obedience to the Lord alongside Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-8, the Q material (Matt 19:28 == Luke 22:30), Paul, and presumably Paul's Corinthian addressees: "do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world?" (1 Cor 6:2) - saints, not Sophia nor the Son of Man. There is no trace of Wisdom in the Exagoge.

The Tragedian did not incorporate Daniel's explanations (in 7:27) to the vision (7:9-10, 13-15). More, he did not understand that such explanations were necessary.

Christians were happy to cite Daniel 7:9-10 and 13-14, which allowed the followers of Jesus to associate their founder with an apocalyptic figure directly lifted off the pages of Scripture. But the NT did not associate those passages with Daniel, and only Revelations cited Daniel 7:1-8, 11-12, and 15-27, concerning the beast-and-horn vision and the true nature of the Son of Man. Mark in particular shows no knowledge of Daniel's explanations, just like the Tragedian. The Son of Man to the original vision was a figure of power, but to Daniel was a symbol of wise and righteous men.

Conclusion

So there is no evidence that the Tragedian knew Daniel 7:9-10 as part of the Daniel of the Masoretic Text, and it is likely for other reasons he did not know 7:13-14 in that context either. Since Daniel 7:9-10 used a text we have only recovered in the last few years (the Book of Giants), and since Daniel 7 was at pains to domesticate 7:13-14, I can posit an undiscovered text for vv. 13-14. This frees me up to explain its Exagoge parallel as a use of Daniel's source, not Daniel. Since 7:9-10 and 7:13-14 are the only verses of Daniel 7 which find any parallel in the surviving fragments of Exagoge, I conclude that the Tragedian most likely did not read Daniel 7. It is even possible that Mark used the Tragedian's source.

Now we can answer Miller. I agree that it is unlikely that Daniel used the Exagoge directly. I also agree that the Exagoge vision probably derives from an earlier documented dream-vision. I'll even allow the possibility that this hypothetical dream-vision was attributed to Daniel, although it is equally likely to be a "Vision of Moses". But this posited vision, even if it is Danielic, was not the Daniel 7 known to the Qumran sect and beyond. It did not purport to predict the rise of Alexander, Antiochus, nor anyone else. The only prophecy it made concerned the Son of Man's destiny as heir to the Ancient of Days. As it turned out, this prophecy came true: Christianity would ultimately deify the Son of Man and send the Ancient of Days into an aloof retirement.

Any thoughts? e-mail me :^)

Miscellany

Started this 9-12 Dec 2000. Up to 22 Dec, 10 Jan, cosmetic concerns. 1 Feb, deleted comment that Miller took his site down, because it's back. More, it's back with an answer to an earlier question of mine, so I'm linking to a new project refuting it. 4-5 Feb: cleaned up investigation of Daniel's sources... big time. 16 Mar: noted strain between Dan 7 and Dan 7:13-14. 14 Apr: cleaned up the conclusion & added the wisdom tradition. 20 Aug: fixed errors, moved Wisdom bit aside so as not to distract. 16 July 2002, 25 Jan 2003: error fixes. 28 April 2004: Praeparatio! w00t!

Propz to Eliezer Segal for granting me permission to link to his site - in one of the most gracious letters I have ever read. Also thank you Glenn Miller for inspiring this work. Understand that I get my best inspiration from my theological opponents. :^)

Links

• Good question...Was Daniel written AFTER the events he foretold? by Glenn Miller. Draft; May 16, 1998, updated Jan 2001.
• Ezekiel the Tragedian, _Exagoge_ by Stephanie Jane Lavy. Class lecture summary - but it does cover the vision of Moses.
• Thomas Kohn, The Tragedy of Ezekiel. An abstract, but one that makes me want to read the whole thing. Even if it doesn't cover the vision of Moses.
• Staging the Exodus by Eliezer Segal. Note that this site does not cover the vision either. But there's so much else... First published Jewish Free Press, April 21 1997, pp. 18-19.
• Daniel among the Watchers. The Book of Giants is a battleground.
• The Epistle of Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel 4, this time.
• Back to the House of David

Bibliography