The vision described in Daniel 7, as it exists at present, is generally believed to date to the time at which the Jews were being persecuted by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167-164 BCE), although the traditions underlying it seem to draw on ancient Near Eastern myth (Nickelsburg 2010a: 1249).
In the vision, Daniel witnesses four beasts rising from the sea (7:3). The beasts, all of them composite creatures, appear one after the other to sow destruction on the earth and gain sovereignty (7: 4-8). The fourth beast is particularly powerful, endowed with four heads on which grow ten horns, of which three disappear to make way for another, smaller horn that has eyes and “a mouth speaking great things” (7: 7-8). After the appearance of the small horn, the beasts are judged in a heavenly court, presided over by the “Ancient of Days,” and the fourth beast is destroyed, while the other three are stripped of their power (7: 9-12). Once the judgment is over, “one like the Son of man” appears with the clouds, is brought before the Ancient of Days and given an eternal, indestructible kingdom, glory and dominion, “that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (7: 13-14).
The title “Son of man” was not common during the period in which this passage was written and consequently this figure’s identity remains uncertain (Collins 1984:122). The similarity between the language used in 7:14 and 7:27, where the “one like the Son of man” appears to be substituted with “the people of the saints of the Most High,” has led some to believe that former is merely a personification of the latter (Nickelsburg 2010a: 1250). Albani (2005: 50- 51) shares this opinion, but suggests it strange that he should be referred to as “one like the Son of man” instead of “son of God.” As Collins (2005: 62) points out, however, the term “one like the Son of man” must be regarded as a description, instead of a title (cf.
Nickelsburg 2010a: 1249). It has also been suggested that this figure is the heavenly counterpart of the righteous of Israel and that his enthronement therefore mirrors their glorification (Nickelsburg 2010a: 1250). This correlates with the view of the relationship between heaven and earth found in Dan 10:13. The uncertainty surrounding this figure seems to largely disappear in 1 Enoch, where the term “Son of Man” is clearly used as a title for a heavenly messiah.
80
The Son of Man appears for the first time in 1 En 46 and goes on to play an important role in both the second and third parables; indeed, the degree to which these parables focus on a single messianic figure makes the Similitudes of Enoch unique among Jewish apocalyptic works (Collins 1984: 147). The final chapter of the Book of Dream Visions contains what might be a reference to a messianic figure, although he is not associated with any form of salvation as such (Sacchi 2005: 404). Instead, this “white bull” (1 En 90: 37) appears to be a new Adam (Collins 2006: 78). In the next verse, all creatures are transformed into white bulls, but the “first among them” is a wild-ox (90:38). It is uncertain whether the wild-ox and the white bull (90:37) are the same being; Knibb (1978: 216) suggests that these verses might actually refer to two messiahs, one priestly (the white bull) and one military (the wild-ox), but points out that an alternative translation of the passage would imply that they are one being. On the whole, then, the Son of Man seems to play a significant role only in the Similitudes of Enoch.
The “Son of Man” is also referred to as the “Chosen One” (49:2; 51:3), the “Righteous One” (38:2), the “Messiah” (48:10) and, in the Aramaic text, the “Son of a Woman” (62:5) (cf. Nickelsburg 2010a: 1250). The titles of “Chosen One” and “Righteous One” seem to be connected to the designations of “the holy” as “the righteous” and “the chosen” (cf. 48:1, 4) (Collins 1984: 148).
The Son of Man is described as having the appearance of a man, but a “face full of grace, like one of the holy angels” (46:1). In apocalyptic literature, those described as having the
appearance of men are usually angels, and in this case the Son of Man seems to be a heavenly being who is consistently portrayed as residing in the heavenly realm, in God’s presence (Collins 1984: 148-149). His existence precedes creation (48:6) and he appears to be untouched by persecution and suffering (Nickelsburg 1972: 76; cf. also Nickelsburg 2010a: 1250). Righteousness is said to dwell with him (46:3) and he wields immense power (46: 5-6; 52:6).
This power is expected to come into play during the final judgment, with which the Son of Man is closely associated. It is predicted that he will judge the kings and mighty of the earth and strip them of their power (46: 4-6), and he will also judge the “things that are secret” (49:4). In this sense, he differs from the Danielic “one like a son of man,” who only appears after the judgment (Dan 7:13) and fulfils no function in connection with it (Nickelsburg 2010a: 1250). His appearance alone will cause the destruction of everything associated with
81
wealth and warfare (52: 6-9). He will serve as a support to the righteous, whose “lot” he has been protecting all along (48: 4-5) (cf. Collins 1984:148). Having been given knowledge of all secrets, he will be the means of communicating them to the righteous (46:3) (cf. Jackson 2004: 137). After the judgment, he will also become a companion to them and dwell with them for all eternity (62:14).
In the final chapter of the Similitudes, the Son of Man is identified as Enoch himself (71:14). The revelations seems sudden and, according to Collins (1984: 151), finds no supporting evidence in the preceding chapters. However, Enoch is clearly addressed as “Son of Man” in 60:10. Furthermore, 46:2 states that Enoch is shown “all the secrets, about that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days.” The Son of Man has righteousness, knows secrets and has been chosen by the Lord of Spirits because
“through uprightness his lot has surpassed all” (46:3). Given that Enoch alone is chosen out of mankind to appear directly before God (1 En 14) and is commended for his righteousness (15:1), as well as being shown secrets of the universe (1 En 17-36, 72-82), the connection between Enoch and the Son of Man seems well-supported.
However, it is also possible that the term “Son of Man,” when used in connection with Enoch, merely denotes his status as human, albeit a human who surpasses all others in righteousness. The term “sons of men” is used elsewhere to denote humans as opposed to the angelic Watchers (7:3; 14:2) (cf. Beyerle 2005: 55). It must also be noted that there appears to be secrets that remain withheld from Enoch (cf. 60:10), making it unlikely that he would be able to “reveal all the treasures of that which is secret” as the Chosen One is expected to do (46:3). Finally, while there seems to be evidence identifying Enoch with the Son of Man in the earlier chapters of the Similitudes, the language used when describing the Son of Man in chapters 46 to 69 consistently suggests that Enoch is seeing a being separate from himself. Otzen (1990: 211) believes it likely that the last two chapters of the Similitudes are a late addition to the section, a possibility that would account for the sudden “clarification” of the Son of Man’s identity.
6.2.2. The Question of Persian Influence
It has been suggested that the idea of a messiah-figure is rooted in the cult and mythology of the Ancient Near East, but it remains unproven; aside from the Jews, the only religion with any form of eschatology appears to have been that of the Persians (Fohrer 1973: 350).
82
back to ancient times, as attested by its appearance in yasht 19, which is one of the oldest hymns (Gnoli 1987: 586).
In Zoroastrianism, the “messiah” is usually referred to as the saoshyant, meaning “beneficent one” (Yt. 13.129). Where the word appears in some of the Gathic hymns, it has often been interpreted as referring to Zoroaster himself (cf. Y. 48.9); in other instances, the plural form is used, denoting leaders and good men who will help defeat evil and bring about the “Making Wonderful” (Frashegird) (Y. 46.3; 48.12), sometimes even continuing in this endeavour after death (Y. 30.9; 61.5; 70.4) (Boyce 1975: 234-235). According to a later legend, the saoshyant is a descendant of Zoroaster, whose seed lands in a lake and impregnates a virgin when she bathes there (Gnoli 1987: 586). Another legend holds that there will be three saviours, each of whom will appear in one of the last three millennia in world history (Buck 1998: 17). These three saviours are Ukhshyatereta (“he who makes truth grow”), Ukhshyatnemah (“he who makes reverence grow”), and Astvatereta (“he who embodies truth”) (Gnoli 1987: 586). The latter, Astvatereta, is believed to be the true saoshyant (Buck 1998: 18), a belief
supported by Yasht 13.129, which equates the term saoshyant with Astvateretat in particular. The Zand I Wahman Yasn, on the other hand, seems to expect five saviour-figures, of which the first three – Hushedar (ZWY 9. 1-8), Peshyotanu (ZWY 9. 9-10) and Saoshyans (ZWY 9.24) – are mythical and the other two Sasanian kings, but the kings are generally accepted as late additions to the text and are therefore irrelevant in this instance (Buck 1998: 23). The saoshyant is a central figure in Zoroastrian eschatology (Cereti 1995: 223). He has a physical body (Yt. 13.129) and is said to possess “eyes of wisdom” (Yt. 19.94). He leads the fight against the Lie and ultimately defeats it (Yt. 19.89-93; Y.59.28). When the Lie has at last been defeated, the saoshyant will raise the dead for the final judgment (GBd 34.7) and when the judgment is finished, he will perform a sacrifice, using the fat of a holy bull and white haoma, to restore the dead and grant them immortality (GBd 34.23; Yt. 19.89). He is also said to reward men according to their deeds as per Ahura Mazda’s instruction (GBd 34.25). With his sacrifice, he will bring about the renewal of creation (Frashegird) (Yt. 19.89; GBd 34.32; ZWY 9.24). Although the notion of the saoshyant’s sacrifice is only fully attested in later texts, it is based on ancient traditions (Gnoli 1987: 585).
On the whole, then, the saoshyant appears to be primarily associated with the restoration of mankind and the world. The Son of Man or Chosen One of 1 Enoch, on the other hand, is mainly connected with judgment. Whatever renewal and restoration occurs, is done by God
83
(cf. 1 En 62:16), although the appearance of the Son of Man seems to signal its imminence. Conversely, the saoshyant is said to resurrect the dead for the final judgment, but evidently does not play any part in the actual judgment. Unlike the Son of Man, who is depicted as residing in the heavenly realm, the saoshyant is a man who leads an earthly life (Yt. 13.129; ZWY 9). He is born on earth, albeit as the result of supernatural intervention. The prevalent belief in Zoroastrianism appears to have been that there will be more than one saviour, whereas 1 Enoch and the Book of Daniel only indicate the existence of one97.
As far as the messianic figures are concerned, there seems to be no clear evidence of Persian influence in the Jewish concept, but what about the messianic idea (cf. Otzen 1990: 218)? Did the Persian belief in a future saviour prompt a similar formulation in Jewish religion? Given that the concept of an ideal future ruler is already attested in the Hebrew Bible, it seems unlikely. The ancient concept is very different from the apocalyptic version, but for once the development does not appear to contain any trace of Persian influence. If anything, the Persian saoshyant bears a greater similarity to the ancient Israelite idea of a Davidic saviour-king.