The “One Like a Son of Man” According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7,13-14 Studies of the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 typically follow the description found in the Aramaic text of Daniel (1). Reference is made to the two Greek versions of Daniel, the Old Greek (OG) and Theodotion (Q) (2), when their support deviates from the Aramaic or offers some other relevant insight (3). Although it is important to keep in mind the differences between the Aramaic and Greek versions and the reasons for these differences (4), it is also worthwhile to examine the interpretation provided by the OG because the OG is a witness to a specific tradition of Daniel and since in some sense or at some level, every translation is an interpretation (5). Jennifer Dines states: Even if it is unclear whether a divergence between the LXX and the MT comes from the translator or from his source-text, a difference of interpretation between the two texts has significance. If nothing else, it shows that there were different streams of tradition, and if the LXX witnesses to some elements of interpretation which have not otherwise been preserved in Hebrew [or Aramaic], it is a very important window onto a period of biblical interpretation before the MT emerged as dominant (6). (1) I am grateful for the various comments and questions given by those who heard earlier drafts of this paper at the Society of Biblical Literature Greek Bible Section, 22 November 2007 and the Scottish Conference for Postgraduate Students in Theology and Religious Studies, 8 June 2006. (2) There are only three known witnesses to the OG text of Daniel in existence today: Codex Chisianus 88 (9th-11th century CE), a Syriac version translated from the Greek called the Syro-Hexaplar (7th century CE), and Papyrus 967 (2nd-3rd century CE). Only Papyrus 967 is witness to the OG prior to Origen’s reworking of the Greek Old Testament into his Hexapla. See H.B. SWETE, The Old Testament Text in Greek (Cambridge 41912) III,xii-xiii (discussion of ms. evidence); A. RAHLFS – R. HANHART, Septuaginta (Stuttgart 22006); J. ZIEGLER, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco (Septuaginta 16.2; Göttingen 1954); J. ZIEGLER – O. MUNNICH, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco (Septuaginta 16.2; Göttingen 21999); T. MCLAY, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (SBLSCS 43; Atlanta, GA 1996) 6-7; L.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) 270. On P967, see A. GEISSEN, Der Septuaginta- Text des Buches Daniel. Kap. 5-12 zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco sowie Esther 1,1-2,15 nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967 (PTA 5; Bonn 1968). N. Fernández Marcos (The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible [Leiden 2000] 144) and A. Schmitt (“Die griechischen Danieltexte [‘q’ und ‘o’] und das Theodotionproblem”, BZ 36 [1992] 5, n. 14) date P967 to the second century AD. (3) One possible exception is T.J. Meadowcroft’s work on Daniel 7 (Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel. A Literary Comparison [JSOTSS 198; Sheffield 1995] 198-244), but the emphasis of his study is on the comparison of the Aramaic and OG and the possible Vorlage of the OG. (4) K.H. Jobes and M. Silva list five reasons for differences between the Greek OT and the Masoretic Text (Invitation to the Septuagint [Grand Rapids, MI 2000] 92). (5) See M.A. KNIBB, “The Septuagint and Messianism: Problems and Issues”, The Septuagint and Messianism (ed. ID.) (BETL 195; Leuven 2006) 9; JOBES – SILVA, Invitation to the Septuagint, 86. (6) J.M. DINES, The Septuagint (London 2004) 133.