that almost always when a commentatorial tradition is as split as this is, we should seek for tension within the text itself, such that both interpretations can be said to be supported by the text.
independent apocalyptic visions and then the provision of an interpretation, a
who, nevertheless, as all authors at some level and authors of antiquity more openly
been produced by an author, but it has not been made up out of whole cloth by him or her. As such it incorporates other texts and traditions. Texts are felt or patchwork more than they are warp and weft. In the pesher on the vision, it would certainly seem as if the interpreter takes
portion of the text in Daniel 7 reads thus:
this. He spoke to me and made known to me the interpretation of the mat-ters.
the vision in vs. 22 and in the interpretation in vs. 18” (ibid., 62). The “people of the holy ones” in
of holy ones, but also on behalf of his people Israel” (ibid., 64). It is the awkwardness of that near
The Book of Daniel
source texts. Precisely concealed in that awkward syntax is, in my view, the awkwardness of the
I am virtually certain that other readers of the piece will easily think of comparable examples.