72 Benjamin E. Reynolds kai; wJ" palaio;" hJmerw'n parh'n, c kai; oiJ paresthkovte" parh'san aujtw'/. d kai; ejdovqh aujtw'/ ejxousiva, 14 a kai; pavnta ta; e[qnh th'" gh'" kata; gevnh kai; pa'sa dovxa aujtw'/ b latreuousav c kai; hJ ejxousiva aujtou' ejxousiva aijwvnio", h{ti" ouj mh; ajrqh'/, d kai; hJ basileiva aujtou', h{ti" ouj mh; fqarh'/ The significance of v. 13c is that the “one like a son of man” did not come to the Ancient of Days (as in the MT and Q), but as or like the Ancient of Days. Scholars have debated how the OG translation came to read wJ" while the MT has d[ and Q has e{w", and many suggestions have been made. Since we are focusing on the OG as a separate tradition and interpretation, we will not spend time in discussion of the reasons for the difference (10). Therefore, the question to be answered is: What does wJ" palaio;" hJmerw'n mean in the OG of Daniel 7,13? Two possible meanings for wJ" in 7,13c were suggested by F.F. Bruce. The word wJ" can either have a temporal referent: “When the Ancient of Days came, then those standing there came to him,” or it means the same as the previous wJ" in 7,13b: “he came as the Ancient of Days” (11). One of the major difficulties with the temporal meaning is that it would require a different meaning of wJ" in the previous line. While this is not impossible, the chiastic (P967) and the synonymous structure (Codex 88) of the two lines indicate that both uses of wJ" should be taken to mean “as” or “like” (12). P967: 13 b2 h[rceto wJ" uiJo;" ajnqrwvpou', 13 c kai; wJ" palaio;" hJmerw'(n) parh'n, (10) J.A. Montgomery (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel [ICC; Edinburgh 1927] 304) suggested that the use of wJ" palaio" hJmerw'n was a scribal error ; for e{w". In his critical edition, Ziegler corrected the OG from wJ" to e{w" thinking that wJ" was a scribal error (Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco, 170; also in the second edition, Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco, 338). As is often mentioned, Ziegler did not have the benefit of Papyrus 967 when his edition was published (see J. LUST, “Daniel 7,13 and the Septuagint”, ETL 54 [1978] 62), but Sharon Pace Jeansonne who had access to the full text of Papyrus 967 relies on Ziegler’s emended text and does not mention Papyrus 967 in her discussion of Dan 7,13. She also concludes that wJ" was a scribal error, which caused palaiou' hJmerw'n to be “hyper-corrected” to palaio;" hJmerw'n (The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12 [Washington, DC 1988] 96-99; also A. YARBRO COLLINS, “The ‘Son of Man’ Tradition and the Book of Revelation”, The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity [ed. J.H. CHARLESWORTH] [Minneapolis, MN 1992] 536-568). Other suggestions for the existence of wJ" in the OG witnesses include a purposeful change by the translator for theological reasons, often referred to as “theological Tendenz”(F.F. BRUCE, ‘The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel”, OTS 20 [1977] 25; STUCKENBRUCK, “One Like a Son of Man”, 276. Cf. A.F. SEGAL, Two Powers in Heaven. Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism [SJLA 25; Leiden 1977] 202; “‘Two Powers in Heaven’ and Early Christian Trinitarian Thinking”, Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity [eds. S.T. DAVIS et al.] [New York 1999] 73-95), or that the OG is an accurate translation of its Vorlage (LUST, “Daniel 7,13”, 66; see also MEADOWCROFT, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel, 26). (11) BRUCE, “Oldest Greek Version”, 25. (12) Lust (“Daniel 7,13”, 65) rules out the temporal option because he says wJ" is never used temporally in a visionary context within Daniel or in the visions of Ezekiel.