The Eastern Christian Exegetical Tradition of Daniel's Vision of the Ancient of Days

McKay, Gretchen Kraehling.

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 1999, pp. 139-161 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/earl.1999.0019

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v007/7.1mckay.html

Access Provided by University of Belgrade at 01/17/13 5:38PM GMT

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

139

The Eastern Christian Exegetical Tradition of Daniels Vision of the Ancient of Days
GRETCHEN KREAHLING MCKAY
An unusual depiction of an aged man with white hair and beard emerges in post-Iconoclastic Byzantine art. Most commonly, this gure was identied as God the Father. However, the rulings of the Council of Nicea that ended the century-long Iconoclastic struggle declared that no images of God the Father were permitted in Byzantine art. Who or what, then, was the image of the Ancient of Days meant to signify? An important source for the original intent of the image may lie in early Christian and Byzantine exegesis of the only passage in which the Ancient of Days is referred to by name: Daniel 7. Throughout the early Christian and Byzantine periods, many writers discussed this gure and its relevance to the meaning of the vision in chapter seven. Their varying interpretations provide the foundation for any subsequent study of this unusual image in Byzantine iconography.1 The vision of the Ancient of Days, which is recorded in the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel (7.910, 1314), describes the appearance of a white-haired man whom Daniel refers to by name as the Ancient of Days ( palaiw tn mern). This particular Old Testament theophany generated many different interpretations by early Christian and Byzantine writers, all of whom offered comments on the unusual revelation of this aged man. Previous studies on the Ancient of Days have only supercially addressed the literary and theological interpretations of the Biblical
1. I refer here to my unpublished dissertation, Imaging the Divine: A Study of the Representations of the Ancient of Days in Byzantine Manuscripts, University of Virginia, 1997. These exegetical passages were compiled for the dissertation and were the foundation of the search to uncover the meaning of the image of the Ancient of Days in Byzantine art.
Journal of Early Christian Studies 7:1, 139161 1999 The Johns Hopkins University Press

140

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

vision on which the image is based. While the literary tradition on the meaning of the Ancient of Days is particularly important for scholars seeking to understand this complex image, no study has ever considered all the theological interpretations of the gure described in Daniels vision. In this article, the extant written sources that examine the signicance of the Ancient of Days are brought together for comparative study and will demonstrate that Byzantine writers from the third to twelfth centuries, including both church fathers and secular writers, found different meanings in Daniels account. The patristic and literary commentaries on Daniels vision will be examined chronologically. In addition to providing a framework with which to interpret Byzantine imagery, this compilation of various interpretations of the Daniel passage adds to our understanding of the role of the Bible in early Christian exegesis.2 To this end, I have provided a brief overview of each passage, placing it in its proper historical context, since several religious controversies inuenced the writers discussion of the Ancient of Days. The main aim of this article is not the role these texts played in different religious controversies. However, it is hoped that this study will aid scholars who seek to establish how specic Biblical passages, in this case Daniel 7, were utilized in establishing ofcial church positions on various doctrinal issues.

I. THE COMMENTARIES

1. Hippolytus, Fragmenta in Danielem3 One of the earliest commentaries on the Book of Daniel is by Hippolytus (ca. 170ca. 236), who discusses the identities of both the Ancient of Days and a gure named One Like the Son of Man, who appears in Dan 7.1314. Two separate editions of this text by Hippolytus exist, and each offers a different identication of the Ancient of Days. The Greek text provided by Migne states that the Ancient of Days was a revelation
2. Much has been written on this topic, including H. DeLubac, Exgse mdivale, vol. 1 (Paris, 1959); B. de Margerie, Introduction to the History of Exegesis, 3 vols., (Petersham: St. Bede, 199396); M. Simonetti, Exegesis, Patristic, in Encyclopedia of the Early Church, vol. I (New York: Oxford, 1992), 30911. See also Jean Ppin and Karl Hoheisel, Hermeneutik, RAC 24: 72271, with full bibliography and Denis Farkasfalvy, Interpretation of the Bible, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, vol. I (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997), 58084, also with a thorough bibliography. 3. PG 10:684.

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

141

of the Lord and God and Master of All, [who is] Christ himself.4 However, Mignes text was based on an edition by Mai, who did not consult all of the extant manuscripts of Hippolytus Daniel commentary.5 As a result, the word patr (Father) is missing from Mignes text. This omission makes it seem that Hippolytus identied the Ancient of Days as Christ. In a later edition of Hippolytus commentary, Bonwetsch corrected Mais errors and provided an emendation based on all the extant copies of Hippolytus work. In Bonwetschs edition, Hippolytus writes that the Ancient of Days is, for Daniel, nothing more than the Lord, God and Master of All, the Father of Christ himself.6 Hippolytus also comments on the meaning of the name Ancient of Days by explaining that it refers to one who makes the days old, one who is the creator of time but is not made old by the passage of time. This idea, rst expressed by Hippolytus, so far as we know, will be echoed by several other writers.

2. Eusebius of Ceasarea. De ecclesiastica theologia 3.17 7 The vision of the Ancient of Days is incorporated by Eusebius (ca. 260 ca. 340) in the seventeenth chapter of the third book of his treatise De ecclesiastica theologia. In this work, Eusebius attempts to refute the teachings and beliefs of Marcellus of Ancyra (d. ca. 374), whom he accuses of Sabellianism, a heresy in which primacy of the oneness of God is stressed to the exclusion of an acknowledgment of the three persons of God. Eusebius use of the Ancient of Days is different in some respects from the other interpretations to be examined; rather than making it part of the construction of a larger theological scheme, he utilizes Daniels vision to refute a specic aspect of Marcellus theology. Eusebius had previously completed an attack on Marcellus in the aptly named Contra

4. PG 10:684. 5. A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, I.2 (Rome: n.p., 1825), 166221. Important among his omissions were the manuscripts in the Vatican. 6. The text for this statement is found in G. N. Bonwetsch, Hippolytus Werke, vol. I: Die Kommentaire zu Daniel and zum Hohenliede (Liepzig: J. C. Hinrichssche Buchhandlung, 1897), 212. This is the critical edition used by Maurice Lefvre in his French translation, Lefvre, Hippolyte. Commentaire sur Daniel (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1947), 175. The Greek text is not provided in Lefvres volume. The Greek text, as provided by Bonwetsch reads: palain mn on mern ox teron lgei, ll tn pntvn Krion ka Yen ka Despthn, tn ka ato to Xristo Pater, tn palaionta tw mraw, ok atn p xrnvn mern palaiomenon. 7. Critical edition by Erich Klostermann, Eusebius Werke, vol. 4 (GCS 14, 1906), 17679. Revised by G. C. Hansen (1972), no changes in pagination.

142

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Marcellum,8 to justify the condemnation of Marcellus at the synod of bishops at Constantinople in 336.9 In De ecclesiastica theologia, Eusebius attempts to depose Marcellus a second time, often using the same arguments already expressed in Contra Marcellum.10 While in general terms Eusebius claims Marcellus is both a Sabellian and a Jew, more formal charges of heresy were expressed in the three following accusations. First, Eusebius alleges that Marcellus denies that God the Son had a separate and distinct existence from the Father prior to the Incarnation; secondly, Marcellus description and explanation of the way in which God the Word took on esh appears, according to Eusebius, to deny the reality of the Incarnation.11 Eusebius third allegation accuses Marcellus of claiming that the kingdom of Christ will end, and that Christ will then be reabsorbed into the Father, losing his distinct identity.12 Although deposed in 336, again in 339, and exiled until his death (ca. 374), Marcellus maintained a relationship with the sees of Alexandria and Rome, and his Trinitarian and Christological views were never specically condemned.13 However, Marcellus belief that the kingdom and reign of Christ would have an end was denounced, and it is towards a refutation of this specic opinion that Eusebius incorporates a discussion of the vision of the Ancient of Days in the third book of De ecclesiastica theologia. In his effort to disprove Marcellus claim that the kingdom of Christ would end, Eusebius looks to scriptural texts that contradict Marcellus interpretation. Marcellus bases his belief on I Cor 15.2428, specically verse 24, which states, Then comes the end, when he [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. Since little remains of Marcellus works, and only fragments have been accepted as truly written by him, the specics of Marcellus argument are lost to us, and reconstructions are possible only

8. GCS 14:151. 9. Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981), 264. Marcellus of Ancyra was reinstated to his see in 337. 10. Barnes, Constantine, 264. As Barnes puts it, Eusebius has nothing new to say (in De ecclesiastica theologia). 11. Barnes, Constantine, 26465. 12. Barnes, Constantine, 265. 13. T. E. Pollard, Marcellus of Ancyra, A Neglected Father, Epektasis: Mlanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danilou (Beauchesne: Jacques Fontaine and Charles Kannengiesser, 1972), 192.

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

143

through the lengthy passages quoted by Eusebius for refutation.14 These excerpts do not provide a thoroughly reliable or comprehensive reconstruction of Marcellus argument. The vision of the Ancient of Days is one of several prophetic quotations employed by Eusebius to contradict Marcellus claim that there will be an end to the kingdom of Christ. However, no text survives in which Marcellus presents his own view of the vision in Daniel; it is impossible to know if Marcellus commented on the vision. Eusebius notes that in Daniels vision the Son of Man was given glory and dominion over an unending kingdom. This is clearly expressed in Dan 7.14, which Eusebius quotes in full. Furthermore, and of considerable interest to Eusebius, the text of Daniel states that the kingdom was given to the Son of Man by the Ancient of Days. Eusebius interprets this to mean that the Son of Man receives the kingdom from his father (par to ato patrw).15 Eusebius does not explain this relationship in more precise terms; he is content to imply a relationship between Father and Son without stating its exact nature. However, Eusebius seizes the chance to expose Marcellus inclination to stress the oneness of God, a tendency that Eusebius labels Sabellianism.16 Without benet of a direct quotation, Eusebius accuses Marcellus of saying that the Son of Man and the Father of the Son of Man are one and the same. Eusebius also believes that Marcellus viewed the two gures in Daniel as two distinct names for a single hypostasis, which is further evidence for Eusebius that Marcellus had heretical leanings.17 Eusebius interest lies with the Ancient of Days bestowal on the Son, whom Eusebius equates with Christ, of an unending kingdom. This, according to Eusebius, disproves Marcellus view that there will be an

14. Several scholars have attempted to assign various treatises, many of them attributed to pseudo-Athanasius, to Marcellus hand in order to create a Marcellan body of work. For these scholars see Pollard, Marcellus, 189. However, more recently these attempted attributions, especially those of pseudo-Athanasius, have received little scholarly approval. See Ch. Kannengiesser, Marcellus of Ancrya, Encyclopedia of the Early Church 1:522. 15. tn un enai to nyrpou tn tn fyarton basilean par to palaio tn mern, dhlad par to ato patrw, podejmenon (GCS 14:177). 16. In attempting to show that God consisted of three separate persons, Eusebius remarks often sound similar to Arianism, in which the Son of God was thought of a creature of God, and not equal with him. He perhaps exposes these leanings towards Arianism in this chapter of Ecclesiastical Theology, when he says Tn d Yen o poimna od rxonta lgetai ktsesyai, ll atyeon (GCS 14:179). 17. ll Mrkellow na ka tn atn enai rzetai, ka man pstasin dusn nmasin pokeimnhn (GCS 14:177).

144

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

eventual end to Christs kingdom. The remainder of this passage includes different quotations intended to prove further the unending nature of the kingdom of Christ. For instance, Eusebius quotes Ezekiel, who said that David will rule as a shepherd watches over sheep,18 and he recalls Matthews statement that the Son of Man will come in glory to sit in judgment.19 In the end, Eusebius does not offer any specic identication or interpretation of the Ancient of Days. While suggesting a relationship between the two gures in Daniels account, Eusebius does not attempt to identify them beyond recognizing Christ as One like the Son of Man. Assuming that Eusebius disagrees with Marcellus thought that the two gures are one hypostasis under two separate names, perhaps we can surmise that Eusebius believes the two gures are two separate individuals, and not simply two names for one hypostasis.20 However, since he does not state this explicitly, it is difcult to determine with any certainty Eusebius exact identication of the Ancient of Days.21

3. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses XV illuminandorum22 Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315387) discusses the Ancient of Days in the fteenth of his twenty-four catechetical lectures. The rst nineteen of these lectures were written for those preparing for the sacrament of Baptism at Easter. The last ve, referred to as the Mystagogical Catecheses, in which Cyril explains in more detail the meaning of the sacraments and the liturgy, were specically written for the newly baptized members of the church.23
18. Ezek 37.24 reads, My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. Using Rom 1.3, which states Christ is from the seed of David, Eusebius believes that Ezekiel is talking about Christ when he wrote his passages, for David would have been dead. 19. Mt 25.3134. 20. Eusebius insistence that the two names are not to be applied to a single hypostasis may reect his own Arian leanings. Although nowhere in this text does he state it explicitly, it is possible that Eusebius, in his effort to show the separate nature of the Father and Son also lapses into thinking that the Son is a creature of the Father, which is an Arian interpretation. Again, this is not stated explicitly. The impact of the vision of the Ancient of Days and One Like the Son of Man had on Eusebius Arian views is an interesting question that deserves more attention. 21. Eusebius also mentions the Ancient of Days in his History of the Church. However, the reference is made in passing, and no specic identication of the Ancient of Days is offered there. 22. PG 33:869916. 23. M. Simonetti, Cyril of Jerusalem, trans. Adrian Wolford, Encyclopedia of the Early Church, 1:215.

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

145

Cyrils fteenth lecture is entitled On the clause, And shall come in glory to judge the quick and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end.24 The lecture begins with a quotation from Dan 7.914, which mentions the Ancient of Days. Cyril does not set out to write a line-byline commentary on the entire Book of Daniel, but rather, uses the passages about the Ancient of Days as part of his discussion of the nal judgment and the kingdom of Christ. Like Eusebius, Cyril was concerned with heretical notions about the nature of Christs kingdom, and although he never specically mentions his name, Cyril is most certainly speaking of Marcellus of Ancyra when he says in section twenty-seven:
A certain one has dared to afrm that after the end of the world Christ shall reign no longer; he has also dared to say, that the Word having come forth from the Father shall be again absorbed into the Father, and shall be no more.25

Along with other carefully chosen passages, Cyril uses Daniels vision of the Ancient of Days in order to refute these beliefs held by Marcellus. Cyril uses this passage from Daniel in several instances, each time stressing a different aspect of the text. He sets out to disprove the notion that there will be an end to the kingdom of Christ, as well as the idea that Christ will be absorbed into the Father at the end of time. To counter the idea of an end of the kingdom, Cyril suggests that the reader consider Daniels description of the Ancient of Days gift of an everlasting kingdom to the Son. Cyril does not explain the Daniel text; he merely offers it as proof that the Son of Man, whom Daniel describes as having come up to the Ancient of Days, was given a kingdom that will not perish, thus clearly discrediting Marcellus interpretation. Cyril objects to Marcellus notion that the Son will be absorbed back into the Father, and states that there will be present at the judgment in that day, God, the Father of all, [and] Jesus Christ being seated with him.26 For proof of this, Cyril again looks to the Daniel passage and notes that Daniel speaks not only of a myriad of angels serving the Ancient of Days, but also notes that it is One Like the Son of Man who approaches the Ancient of Days.27 Cyril interprets the Ancient of

24. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbiship of Jerusalem, trans. Edwin Hamilton Gifford, NPNF, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 10414. For the Greek text, see PG 33:869916. 25. Lecture 15.27, NPNF, 113; PG 33:909. 26. Lecture 15.24, NPNF, 112; PG 33:904. 27. Lecture 15.24, NPNF, 112; PG 33:904.

146

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Days, One Like the Son of Man, and the assembled multitude as a preguration of the nal judgment. However, it is earlier in the lecture that one may glean Cyrils specic identication of the Ancient of Days. Cyril equates the Ancient of Days with God the Father, thereby strengthening an interpretation of the relationship of the Father and the Son at the time of judgment as one of separate entities, and not one in which the Son is absorbed into the Father. Noting that the text states that the gure with garment as white as snow and hair like pure wool shall sit, Cyril states specically that it is the Father who will sit. Cyril does not use the Greek name palaiw tn mern here, but says specically Patr (Father). As did Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalem identies the Ancient of Days as God the Father and the whole passage as one of nal judgment.

4. Jerome, Commentariorum in Danielem libri III28 Jeromes commentary on Daniel was an important and inuential book on the subject, and an invaluable source for subsequent writers.29 According to Jerome (ca. 342420), the Ancient of Days is the One who sits alone upon his throne, which is a reference to Rev 4.2, which describes one who sits upon a throne and has a likeness of jasper and other precious stones.30 With this reference, Jerome suggests a connection between the Book of Revelation and this vision revealed to Daniel. Jerome believes that both of these texts refer to the nal judgment. In addition to interpreting much of Daniel as a vision of the end of time, Jerome connects the Ancient of Days in Daniels vision with the person described in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation. To Jerome they are one and the same, and the gure in Daniel pregures the one revealed in the Book of Revelation. Commenting on verses 9 and 10 of Daniel, Jerome remarks that God is called the One who sits and who is the Ancient of Days, in order that His character as eternal Judge might be indicated.31 Again, Jerome links the Ancient of Days with judgment,

28. Jeromes Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958). Archer used the Latin edition found in PL 25. A later edition may be found in CCL 75a. 29. Jerome is usually thought of as a Western theologian, known especially for his Latin translation of the Bible. However, Jerome had much contact with the East, including his ordination in Antioch and close acquaintence with Gregory of Nazianzus. For these reasons, Jerome is included in these Eastern writers commentaries. See Barry Baldwin, Jerome, ODB, 1991. 30. Archer 78; CCL 75a:845. 31. Archer 78; CCL 75a:845.

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

147

interpreting the vision recorded in Daniel as a preguration of the nal days. Jerome provides an explanation for many of the descriptive characteristics of the Ancient of Days. For instance, he explains the white hair and garments as a preguration of Christ at the Transguration, when Christ appeared in a radiant, white light. This bright and shining light reects the divine majesty of both of these gures.32 He explains the characteristics of old age as attributes of one who judges, and likewise the ery throne as indicative of the terrible fortune of the sinners, many of whom will be moved to repent.33 In these texts, Jerome carefully avoids stating with any precision whether or not the Ancient of Days is God the Father. He refers to the Ancient of Days as God, without indicating to which person of the Trinity he is referring. However, when discussing verses 13 and 14 of the vision, in which Daniel describes One like a Son of Man coming before the Ancient of Days, Jerome makes more specic identications. To Jerome, this verse indicates the equality of God the Son and God the Father, which leads him to quote Phil 2.68.34 According to Jerome, the gure identied as One Like the Son of Man is Christ, the Son of God. Christs approach to the throne of the Ancient of Days indicates to Jerome that the Son of God has equal status with God. Although Jerome never specically refers to the Ancient of Days as the Father, he implies as much when he interprets this section of Daniels vision as a revelation of the relationship between the Father and the Son.

5. John Chrysostom, De incomprehensibili XI35 John Chrysostom (ca. 347407), considers the Ancient of Days in three separate works, all of which will be discussed here. First to be examined is his eleventh of twelve homilies on the subject of the incomprehensible nature of God, in which Chrysostom deals with the nature of theophanic visions. Although Chrysostom specically discusses the Ancient of Days
32. Archer 78; CCL 75a:845. 33. Archer 78; CCL 75a:845. 34. Phil 2.68 reads, Though he [Christ] was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 35. John Chrysostom, Sur lgalit du pre et du ls (Homilies VIIXII, trans. Anne-Marie Malingrey [Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1994]), 3037 provides Greek text with French translation. For an English translation, see John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, trans. Paul W. Harkins (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1984), 27085.

148

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

in Homily 11, his thoughts on the denition of visions of God expressed in the other homilies will also be examined in order to place his views on the Ancient of Days within the context of his understanding of divine revelations. Central to Chrysostoms view of visions is the notion of condescension, which he denes in Homily 3.15.36 In this homily, Chrysostom rhetorically asks what is condescension, answering that it is Gods way of making himself visible to those incapable of seeing him in his essence. Thus, God appears to those who are unable to see him by taking on a form that accommodates their level of understanding. For Chrysostom, any vision of God is an instance of condescension, and never a revelation of the divine essence. To support this idea, Chrysostom notes Hos 12.10, in which the prophet quotes God as saying, I have multiplied visions and have likened myself through the prophets. This text is important, for, as Chrysostom shows, if the true essence of God were revealed, each vision recorded by the prophets would be identical, for the essence is pure and unchanging. But, as Hosea explains, each prophet describes a different vision, which Chrysostom interprets as an accommodation, or condescension, by God, to help those who gaze upon him to understand what they are seeing. In each case he must take on forms alien to his pure essence in order to aid those who are otherwise incapable of comprehending the divine.37 Chrysostom devotes much of these homilies to explaining visions and their relationship to God; he does not, however, specically comment on the meaning of each Old Testament vision. Chrysostom quotes the passage in Daniel in juxtaposition to his comments on the Sons place at the Fathers right hand, which indicates that the two are equal in status. Chrysostom does not explicitly state that the Ancient of Days is the Father, but he also never states that he is not. Based on his more general comments on visions, Chrysostom tends to stress that the Ancient of Days is not a revelation of the essence of God, but rather an accommodation, or condescension, that makes known some specic aspect of himself that was appropriate for revelation. As far as Chrysostom interprets it, the purpose of the revelation of the Ancient of Days was to show the identical honor and status of both the Father and the Son. He

36. For the Greek text, see John Chrysostom, Sur lincomprhensibilit de Dieu, trans. Robert Flacelire, vol. I, ed. Anne-Marie Malingrey (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1970), 200. 37. Incomprehesible 15. See also Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, trans. Asheleigh Moorhouse (Clayton, WI: American Orthodox Press, 1963), 77.

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

149

stresses the idea of the equality of the Father and the Son expressed in the Daniel text, but is more interested in what the two gures tell us about the relationship of the rst two persons of the Trinity than specically identifying the Ancient of Days.

6. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 15 38 As in his homilies De incomprehensibili, Chrysostom discusses the role of visions of God in the fteenth sermon on the Gospel of John. Specically, this sermon examines the text from Jn 1.18, which states, No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Chrysostom begins with a list of prophets from the Old Testament who witnessed a vision, presumably of God. Chrysostom notes Isaiah, who said I saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up,39 Ezekiel, who saw the Lord seated among the cherubim,40 and nally Daniel, who saw the Ancient of Days seated on a throne. Chrysostom explains these Old Testament theophanies as instances of condescension, and not as visions of the essence of God. Chrysostom connects this idea to the evangelists statement that no one has seen God, as meaning no one has seen God in his pure essence. As in his eleventh homily discussed above, Chrysostom quotes Hosea to prove that had these prophets seen the essence of God, their visions would be identical, for God is one in his essence, which is unchanging. The denition of condescension and the explanation of visions of God are common themes in these two homilies by John Chrysostom. The Ancient of Days is never explained with any specicity; it is listed with other Old Testament descriptions of visions, namely those by Isaiah and Ezekiel. Thus, Chrysostom does not offer any particular identication of the Ancient of Days other than to insist that it is not a revelation of the essence of God, but is another instance of Gods condescension through a visible form. 7. John Chrysostom, In Danielem41 Unlike the two homilies in which the Ancient of Days is mentioned in conjunction with other descriptions of Old Testament visions, Chrysostoms Commentary on Daniel interprets the Ancient of Days within the
38. 39. 40. 41. PG 59:97102. Isa 6.1. Ezek 1.10. PG 56:23133.

150

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

context of the entire text of the vision. While Chrysostom made no specic identications of the Ancient of Days in the two homilies just discussed, in his commentary on Daniel he comes closer to doing so. The commentary on Daniel includes an extensive section devoted to Daniels visions, including that of the Ancient of Days. Chrysostom interprets the vision of the ancient one in the context of the nal judgment, but he also stresses the divine nature of the Son, and thereby emphasizes the Christological implications of Daniels revelation. Chrysostom offers lengthy commentary on these few lines from Daniels text, and he identies the Ancient of Days simply as God. In his initial remarks on the Ancient of Days, Chrysostom notes that it is the description of someone who has grown old, and that the characteristics are consistent with one who is the divine judge.42 Later, however, Chrysostom states that when one mentions aged or ancient, one is not meant to think only of an old man; rather, the idea of one who is aged is but a shadow of something else. For instance, in the beginning of this same passage, Chrysostom notes that when one says lioness (as in Daniels description of the four beasts, Dan 7.14) one is not referring to the animal, but to kingdoms. In the same way, the elderly image that is conjured up when one hears the phrase Ancient of Days is not meant to imply simply one who is old, but one who is eternal. In addition to giving a metaphorical interpretation of this phrase, Chrysostom also comments on the relationship between the Ancient of Days and the One Like the Son of Man. In the vision, Daniel witnesses the bestowal of dominion, honor, and kingdom on the Son. This presentation, he says, is not like the human practice of giving something not already possessed by the recipient. On the contrary, Chrysostom states, the vision reects that these things had already been the Sons, for the Son was truly and wholly divine. According to Chrysostom, these gifts grant to the Son the power of rendering judgment. That this power was not temporary is clearly stated in the text: His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away.43 In Chrysostoms reading of the text, the characteristics of old age implied by the phrase Ancient of Days are not taken literally, but are conceived as revealing specic aspects of Gods immutable nature, and primarily, his divine judgment for all eternity. According to Chrysostom, the presence of the Ancient of Days and the subsequent appearance of
42. Chrysostom expresses this by saying: tow toiotoiw pisteesyai t xritria xr, PG 56:231. 43. Dan 7.14.

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

151

the Son of Man express the divine power of judgment possessed by both the Father and the Son. Finally, Chrysostom notes that this is the only vision in which the Father and Son were seen face to face, and that it reveals the equal status of the divine persons.

8. Cyril of Alexandria, In Danielem Prophetam 7.1344 Unlike Chrysostoms treatise, all that remains of Cyril of Alexandrias (d. 444) commentary on the Book of Daniel is a short fragmentary note covering three verses of the seventh chapter. Fortunately, the fragment preserves verse thirteen, which mentions both One Like the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days. In this verse Daniel specically describes the gure identied as the Son of Man coming unto (fyasen), the Ancient of Days. The word fyasen is of considerable interest to Cyril for it reveals certain aspects about the relationship of the two individuals identied in Daniel. Cyril explains how the verb fyasen has no spatial denotation, for the sacred lls all things and is never conned to one specic position in space; to conceive of God as stationary is foolish. Instead, Cyril explains the verb fyasen as referring to the Sons attainment of the glory of the Father, which is implied by the next verse in the passage, which states that the Son of Man received glory, honor and kingdom. Cyril also quotes Psalm 109(110).1, in which the psalmist proclaims, The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool. This verse similarly makes the point that the two divine persons are of equal status. In the surviving fragment, Cyril never suggests that the Ancient of Days is to be interpreted as the rst person of the Trinity. Instead, he intimates that the Ancient of Days is a revelation of the glory of the Father. This glory is shared with the Son, for it is bestowed upon him along with honor and kingdom, according to the text. Thus, in Cyrils interpretation, the Ancient of Days is not the Father himself, but a revelation of one specic aspect of himnamely, his glory, which is subsequently given to the Son, who is equal to the Father in every way. 9. Theodoret of Cyrus, In Danielis Cap. VII.9, 131445 Theodorets view on the Ancient of Days is revealed in his commentary on the Book of Daniel, which examines the text verse by verse.
44. PG 70:1461B. Many of Cyril of Alexandrias works are compiled by P. E. Pusey, Opera (Oxford, 186877), 7 vols., but the Daniel fragment is not included. 45. PG 81:142021, 142325.

152

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Theodoret (ca. 393ca. 446) discusses the Ancient of Days in relation to verses 910 and 1314. In his discussion of the latter, Theodorets primary concern is with the Son of Man who sits at the right of the Ancient of Days, a position that, for Theodoret, reects the equal status of the two gures.46 In examining verses 910, Theodoret attempts to decipher the meaning of the older gure. After quoting verses 910, Theodoret begins his discussion with some comments on the nature of visions of God in general. According to Theodoret, God forms visions of himself as he deems useful. Although God himself is bodiless, simple, and formless, not lending himself to description, but being descriptionless by nature,47 at certain times God chooses to provide a vision of himself. These visions are recorded by the prophets. For instance, Theodoret notes the different ways in which God was seen by Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.48 This is reected in Hosea, who records God as saying, I have made multiple visions and have likened myself in the hands of the prophets.49 Theodoret pays special attention to the word likened (moiyhn) in this quotation; this is the key to understanding the nature of divine revelations. Theodoret notes that the word likened is Hoseas way of emphasizing that God was not seen in fact.50 For Theodoret, there is a great difference between viewing a likeness and actually seeing the divine. He provides further proof of this difference when he quotes Ezekiel, who, after telling of his vision, states, such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.51 Again, Theodoret stresses that Ezekiel did not see God, but only a likeness of his glory. From these explanations, one can see Theodorets insistence on the impossibility of seeing the essence of the divine. In no way can humanity view the true nature of God, for it remains wholly invisible and formless; however, physical forms recognizable to mortals can reect specic aspects of God that cannot be directly revealed.52 Thus, the different visions given to Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and Ezekiel all exhibit different

46. PG 81:1425. 47. PG 81:1421: ti smatow vn Yew, plow te ka sxhmtistow, perigrafn odeman dexmenow, ll pergrafon xvn tn fsin. 48. Theodoret does not record the descriptions of these other visions or quote them directly in this stage of his discussion. 49. Hos 12.10. 50. PG 81:1421; Vmoiyhn epen, ok fyhn. 51. Ezek 2.1. Theodoret provides the quotation as follows: toto movma djhw Kurou (PG 81:1421). 52. Lossky, Vision, 7980.

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

153

aspects of the divine without being revelations of the true essence of God. The appearance of the Ancient of Days to Daniel is another prophetic vision intended, according to Theodoret, to reveal certain attributes and characteristics of God. After explaining visions in general in order to provide a context for the Ancient of Days, Theodoret examines this revelation specically. According to Theodoret, the Ancient of Days teaches us about eternity, for the vision of someone ancient connotes that which is eternal, wise, and gentle.53 Thus, the Ancient of Days is interpreted by Theodoret as indicating Gods wisdom, gentleness, and eternal life.

10. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De divinus nominibus, Chapter 10 54 A different type of textual commentary from those previously examined is in the treatise De divinus nominibus (On the Divine Names) by Pseudo-Dionysius (ca. 500). In this work, Pseudo-Dionysius is not interested in what specic aspect of God was revealed in any specic Old Testament vision.55 Instead, he seeks to draw a composite picture of the nature of God by discussing and comparing all the names attributed to Him. According to Pseudo-Dionysius, God is called Ancient of Days because he is the eternity and time of everything, and because he precedes days and eternity and time.56 The name Ancient of Days refers to one who is the cause of all time, of creation and time and all the days.57 This interpretation of the name Ancient of Days is reminiscent of the comments on Daniel by Hippolytus who states that the Ancient of Days makes the days old. However, Pseudo-Dionysius further explains that the phrase Ancient of Days connotes someone who was before time, beyond time, and preceded all the ages, existing before and beyond eternity.58 Rather than a name that identies one of the three persons of the Trinity, Pseudo-Dionysius interprets the phrase in Daniels vision as a descriptive statement about the nature of God in more general terms. For
53. PG 81.1424. 54. PG 3:94348. For an English translation see Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names, The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press, 1987), 49131. 55. Pseudo-Dionysius 120. 56. Pseudo-Dionysius 120. 57. Pseudo-Dionysius 120. 58. Pseudo-Dionysius 121.

154

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

him, the name Ancient of Days reects the pre-eternal aspects of the God who existed before time and yet created time.

11. John of Damascus, De imaginibus oratorio59 For John of Damascus (ca. 675ca. 749), the visions recorded in the Old Testament were pregurations of what was yet to come.60 Without stating it explicitly, John hints that visions like that of the Ancient of Days should be interpreted as revelations of the Incarnation to come, when the Logos who is the invisible Son and Word of God was to become truly man.61 These Old Testament revelations were, according to John, images created by God himself, intended to reveal to man the promise of the Incarnation. John provides several instances in which the prophets of the Old Testament fell down to venerate the vision that was presented to them. John mentions Abraham,62 Joshua,63 and Daniel,64 who all honored the forms that appeared before them, not as gods, but as images created by God. Writing during Iconoclasm, John defends icons by showing that God utilized visions, which should be considered images, to reveal his plan of salvation. The Old Testament visions were a part of the long tradition of images that played an integral role in the history of the church and in Gods plan for salvation. 12. Theodore the Studite, Oratio VI. In sanctus angelos65 Theodore the Studite (759826), in this passage in his treatise on angels, is concerned with the Old Testament appearances recorded by the prophets. While he places particular emphasis on Daniels vision, he does not specically identify the Ancient of Days. Instead, he discusses what it is not. Theodore states that the Ancient of Days was a revelation of God,66 but he also points out that it is not the essence of God that was revealed, for this is invisible, indescribable, and uncircumscribable. Theodore explains that visions in the Old Testament are to be interpreted as physical manifestations intended to help earthly beings understand the idea of God since they are unable to see the essence of
59. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, trans. David Anderson (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1980). 60. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, 80. 61. John of Damascus 80. 62. John of Damascus 80; Gen 18.2. 63. John of Damascus 80; Josh 5.14. 64. John of Damascus 80; Dan 7.9,13. 65. Theodore the Studite, In Sanctus Angelos (PG 99:740D741A). 66. Theodore the Studite, In Sanctus Angelos (PG 99:740D): tn Palain tn mern Yen.

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

155

God.67 Similar to Chrysostoms emphasis on condescension is Theodores explanation that Gods visions are revelations of himself to humanity. The commentaries and interpretations of Theodore the Studite and John of Damascus are important, for they state explicitly that the essence of God can never be seen and was not revealed by any Old Testament vision, including Daniels. However, their writings were completed in the context of the bitter struggle against the Iconoclasts, who were attacking the production and veneration of icons. Each argument and interpretation presented by these two writers was primarily intended to combat the destruction of icons and restore their veneration in the Orthodox tradition. The authors do not state with any precision who the Ancient of Days is, and what relationship, if any, he has with God the Father; this was not their main intention. They do, however, provide important interpretations of Old Testament visions.

13. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Historia ecclesiastica68 In a short passage explaining the proskomide, or preparation of the elements in the liturgy, Germanus (ca. 634ca. 733) explains the process of salvation as dictated and planned from the beginning of time. This process unfolds in three successive stages, each of which is heralded by a different manifestation of Christ: the Ancient of Days, the incarnate Emmanuel, and the adult Christ who was crucied. This text does not specically identify the Ancient of Days as either Christ or the Father. It does, however, make reference to God and the different manifestations of God to humankind throughout history. The Ancient of Days, then, rather than specically signifying the Son or the Father, is a gure meant to express the fact that God is without beginning. The history of salvation continues with the Incarnation of the Son, who, as God, is likewise without beginning; it is completed with the death of the Son. Germanus is not the rst author to schematize salvation history; other church fathers offer soteriological interpretations that explain the connections of the divine persons and their relationship to humankind. Germanus, however, incorporates the three manifestations of God into a sequential order that expresses the interconnectedness of these three divine manifestations. This text appears to reect a subtle shift in the interpretation of the Ancient of Days. Most of the other writers were
67. PG 99:740D741A. 68. St. Germanus of Constaninople, On the Divine Liturgy, tr. Paul Meyendorff (St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1984).

156

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

primarily concerned with the person of Christ, and their works reect their fundamental interest in determining the relationship between his divine and human natures. Once this fundamental issue was settled, other interpretations emerged. An example of this is Germanus explanation of three different forms of divine revelation, which he reads as a foundation for understanding Gods salvation plan for mankind.

1314. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentarius in Apocalypsin I:1216 69 and Michael Akominatos, Commentarius in Apocalypsin70 Andrew of Caesareas (563614) commentary on the Apocalypse has been dated to the sixth or seventh century, and although it is chronologically earlier than Michael Akominatos (d. after 1210) twelfth-century commentary by the same title, both writers are examined here together, since both offer an interpretation of the gure of the Ancient of Days in their commentaries. Each of the writers comments on the Ancient of Days is brief; their primary concern is with describing the end of the world and the nal judgment. However, each mentions the Ancient of Days in relation to Christ, and each comments about the signicance of the white hair. Andrew states that although he [Christ] appeared for us recently, He is shown ancient, or rather eternal; the symbol of His eternity is the white hair.71 Thus Andrew believes that the Ancient of Days is Christ. Similarly, Michael Akominatos states that the Ancient of Days . . . recently became a child for us and received esh.72 These two passages reveal that both writers identify the Ancient of Days as a manifestation of Christ in a form that stresses his eternal nature. While these two writers do not discuss the Ancient of Days at great length, they explain that the Ancient of Days implies the eternal, and that the white hair, specically, is a symbol of eternity. These aspects of eternity are interpreted by both writers as characteristics of the divine, but more specically, the person of Christ.
69. For the Greek text see PG 106:228D, 517D. 70. For the Greek text see Duobounithw, Epethrw Etaireaw Bujantnn Spoudn (Athens, 1928), vol. 5, 1930. The passage on the Ancient of Days is discussed on p. 24. 71. An English translation of Andrews commentary is found in George Galavaris, The Illustrations of the Prefaces in Byzantine Gospels (Vienna: sterreichischen Akadamie der Wisssenschaften, 1979), 99. 72. In Greek e ka prsfatow ggoune d mw, nhpasaw w srka labn (Duobounithw, Epethrw 24).

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

157

II. THE LITERARY INTERPRETATIONS IN COMPARISON An overview of the interpretations expressed by these writers on the meaning of the Ancient of Days reveals some contradictions and disparities. While all basically agree that the elderly features are reective of the eternal existence of God, there is no consensus on the identity of the gure. The Byzantine writers dene the Ancient of Days in one of two different contexts: rst, in explanations of the relationship between the Ancient of Days and the One Like a Son of Man, and second, in reference to the unusual elderly features. When the writers we have examined attempt to determine the relationship between the Ancient of Days and One Like the Son of Man, they express an awareness of the unique features of this vision. For instance, Chrysostom notes that Daniels vision of the two gures is the only one in which the two divine persons are seen face to face.73 The importance of the two individuals is clear, and their relationship to one another not only has a bearing on the meaning of the vision, but also on Trinitarian theology. To determine the relationship of the two principle gures in the vision, several fathers seize on the verb fyasen, meaning came unto. For John Chrysostom, the action of the gure, identied by Daniel as One Like the Son of Man, who came unto (fyasen) the Ancient of Days, reects the identical honor he shares with the Ancient of Days. This shared identical honor has Trinitarian implications, for the vision reects the equal status of the rst two persons of the Christian Trinity. Likewise, Cyril of Alexandria stresses that the gure who comes onto the Ancient of Days does so not in a spatial or physical sense. The action of One Like the Son of Man, described as approaching the Ancient of Days, is meant to convey, according to Cyril, that the two persons enjoy identical honor and status. While some writers interpret the identical honor of the gures as a revelation of Trinitarian relationships, specically that of the Father and the Son, many withhold their identication of the Ancient of Days as the Father until they interpret verses 1314, in which the gure identied as One Like the Son of Man actually approaches the Ancient of Days. While certain authors tend to identify the Ancient of Days as the Father at this point, there is a tendency among other writers to suggest that all Old Testament visions reveal God the Son and should be interpreted as foreshadows of the Incarnation.
73. John Chrysostom, In Danielem (PG 56:233).

158

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

This latter emphasis is seen in the writing of Cyril of Alexandria, and to a lesser degree Eusebius of Caesarea, who tended to interpret the visions of the Old Testament as revelations of Christ, the pre-existent Logos. This Alexandrian interpretation stands in contrast to that of the Antiochenes, exemplied by John Chrysostom and Theodoret of Cyrus, who tended not to emphasize Old Testament visions as pregurations of Christ. Rather, the Antiochene tradition places more emphasis on the role of Gods condescension as a temporal and historical event. A good example of this school of thought is John Chrysostoms explanation of the prophets visions. John states that the prophets saw of God what was possible for them to understand at the precise moment of their vision.74 This is in contrast to Cyril of Alexandria and Eusebius, who enter into a Christological explanation of Old Testament visions and interpret them as typological pregurations of events in the New Testament. Chrysostom does not identify outright the Ancient of Days as God the Father, but he does allude to that interpretation when he explains that the existence of the two separate visionary forms suggests that identical honor is due to both gures. In other words, the honor of the Son is equal to that of the Father, and Chrysostoms interpretation of equal honor suggests that the Father, in his manifestation as the Ancient of Days, is present in order to offer the identical honor to the gure named One Like the Son of Man. In Chrysostoms view, Daniels vision was the rst and only vision in which a prophet sees both the Father and Son.75 Thus, the Antiochenes, exemplied here by Chrysostom, tend to read Trinitarian implications into the vision of the two gures. Rather than viewing the Ancient of Days as a manifestation of the rst person of the Trinity, Cyril of Alexandria interprets the old man in Daniels vision as a preguration of the two states of the same Son of God. In his chapter that dicusses whether or not God the Father could be portrayed in an image like that of the Ancient of Days, Ouspensky notes that Cyrils view reects a tendency in the Alexandrian School to interpret all Old Testament visions of God as revelations of Christ, not the Father.76 Cyril interprets the statement, the Son attained the glory of the Father, as an indication that the Son, in the humanity assumed in
74. Metropolitan Demetrios Trakatellis, Theodorets Commentary on Isaiah: A Synthesis of Exegetical Traditions, New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff, ed. B. Nassif (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 329. 75. Chrysostom, In Danielem (PG 56:233). 76. Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, trans. Anthony Gythiel (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1992), 377.

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

159

the Incarnation, shared in the glory of the Father from whom he was never separated. For Cyril, the two gures in the vision of Daniel pregure the two states of the same Son of God, specically his state of pre-existence and Incarnation. Thus, the account of anthropomorphic images of the Godhead, here the Ancient of Days and One Like the Son of Man, can only refer to Christ, either in the context of the Incarnation (Son of Man) or in the pre-existence that he shares with the Father (the Ancient of Days). It would appear that Cyril of Alexandria would never have identied the Ancient of Days in Daniels vision as God the Father. In Ouspenskys words, to detect the two different persons in the vision of Daniel would be to apply to a prophecy the logical categories it transcends, and would lead to the false interpretation that the Ancient of Days refers to God the Father.77 Ouspenskys comments on Cyril should be read in reference to the church fathers, who tend to interpret Old Testament visions as revelations of God the Son prior to the Incarnation. Since patristic writers generally viewed Old Testament theophanies as revelations of the Son, and not the Father, it would appear that it was artists, seeking to represent God the Father, who erroneously interpreted the vision of the Ancient of Days as a manifestation of the Father. In a similar vein, John of Damascus writes and stresses the uncircumscribable nature of God prior to the Incarnation. In his third oration on images, John states that humans are incapable of seeing bodiless creatures in their natures (Orat. 3.25): We know that it is impossible to look upon God, or a spirit . . . as they are by nature. We would be able to see them, however, if they appeared in forms alien to their nature.78 Here, John of Damascus is speaking primarily of angels and their bodiless natures, and he explains that we are able to see them only because they take on a nature foreign to their angelic immateriality in order to be seen by human eyes.79 According to John of Damascus, the Old Testament visions are Gods way of making aspects of his uncircumscribable nature visible to us. In order for humans to see God, he must take on another form, for his essence is formless and shapeless.
77. Ouspensky, Theology, 377. 78. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, 79. 79. According to John of Damascus, we are connected to Christ and can be united to God more so than the angels, for they are composed of an angelic nature, but Christ took on a human nature in addition to his divine nature. And we can unite with Christ when his human nature is re-enacted and present in the Eucharist. Because of death, our human nature is inferior to the angels, but because of Gods good will and the Incarnation, it has become superior to the angels.

160

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

This interpretation is similar to Cyrils view that any vision in the Old Testament is a revelation of an aspect or form of the Incarnate Word who is yet to come. God the Father in his divinity is incapable of being seen by humans. This is further emphasized by John of Damascus when he writes that even Abraham did not see the divine nature, but rather an image of God. While God the Father, the fully divine, is never seen by humans, an image of God is possible only through God the Son, who is the only true and natural image of God. From these examples, it is clear that identifying the Ancient of Days as a specic person leads to contradictory interpretations. However, much more agreement is reected in the authors interpretations of the meaning of the aged features. Almost uniformly they interpret the characteristics of old age as indicative not of a decrepit being, but reective of power over, or independence of, time. Pseudo-Dionysius interprets the nomenclature that alludes to old age as a reection of one who created time, stating that the Ancient of Days connotes someone who is the cause of time and yet exceeds its limitations.80 In their commentaries on the Apocalypse, both Andrew of Caesarea and Michael Akominatos describe the white hair of the Ancient of Days as symbolic of eternity, a trait showing that he existed before the beginning of time. In addition to these writers general agreement that the white hair of the Ancient of Days signies Gods pre-existence is the notion that physical features of old age are an appropriate means for expressing the Last Judgment. Chrysostom notes that the phrase Ancient of Days does not connote an aging gure, but symbolizes something else. He notes, for instance, that when one hears the word throne one does not simply think of a chair or seat, but ideas of nal judgment also come to mind.81 Similarly, the aged features of the Ancient of Days indicate, according to Chrysostom, a wise person who has the power of nal judgment.82 The writers who comment on Daniels vision agree, more or less, that the elderly features of the Ancient of Days reect a powerful gure who controls and even creates time. In addition, the aged characteristics denote the gures pre-existence and power over time, which likewise reects eternity. Other writers, in harmony with this idea of the gures power over time, suggest that old age is indicative of the coming judgment. While there is general agreement on the eternal qualities of the
80. Pseudo-Dionysios, Divine Names, 121. 81. Chrysostom, In Danielem (PG 56:229). 82. Chrysostom, In Danielem (PG 56:229).

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION

161

Ancient of Days, some discrepancies appear when a specic, Trinitarian identity is proposed for the gure. For instance, some claim the Ancient of Days to be the Father, while others are more cautious, noting that some sort of relationship between the two gures is conveyed in the text, but not explaining this relationship with any specicity. The different interpretations of this vision could only be uncovered by comparing all the extant sources. Having completed such a compilation, the importance and complexity of Daniels vision becomes clear. The different emphases in the various interpretations reect theological debates on various subjects ranging from the denition of the Trinity to the characteristics of the nal judgment. Daniels vision of the Ancient of Days is a unique one that inuenced not only the denition of spiritual concepts, but artistic renderings of the Holy Trinity as well. The comparison of the written commentaries on this vision, spanning from the third to the twelfth century, reveals the evolution of the interpretation of the Ancient of Days and reects the complexity of this theophany recorded in the Book of Daniel. Gretchen Kreahling McKay is Professor of Art History at the Savannah College of Art and Design