Many of the revised translations (see RV, RSV, etc.) follow this literal rendering. Some have felt that such a rendering detracts from the majesty of our Redeemer. The English phrase
“a son of man” is admittedly indefinite in tone. However, the corresponding phrase in the Aramaic is full of meaning. Along with other ancient languages, the Aramaic omits the article when the primary stress is upon quality, and uses it when the stress is on identity. The normal order in prophetic narrative is for the prophet first to describe what he has seen, and later to give attention to identity. Prophetic items are usually introduced without the article. When subsequently referred to, the article is employed (see on
v. 9). Thus there were
“four great beasts” (
v. 3), not
“the four great beasts,” but later
“all the beasts” (
v. 7). The Ancient of days was introduced as
“One, ancient in days” (see on
v. 9) but later referred to as
“the Ancient of days” (
vs. 13, 22; see on
v. 9). Compare further,
“a ram” and
“the ram,” “two horns” and
“the two horns,” “an he goat” and
“the he goat” (
ch. 8:3-8), etc. In harmony with this rule the Son of God is introduced literally as
“One, of human form.” He is not again referred to by this expression in this prophecy. If He were, the definite article would probably appear. In the NT the expression
“Son of man” which most commentators agree is based on
ch. 7:13, occurs almost invariably with the article.