In the light of the fact that the combination of Dan. 10.6 and 7.9 can be found in no less than three texts, and may be hinted at in other passages, the first alternative is correct, the question arises ow it came about that Dan. 10.6 was combined with this particular aspect of the description of the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7.9. Two possible explanations suggest themselves.

(1) From a very early stage the connections between Dan. 10.5-9 and descriptions of theophanies were recognized, and as a result items from theophanies contributed to the later use of Dan. 10.5-9. In the light of the close connections which exist between Dan. 10.3-5 and Ezekiel 1 it should not surprise us to find that Daniel 10 was linked with theophanic passages, and that it attracted material from them.

(2) A rather more complicated process seems possible, which deserves consideration.

If in the tradition there had been identification of the angel in Dan. 10.6 with כבר אנש of Dan. 7.13, then it becomes possible to see why the angel should have white hair, an attribute of the Ancient of Days. It can be explained by the Septuagint reading of Dan. 7.13, ως παλαιος ημερων (cf. Θ εως παλαιου ημερων), a reading of some antiquity. The significance of the variant, whatever the reason for its origin, is that an identification nis made between the man-like figure and the Ancient of Days.

It is suggested that the Apocalypse of Abraham, Joseph and Asenath and Revelation all reflect an exegetical tradition which (a) knew of the identification of the man-like figure with the Ancient of Days implied by the Septuagint variant, (b) identified the human figure of 7.13 as an angelic being, and (c) as a result linked this verse with the parallel angelophany in Dan. 10.5-9.

Evidence for such a process is not entirely lacking in the passages we have been considering. After all Rev. 1.13-16 shows that Dan. 7.13 has been linked with the angelophany in Daniel 10, as has already been suggested. Such a link between the angelic beings may well have been prompted by the similarity between כבר אנש and איש אחד, not to mention the links with Ezekiel 1 which are to be found in both passages. In the later development of theophanic passages in apocalyptic texts there is evidence of a tendency to combine features from several related passages. Certainly Rev. 1.13-16 offers evidence of this process, for, in addition to Daniel 10, Ezek. 9.2 may have contributed to 1.13 (line 9): (ενδεδυκως ποδηρη και ζωνη σαπφειρου επι τηε οσφυος αυτου; cf. Rev. 1.13 ενδεδυμενον ποδηρη και περιεζωσμενον προς τοις μαστοις ζωνην χρυσαν), and in Rev. 1.16 Ezek 1.24 is used (line 37) (ως φωνην υδατων πολλων). Evidence of the expansion of Daniel 10 in Joseph and Asenath and Apocalypse of Abraham is not to easy to find, with the exception of the reference to the hair of the angel, though it is possible that the words ‘the appearance of his body was like sapphire’ (lines 13-14) and ‘countenance of chrysolite’ (line 16) may reflect Ezek 9.2 and 28.13 respectively.

Thus the second explanation deserves consideration, namely, that Joseph and Asenath, Apocalypse of Abraham and Revelation on an interpretation of Dan. 10.5-9 which had linked the latter with Dan. 7.13 in the form known to us in the Septuagint. Whatever may be thought of this explanation of the development of Daniel 10, there is evidence to suggest that we have in Apocalypse of Abraham, Joseph and Asenath and Revelation is an interpretative tradition of significance not only for Jewish angelology but also for early Christology. That the latter is true is confirmed by evidence of the persistence of this tradition in the Christophanies in works like the Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis (chs. 4, 11). But this is just a small part of the developing angelology which is of considerable importance for the study of Judaism and early Christianity alike.