Perhaps no canonical book led to more debate on the nature and number of the powers in the heavenly host. As Segal has demonstrated, the contents of Daniel expressed divine plurality so explicitly that discussion of Daniel 7 had to be suppressed by the rabbis. In view of the fascination with Daniel in non-canonical Second Temple texts, including the sectarian material from Qumran, it should come as no surprise that some of the clearest and boldest references to plural אלהים and exalted divine mediators (as explanations of the Son of Man figure in Daniel 7) are found in these very late biblical texts in contexts that allude to material in Daniel. As has already been noted, these references to plural אלהים seem to aberrant that most contemporary scholars feel compelled to relegate council members to the status of angels. If we reject the idea that the divine council has been diluted in this manner, however, the anomalous becomes the anticipated.

This chapter argues that the contents of the book of Daniel created no religious trepidation among Second Temple Jews, as would be logically expected within the context of a zealous, intolerant monotheism. Daniel represents continuity and expansion of the pre-exilic Israelite divine council and divine vice-regency in Judaism. The books’ contents bear no resemblance to a religious outlook that presumably had long since been the rejection of divine plurality.