sources, the critical reaction is certainly justified. Moreover, it is unwarranted to suppose that all Jewish witnesses to the “Son of Man” draw on a composite myth that encompasses them all. It is now readily granted that “the Son of Man” was not a fixed title in Judaism in the first century CE. The significance of this point should not be exaggerated, however. The text of Daniel’s vision was well known, and it inspired further reflections and imaginative elaborations. It is not necessary to posit