I am saying that the OT scriptures as a whole, and in this case Daniel in particular, provide a context which to an extent is set apart from more general contexts, and even the targums, because it was these writings and not any others which came to be accepted as a canon. Since there only seems to be one other usage of pelach, in Ezra, which retains the same kind of significance as the usage in Daniel, the wider scriptural context is supportive, but less relevant.
Daniel was of course ‘canonised’ in ‘the writings’ of the Hebrew scriptures.
I am also not denying the importance of word use in contemporary literature to compare with biblical usage in ascertaining meaning. In this case however, it is striking that the association with deity is so consistent, with no other alternative significance elsewhere in the canon, or even usage apart from Ezra (so I am told), until we get to this usage in Daniel 7 which is under discussion.
Since there is debate about the precise significance of the word in Daniel 7, I think a meaning that is a variant of Andrew’s proposal and accords with Daniel’s consistent and more or less exclusive usage elsewhere deserves more time of day. Especially as the passage and its interpretation in Daniel 7 is so cryptic. David Boyarin points up a paradox: that ‘son of God’ whilst popularly accepted as a divine designation has more human origins, whilst ‘son of man’, popularly accepted as a human designation, is closer to the divine in origin (according to some of the earliest Jewish interpreters of Daniel).
I’m fine about Andrew presenting a case for his own views and vigorously defending them. It’s very disconcerting when the views move from vigorous defence to no other view being admissible to personal abuse. That way deception lies?