"And they said to the king in reply, 'Truly, O king!' The king answered (the Vulgate omits "the king"): 'Behold, I see four men unbound and walking about in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt, and the appearance of the fourth man (B) is the likeness of a son of God.' " Let me say again, how wise was the fire and how indescribable the power of God! Their bodies had been bound with chains; those chains were burnt up, whereas the bodies themselves were not burnt. As for the appearance of the fourth man, which he asserts to be like that of a son of God, either we must take him to be an angel, as the Septuagint has rendered it, or indeed, as the majority think, the Lord our Savior. Yet I do not know how an ungodly king could have merited a vision of the Son of God. On that |44 reasoning one should follow Symmachus, who has thus interpreted it: "But the appearance of the fourth is like unto the sons," not unto the sons of God but unto gods themselves. We are to think of angels here, who after all are very frequently called gods as well as sons of God. So much for the story itself. But as for its typical significance, this angel or son of God foreshadows our Lord Jesus (p. 512) Christ, who descended into the furnace of hell, in which the souls of both sinners and of the righteous were imprisoned, in order that He might without suffering any scorching by fire or injury to His person deliver those who were held imprisoned by chains of death.
See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm
12 comments:
See the sanitized version:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R_ZLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=jerome+on+the+fiery+furnace&source=bl&ots=3Y4I-eY6g1&sig=ACfU3U3cqoNO2f0QRvXQRxY2CLGu0VpQgw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbqcvMyNbgAhXjrHEKHSsCDJMQ6AEwBXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=jerome%20on%20the%20fiery%20furnace&f=false
https://www.biblestudytools.com/ceba/tobit/passage/?q=tobit+6:7-17
The Tertullian website has most, if not all, of Jerome's commentary. I was specifically citing the part that deals with Dan. 3:25. As for the Tobit story, that is just plain weird. :)
Yes, Tobit is weird but I am looking at its place in time & calling the Angel Azariah.
Even fanciful stories come from somewhere.
Tobit has been dated from the 5th century BCE-100 BCE. So the story of Azariah as an angel is old. Furthermore, I believe that Azariah the angel is supposed to be Raphael incognito. The Anchor Bible commentary for Daniel also spends some time analyzing the apocryphal story of Azariah the angel. But angelology existed prior to the 5th century BCE.
Commentary on Tobit: https://books.google.com/books?id=GKcFCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=fitzmyer+tobit&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikobH83NjgAhVOh-AKHdudAdkQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=fitzmyer%20tobit&f=false
See also http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0184.xml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_(archangel)#In_the_Book_of_Enoch
Intriguing, that this one is given the name Azariah.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/157587611.pdf
This looks like a useful resource.
In that paper, search Ashkelonite princes & Judean princes.
The paper does look useful. On the Azariah issue, I was also thinking that Daniel clearly distinguishes between Azariah (one of the 3 Hebrews) and "the fourth man" in the fire, later described as an angel/divine agent or god. So the Azariah = angel tradition came later, but still might have stemmed from Daniel.
That is what struck me, a possible two way conflation. Daniel & 1st Enoch.
Yes, that seems quite probable.
Notice a history of how Daniel 3:25 has been understood/interpreted: https://www.academia.edu/34141698/Christophanic_Exegesis_and_the_Problem_of_Symbolization_Daniel_3_the_Fiery_Furnace_as_a_Test_Case
Post a Comment