What impressed Nebuchadnezzar most of all was that now the three Jews had been joined by a fourth man, and this one looked like “a son of the gods.” Porteous69 and the majority of Jewish scholars have identified this person as an angel. For example, Slotki remarks, “The Talmud asserts that it was the archangel Gabriel (Pes. 118a, b).”70 According to Lacocque, “The expression is used in the inscriptions at Karatepe and Ugarit where it designates the members of the divine court.”71 However, the expression “a son of the gods” ascribes deity to the being, since an offspring of the gods partakes of the divine nature. Young remarks: “The meaning is son of deity, i.e., a Divine Person, one of the race of the gods, a supernatural being.”72 The NRSV's “the appearance of a god” seems to capture the idea well, for the king believed that he had seen no less than a god in the flames with the three Hebrews. The KJV renders this phrase “the Son of God,” an apparent allusion to the second person of the Trinity. Either the NIV or KJV translation is possible grammatically. In biblical Aramaic the plural noun ’ĕlāhîn may be assumed to have the same force as ’ĕlōhîm in biblical Hebrew, which can be rendered as a plural, “gods,” or as a singular, “God,” when denoting the true God, the plural form being an attempt to express the divine fullness and majesty.73 In this context, however, the translation of the NIV and most modern versions is to be preferred, since Nebuchadnezzar was polytheistic and had no conception of the Christian Trinity. Thus the pagan king only meant that the fourth figure in the fire was divine. From the Christian perspective, we know that the preincarnate Christ did appear to individuals in the Old Testament. Most likely the fourth man in the fire was the angel of the Lord, God himself in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, a view held by many expositors (cf. comments on 6: 21–22).74 It is certainly true that when believers go through fiery trials Christ is with them. The three Hebrews experienced literally the promise, “When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze”(Isa 43:2).
Miller, Stephen B. Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture: 18 (The New American Commentary) (Kindle Locations 2197-2218). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
48 comments:
I find the nievety of the commentaries staggering. Who would be a son of the gods in Egypt or most other empires of the near east?
Does it say a son of the gods or "like" a son of the gods? If ALL the officials were present then so was Daniel.
Who is denying that a son of the gods could refer to a human, in certain contexts? But the Hebrew Bible also seems to assign that designation to angels/spirit beings too. If God is our father, why would he not also be the father of spirit beings? But nobody to my knowledge is denying that "son of God" sometimes refers to humans.
Nebuchadnezzar was talking about the persons within the furnace, not those without the furnace. He specifically said that four persons were walking in the fire's midst. And "like" just means he had the appearance or form of a divine being.
Ellicott's Commentary on Daniel 3:25: These words, let us remember, are uttered by a heathen king, who calls this same Person, in Daniel 3:28, “an angel” of the God whom the three children worshipped. Probably Nebuchadnezzar thought that He stood to Jehovah in the same relation that he himself did to Merodach. His conceptions of the power of Jehovah were evidently raised by what he had witnessed, though as yet he does not recognise Him as being more than a chief among gods.
From Rashi (Daniel 3:25): is like [that of] an angel: It is like the angel I saw when I was with Sannecherib, when his armies were burned, as it is said (II Kings 19:35): “[And an angel of the Lord went forth] and slew… of the camp of Assyria.” And Nebuchadnezzar was there and fled among the ten who fled from them.
But he say's that he sees four "men". So what did the "angel" look like?
What do "heavenly" angels (messengers) look like in the Babylonian tradition as opposed to royalty?
Rashi has no bearing on this discussion.
In any case Rashi uses the feminine form of:- https://biblehub.com/hebrew/426.htm
Goddess, not a Malak.
In Daniel 6 it does say malak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=17&v=ZyIARlX34eo
Asiatic lions NOT african.
http://www.cfs-umich.org/PPTs/L24-GirLions.pdf
"Less aggressive towards humans (usually)"
Angels customarily are depicted as men throughout scripture. The angel looked like a man, but with a god's form. We cannot overlook that wording. See Alter's commentary on the verse too.I disagree that Rashi has no bearing.
The lions in Daniel were not tame or less aggressive.
See https://www.freedomtek.org/en/invisibles/fallen_angels.php
See page 234 of this dissertation: http://theoluniv.ub.rug.nl/32/7/2013Doedens%20Dissertation.pdf
Note also page 224 for comments on Job 38:7.
Daniel in the Syriac Commentary: https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/10982/Botha_Interpretation%282005%29.pdf?sequence=1
Note Andrei Orlov's comments at https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/orlovterah.html#_ftnref31:
In Daniel, the story of the fiery test finds its place, as it does in the Apocalypse of Abraham, in the midst of debates about the essence of true and false (idolatrous) representations of the Deity. There, Nebuchadnezzar orders to put into the furnace of the blazing fire three Israelite youth - Shadrach, Mashach, and Abednego, who refused to worship the golden idol of the king. In the course of the fiery test these three men are rescued by the divine manifestation[31] which miraculously appears in the midst of fire. Commentators of this tradition have noted that the Aramaic text preserves the mystery of the divine presence in the furnace and does not reveal the identity of the divine manifestation. However, the authors of the Greek version of Daniel 3 fill the exegetical lacunae by recounting the story of the angel of the Lord descending into the furnace in order to rescue the three faithful Jews.[32] It is clear that this divine corporeality unharmed by the fiery test is polemically juxtaposed in the text with the idolatrous “image” of the king and appears to be understood as a "statue" superior to the idol created by Nebuchadnezzar. The fiery test of the human bodies of Shadrach, Mashach, and Abednego, who endure the deadly flames along with the divine form, is also noteworthy. The imagery of the blazing furnace in Daniel 3 appears to represent an important theophanic locus where the human corporealities are able to encounter the divine extent in the midst of fire. Choon Leong Seow underlines this important theophanic aspect of the passage when he remarks that “the Jews do not only survive the ordeal, they even encounter divine presence in the fire ordeal.”[33] He further notes that
the narrator does not say that the four individuals are walking in the furnace, but that they are walking amid the fire… the story is that they are with a divine being in the midst of the fire. They encounter divine presence in the middle of the fire. Here, as often in the Old Testament, fire is associated with the presence of God. On Mount Sinai, the presence of God was accompanied by, perhaps even made manifest by, the appearance of fire (Exod. 19:16, 19; 20:18, 21) and in Israel’s hymnody fire is often associated with the manifestation of God (e.g., Pss. 18:8-16; 77:17-20)…
One has to wonder why orlov's commentary does not refer to exodus 3:2?
The lions in Daniel would have been Asiatic before they had been wiped out.
https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/symposia/religion-and-power-divine-kingship-ancient-world-and-beyond-0
Interesting link about the divinized kings, but I don't see how that's even a remote possibility in the Danielic narrative. The son/divine being in 3:25 is clearly something other than human and differentiated from anyone in the king's court.
I'm not msure why Orlov does not cite Exodus 3:2, but it might not have contributed to his overall focus. However, looking back at the website, Orlov does mention the burning bush early in his piece. But he's focusing on the Apoc Abraham.
I'm also including Robert Alter's commentary regarding Dan. 3:25:
I see four men walking unbound within the fire. Although there are from time to time miraculous events in earlier biblical narrative, this late text drastically steps up the supernatural nature of the miracle. The prophet Elijah does ascend to heaven in a fiery chariot, but that is, after all, a translation from earthly existence to something beyond. In this story, on the other hand, human figures living in the here-and-now walk about in the intense flames, accompanied by a divine being, as though they were going for an evening stroll. Their bonds as well have miraculously disappeared, and even their garments, itemized above, have not been singed.
a divine being. The literal sense of the Aramaic is “son of God,” but as with its Hebrew equivalent, which appears frequently in earlier biblical texts, the idiom does not suggest filial connection with God but rather belonging to the general category of celestial figures.
One more link I'll supply is from the ICC on Daniel: https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic22montuoft/page/214
I've heard many good things about the Hermeneia Daniel Commentary by Collins as well.
Something does not ring true about "angel of ashtart", see:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tnpJDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=angel+of+ashtart&source=bl&ots=LAqLDWNSOQ&sig=ACfU3U2YKXRVzE7mQWs7NeDOrjcW7GBISA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjy0cG5z7jgAhVhRBUIHYGrASkQ6AEwE3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=ashtart&f=false
Not a single entity.
https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/135405/1/Sugimoto_2014_Transformation_of_a_Goddess.pdf
See section 2.8
“The god the Angel of Milkashtart” - an unusual combination of terms.
As an interesting aside see page 192 - 194:-
"Astarte may have been made manifest through an attribute animal, such as the ox or cow skulls worn by priests or dedicants found on the Kition temple Floor 3.9" ... "Consistent with the eclectic nature of Astarte worship and Phoenician culture in general, we find significant numbers of Egyptian/Egyptianizing features in connection with Astarte worship. The large number of Egyptian amulets (Kition-Kathari, Sarepta, Tas Silġ, Mitzpe Yamim), the Egyptianizing sphinx thrones (Sarepta, Soluntum, Khirbet et-Tayibe), and Egyptian archi-tectural elements (Tas Silġ, Paphos, Umm el-Amed) may be attributable to commercial and aesthetic rather than theological considerations."
Also note the page on kings and reference to horned crown or flounced robe.
https://www.academia.edu/1581259/The_Babylonian_Background_of_the_Motif_of_the_Fiery_Furnace_in_Daniel_3
See this link, https://books.google.com/books?id=6XGtAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA56&dq=angel+of+the+lord+and+ashtart&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNo9LJ97zgAhUDWN8KHVhVA64Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=angel%20of%20the%20lord%20and%20ashtart&f=false
Note page 55 and following.
Compare https://brill.com/previewpdf/book/edcoll/9789004276086/B9789004276086-s005.xml
Mesopotamian Background, etc.
Also, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25608308?casa_token=1xV8RqrQ_f0AAAAA:kCv7DyNbr3i1cZBxGlPNI8A_ydScvKjSwlYPSsiK3kQAKs_ZKvHS1sevku_of4pc4cF_hyurgK-omO__s4jFC-yAWua8FacJgoEdNsPhyD6TTTpIEYIf&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
7 times hotter. Is that possible?
The angel in the milkashtart is probably the high priest in above.
Not so sure that the angel is the high priest in that context.
See https://www.academia.edu/8321179/_Archaeological_and_Inscriptional_Evidence_for_Phoenician_Astarte_pp._167-94_in_D._Sugimoto_ed._Transformation_of_a_Goddess_Ishtar_-_Astarte_-_Aphrodite._Fribourg_Academic_and_Gottingen_Vandenhoeck_and_Ruprecht_2014
Also see https://janes.scholasticahq.com/article/2173.pdf
"The Nabataean Presence at Palmyra."
Compare https://www.jstor.org/stable/41880192?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
7 times hotter could be a literary device. This is what Stephen R. Miller suggests based on comments from Baldwin and Hartman. Compare Proverbs 24:16; 26:16. Hartman points out that Daniel 3:19 is saying in idiomatic fashion that the furnace was heated to "maximum intensity."
A Babylonian idiom?
"The cult of the angels among the Semites enjoyed popular favor during the last centuries of the first millenium B. C. and the first centuries of our era"
These are later when there seems to be an obsession with "angels" in general.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal
I don't think the writers I cited above limit the idiom to Babylon: it could be a Semitic idiom.
The quote above mentions "cult of the angels" which likely did appear later. But angelology or belief in angels seems to have materialized earlier, including language about the mlk YHWH. See Stuckenbruck and Hannah.
https://www.baylorpress.com/9781481307987/angel-veneration-and-christology/
Another interesting work is https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ajs-review/article/saul-m-olyan-a-thousand-thousands-served-him-exegesis-and-the-naming-of-angels-in-ancient-judaism-texte-und-studien-zum-antiken-judentum-36-tubingen-j-c-b-mohr-paul-siebeck-1993-xiv-148-pp/376AF2D73147B9D1CDB12C6BD79A4B93
I'm not sure how the sexagesimal article is tied to 7 times hotter. Maybe you could enlighten me.
NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: "[Daniel] 3:19 seven times hotter. This is hyperbole. The brick kilns of the time normally operated at around 1650°F (900°C). With the technology available it would not have been possible even to double this temperature."
Are the words the king's or not?
Base 6 is his language.
I still do not think that the angel of Jehovah is relevant to Daniel since his messengers carry other names and there are more than one. The name "Jehovah" is used in Daniel so the designation could have been used. To much interpolation here.
Why not an Aramaic rendering of the king's language since Daniel is giving the account? I don't see the 7 times hotter language being an impediment to viewing the words as belonging to the king. Neither do the commentators I've consulted.
The angel of Jehovah is relevant (IMO) only insofar as the idea seems to have developed before Daniel was written, and it possibly lends credence to the notion that an actual spirit being delivered the three Hebrews and later, Daniel. I am not saying that the "angel" in the fire was the mlk YHWH, but just noting that Daniel is possibly using "angel" to mean a spirit being although the king mentions the angel.
Personally, I don't think Daniel is heavily interpolated either. Not sure what examples of interpolation you have in mind.
Sexagesimal is actually base 60, and I believe it can accommodate/express the number, 7, in sexagesimal terms.
They invented and developed arithmetic using several different number systems including a mixed radix system with an alternating base 10 and base 6. It is still partially used for measuring time and angles.
One can accommodate the number 7 in any system from binary to hexadecimal and beyond but is that the point?
"Now, as Donohue (2008) and Evans (2009) show, base-6 can equally be
motivated through body-part tallying. They can point to real finger-counting
practices in the South New Guinean speech communities concerned; earlier,
Kewitsch (1904) had to resort to conjecture when he sought a motive for the
salience of 6 and 60 in Sumerian (or indeed pre-Sumerian) mathematics, previously explained in terms of astronomy:1" pg 338
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249932141_Senary_summary_so_far/download
So base six is relevant but may not relate to astrology but IMO it does.
http://php.math.unifi.it/archimede/archimede/laboratori/materiali/sumeriENG-giusti.pdf
But I think it is no coincidence that the terms "Babylon the great" & "666" or "616" (of which I am now in favor) are used in Revelation. I do not think it has anything to do with Greek or Latin.
Interpolation in interpretation - are we then saying that Michael is possibly NOT the angel of Jehovah?
"The base 6 numerical system is the reason why Babylonians chose 12 months instead of 10 for their calendar".
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub402/entry-6083.html
"Daniel is giving the account?" - So Daniel was their ?
Well, you asked if the king really said the fire was 7 times hotter because of the sexagesimal system. I was just pointing out that yes, he could have made the statement or one equivalent to it. Or Daniel could have translated it. And why would he have to be an eyewitness in order to report the Kong's words? It could have been related to him, etc.
We also don't know with absolute certainty, who the mlk YHWH was. Could have been Michael/ Christ, but we don't know for sure.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.6246.pdf
So it looks like "7" was special to them but not in the same way as the Hebrews.
What might this mean for the kings statement?
Doesn't the account in effect say that everyone was their, thus implicating Daniel as an eye witness?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Archangels
Either way, the scholars who indicate that 7 refers to maximal intensity seem to have a point, whether the king said it that exact way or not. We also don't know whether Daniel was there or not. Strange that he wasn't thrown in the fire or even mentioned.
Seven archangels is a relatively late concept.
Seven Angels is a late concept but seven demons is not & it has a Babylonian origin.
Note the comments here pertaining to Dan. 3:19: http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Daniel/commentary/htm/chapters/03.html#26606
Not really a surprise about the origin of seven demons. But later, in the near future, I want to address the 666/616 issue.
Yes, but bear in mind that when I say 7 demons it does not carry the Christian connotations. These were perceived as neither good or evil.
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/113660/gvkonsta_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
See page 10.
The point about 7 demons is tangential, IMO, but some of them were evil (it seems). I'm not going to debate the isue, but the reader can decide for him/herself:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5085-demonology
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/enki/
Post a Comment