"Son of God" or "A son of the gods"? Daniel 3:25

[Logos1560]

Are KJV editions consistent in their rendering of Daniel 3:25 compared with Daniel 4:8 and 4:9?

Daniel 3:25 [see Dan. 4:8]

son of God (1675, 1681, 1720, 1737, 1758, 1774, 1784, 1788 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1761, 1768, 1783 Cambridge] (1611, 1640, 1657, 1698, 1703, 1706, 1730, 1741, 1795, 1827, 1828 London) (1638, 1715, 1735, 1751, 1760, 1766, 1769, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1799 Helston) (1802 Carey) (1804 MH) (1809 Boston) (1843 AFBS) (1853, 1854, 1855, 1858 ABS) (CB) (1833 WEB)

SON OF GOD (2009 Strand)

Son of God (1679, 1709, 1754, 1768, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1648, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1769, 1775, 1792, 1812, 1816, 1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, DKJB] {1613, 1614, 1616, 1630, 1631, 1655, 1660, 1743, 1759, 1760, 1764, 1768, 1772, 1811, 1813, 1820, 1824, 1838, 1853, 1879, 1976 London} (1782, 1801, 1809 Dublin) (1776 Birmingham) (1790 Bolton) (1810 Woodward) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1868, 1888, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (1821 Brown) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1850 AFBS) (1868 RTS) (1957, 1964, 2007 TCRB) (1959 Little) (1961, 1975, 1978, 2008 GID) (1972 NMRB) (1974 MBI) (1976 OGH) (1976 TBR) (WMCRB) (1987 IBS) (LASB) (KJRLB) (1989, 1991 World) (1991, 2012 FWP) (1996 ELKJV) (2000 Holman) (2000 Rainbow) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (EB) (RSB) (CNB) (2008, 2012 ROASB) (ASB) (2011 KJVDB) (2012 Biblica) (2012 WSB) (2013 HMB) (2013, 2014 TGS) (2014 RHKJVSB) (2014 TSB) (2015 KJVFSB) (2015 KAPPA)

Daniel 4:8 [see Dan. 1:2] [see Dan. 6:7--any God]

the name of my god (1675, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1831, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, 1885, 1977 Oxford, 1952 PE, 2003 NPB, Oxford Classic) [1812, 1816, 1817, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1873, 1887, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, DKJB, 2011 PMR, 2011 Clarion, 2011 Transetto Text] {1640, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698, 1743, 1820, 1828 London} (1801, 1809 Dublin) (1790, 1804 MH) (1799 Helston) (1804 Gower) (1821 Brown) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1840 Roby) (1841 Thomas) (1846 Coldstream) (1848 Hartford) (1850 AFBS) (1857 Harding) (1868 RTS) (1954 World) (1957, 1964, 2007 TCRB) (1959 Little) (1961, 1975, 1978, 2008 GID) (1961 NBP) (1970 TN) (1972 NMRB) (1973, 1976, 1990 REG) (1974 MBI) (1976, 2000 Holman) (1976 TBR) (WMCRB) (1996 ELKJV) (2000 Rainbow) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (2001, 2002, 2003, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 Barbour) (KJVJB) (2008, 2012 ROASB) (VFC) (2010 Baker) (2011 KJVDB) (2013 HMB) (2013, 2014 TGS) (2014 HKJVSBps) (2014 RHKJVSB) (2014 TSB) (2015 Baker) (2015 KJVFSB)

the name of my God (1681, 1720, 1737, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1635, 1638, 1648, 1743, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1769, 1775, 1778, 1790, 1792, 1800, 1824 Cambridge] {1611, 1626, 1630, 1703, 1706, 1730, 1768, 1811 London} (1637, 1715, 1751, 1769, 1843 Edinburgh) (1782 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1777 Wood) (1790 Bolton) (1810 Woodward) (1813 Boston) (1814 Scott) (1987 PSI) (2002 TN) (2006 PP) (2009 Strand) (2012 WSB) (2015 KAPPA)

Daniel 4:8 [see 1 Sam. 4:8--these are the Gods]

Spirit of the holy Gods (1814 Scott)

spirit of the holy Gods {1611, 1614, 1617, 1626, 1630 London} (1821 Brown) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1840 Roby)

spirit of the holy gods (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1616 London}


Daniel 4:9 [see 1 Sam. 4:8--these are the Gods]

Spirit of the holy Gods (1630 London} (1814 Scott)

spirit of the holy Gods {1611, 1614, 1617, 1626 London} (1637, 1715 Edinburgh) (1799 Helston) (1821 Brown) (1824, 1826 Bagster)

spirit of the holy gods (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1616 London}

 

[robycop3]

Friend Roby, I often wonder whether you have a number of KJVO tenants living rent free in your head! So much of what you post is pot-shots at the KJV.

Apparently the understanding of "Son of God" in Daniel 3:25 long precedes the publication of the King James Bible in 1611. According to Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Bible, "That this was the Son of God - the second person of the Trinity, who afterward became incarnate, has been quite a common opinion of expositors. So it was held by Tertullian, by Augustine, and by Hilary, among the fathers [who lived some 1300 years or so before the KJV and didn't read or speak English]; and so it has been held by Gill, Clarius, and others, among the moderns [who were not KJVO]."

In his notes Barnes clarifies our question as having two parts:


The king's statement recorded in Daniel 3:28 helps with his understanding. There he calls the personage an angel sent by the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

Ah, but we must guess what NEBUCHADNEZZAR was thinking during this whole incident. Yes, I know it's impossible to know EXACTLY what a man who lived some 2600 years ago was thinking, but the whole chapter, Daniel 3, gives us some insight for us to guess by.

Firse, Neb had become full of himself , largely forgetting what daniel had told him when Dan relayed God's info about his dream to him, and he recognized God as THE God. He had had an idol built for everyone to worship at the king's command when his band played. Neb had become very angry at the three Jews who refused to obey his command, and ordered his furnace to be superheated.

When the men were cast into the furnace, Neb was greatly shocked to see FOUR people in the furnace, recognizing the three he had ordered thrown into it, but also seeing a fourth, who appeared to be far-more than just another man.

Now, you and I would be in the same state of shock and astoundment if we were to see something similar, so Neb had nothing on us! And remember, his mind was on his idol, not God, and the fact that the three Jews had openly disobeyed him, refusing the 2nd chance he'd given them to follow his command. His anger had instantly changed to astonishment!

He realized at once that a supernatural power had saved those men from being harmed at all in the fire, and the Being who exercised that power was in the furnace with them. He knew that Being was a god, but he didn't know WHICH god, except that He was the God of the 3 Jews. Jesus evidently appeared as a young man, so Neb said He was a son of the gods, & later called Him an angel.

But, given Neb's history, it's very unlikely that he knew before then that the REAL GOD has a Son. But later, he became full of himself again & was punished with 7 years of insanity. Apparently, after his sanity was restored, he worshipped THE God for the rest of his life & knew he was carrying out God's will in his further military conquests. Unfortunately for Babylon, his posterity went right back to idol-worship. The empire lasted only some 23 years after Neb's death.

 

[robycop3]

BTW, RLVaughn, I take "pot shots" at the KJV to disprove that part of the KJVO myth that claims the KJV is perfect. The "Daniel 3:25 thingie" is a common KJVO argument & I wanted to show it's incorrect, same as are most KJVO points.

 

[rlvaughn]

Ah, but we must guess what NEBUCHADNEZZAR was thinking during this whole incident.

Better to stick as closely as possible to the bare statements in the context, without doing too much guessing. Here is some of what King Nebuchadnezzar knew, based on some statements in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 2:27-28, Daniel 2:47 – the king had experienced some of the truth of Jehovah, through Daniel’s gift of prophecy. Surely his understanding would have been rudimentary.
Daniel 3:15-17; Daniel 3:26 – The king knew Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego served the most high God, and he had been told that God – the one they served – was able to deliver them, and he will deliver them (one way or another).
Daniel 3:28 Here Nebuchadnezzar says the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego sent his angel to deliver them. [It’s not unusual for expositors – yes, expositors who are not KJVO – to consider “the angel,” “his angel,” to be Old Testament theophanies of the pre-incarnate Son of God.

But, given Neb's history, it's very unlikely that he knew before then that the REAL GOD has a Son.

I agree that there is no reason to suppose that King Nebuchadnezzar knew much if anything about the Godhead or the Trinity. The interpretation and understanding of the verse and context includes considering what Nebuchadnezzar knew, but the correct translation of the verse is not dependent on what Nebuchadnezzar knew, in my opinion. Again, in my opinion, your motivation behind this study skews your ability to look at this objectively. You desire a particular outcome – “I wanted to show it’s incorrect” – and then find the outcome you desire. That is why I pointed out a few people, from Tertullian to Gill, who were not KJVO and still thought the proper translation and meaning was “Son of God.”

I mentioned earlier Barnes’s “two inquiries which arise in regard to this expression.” (BTW, Barnes thought “the Son of God” an incorrect translation.) 1. What did the king mean, that is, who did he think it was in the fire? 2. Who was it in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, actually? On the first, I have no reason to think that Nebuchadnezzar understood anything about the Godhead of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but I do have reason to think that Nebuchadnezzar understood something about the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being different from the gods of the Babylonians. As Barnes says, “the word ‘son’ in the Hebrew and Chaldee languages...would denote anyone who had a ‘resemblance’ to another...” So, a divine being/image. In my opinion, Nebuchadnezzar did not know “the Son of God” but did not mean a son of “the gods” of the Babylonians, based on the context of the conversation both before and after the three Hebrew children were thrown in the fire.

Some commentators – such as Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary or Matthew Poole’s Synopsis, who are not KJVO partisans – posit this consideration: that Nebuchadnezzar spoke the truth of who was in the fire without really understanding the truth of what he said. This would compare to Caiaphas’s prophecy that “one must die for the people” (John 11:49-52), or Pilate’s superscription on the cross of Jesus (Luke 23:38).

Here is the way it is explained by Jamieson-Faussett-Brown:

Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. “Son of God” in his mouth means only an “angel” from heaven, as Daniel 3:28 proves. Compare Job 1:6; Job 38:7; Psalm 34:7, Psalm 34:8; and the probably heathen centurion’s exclamation (Matthew 27:54).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Better to stick as closely as possible to the bare statements in the context, without doing too much guessing. Here is some of what King Nebuchadnezzar knew, based on some statements in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 2:27-28, Daniel 2:47 – the king had experienced some of the truth of Jehovah, through Daniel’s gift of prophecy. Surely his understanding would have been rudimentary.
Daniel 3:15-17; Daniel 3:26 – The king knew Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego served the most high God, and he had been told that God – the one they served – was able to deliver them, and he will deliver them (one way or another).
Daniel 3:28 Here Nebuchadnezzar says the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego sent his angel to deliver them. [It’s not unusual for expositors – yes, expositors who are not KJVO – to consider “the angel,” “his angel,” to be Old Testament theophanies of the pre-incarnate Son of God.

I agree that there is no reason to suppose that King Nebuchadnezzar knew much if anything about the Godhead or the Trinity. The interpretation and understanding of the verse and context includes considering what Nebuchadnezzar knew, but the correct translation of the verse is not dependent on what Nebuchadnezzar knew, in my opinion. Again, in my opinion, your motivation behind this study skews your ability to look at this objectively. You desire a particular outcome – “I wanted to show it’s incorrect” – and then find the outcome you desire. That is why I pointed out a few people, from Tertullian to Gill, who were not KJVO and still thought the proper translation and meaning was “Son of God.”

I mentioned earlier Barnes’s “two inquiries which arise in regard to this expression.” (BTW, Barnes thought “the Son of God” an incorrect translation.) 1. What did the king mean, that is, who did he think it was in the fire? 2. Who was it in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, actually? On the first, I have no reason to think that Nebuchadnezzar understood anything about the Godhead of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but I do have reason to think that Nebuchadnezzar understood something about the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being different from the gods of the Babylonians. As Barnes says, “the word ‘son’ in the Hebrew and Chaldee languages...would denote anyone who had a ‘resemblance’ to another...” So, a divine being/image. In my opinion, Nebuchadnezzar did not know “the Son of God” but did not mean a son of “the gods” of the Babylonians, based on the context of the conversation both before and after the three Hebrew children were thrown in the fire.

Some commentators – such as Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary or Matthew Poole’s Synopsis, who are not KJVO partisans – posit this consideration: that Nebuchadnezzar spoke the truth of who was in the fire without really understanding the truth of what he said. This would compare to Caiaphas’s prophecy that “one must die for the people” (John 11:49-52), or Pilate’s superscription on the cross of Jesus (Luke 23:38).

Here is the way it is explained by Jamieson-Faussett-Brown:

Amen.

 

[tyndale1946]

Better to stick as closely as possible to the bare statements in the context, without doing too much guessing. Here is some of what King Nebuchadnezzar knew, based on some statements in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 2:27-28, Daniel 2:47 – the king had experienced some of the truth of Jehovah, through Daniel’s gift of prophecy. Surely his understanding would have been rudimentary.
Daniel 3:15-17; Daniel 3:26 – The king knew Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego served the most high God, and he had been told that God – the one they served – was able to deliver them, and he will deliver them (one way or another).
Daniel 3:28 Here Nebuchadnezzar says the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego sent his angel to deliver them. [It’s not unusual for expositors – yes, expositors who are not KJVO – to consider “the angel,” “his angel,” to be Old Testament theophanies of the pre-incarnate Son of God.

I agree that there is no reason to suppose that King Nebuchadnezzar knew much if anything about the Godhead or the Trinity. The interpretation and understanding of the verse and context includes considering what Nebuchadnezzar knew, but the correct translation of the verse is not dependent on what Nebuchadnezzar knew, in my opinion. Again, in my opinion, your motivation behind this study skews your ability to look at this objectively. You desire a particular outcome – “I wanted to show it’s incorrect” – and then find the outcome you desire. That is why I pointed out a few people, from Tertullian to Gill, who were not KJVO and still thought the proper translation and meaning was “Son of God.”

I mentioned earlier Barnes’s “two inquiries which arise in regard to this expression.” (BTW, Barnes thought “the Son of God” an incorrect translation.) 1. What did the king mean, that is, who did he think it was in the fire? 2. Who was it in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, actually? On the first, I have no reason to think that Nebuchadnezzar understood anything about the Godhead of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but I do have reason to think that Nebuchadnezzar understood something about the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being different from the gods of the Babylonians. As Barnes says, “the word ‘son’ in the Hebrew and Chaldee languages...would denote anyone who had a ‘resemblance’ to another...” So, a divine being/image. In my opinion, Nebuchadnezzar did not know “the Son of God” but did not mean a son of “the gods” of the Babylonians, based on the context of the conversation both before and after the three Hebrew children were thrown in the fire.

Some commentators – such as Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary or Matthew Poole’s Synopsis, who are not KJVO partisans – posit this consideration: that Nebuchadnezzar spoke the truth of who was in the fire without really understanding the truth of what he said. This would compare to Caiaphas’s prophecy that “one must die for the people” (John 11:49-52), or Pilate’s superscription on the cross of Jesus (Luke 23:38).

Here is the way it is explained by Jamieson-Faussett-Brown:

I told my wife about the discussion we were having on here so she took out her Bible and read about it again... So I asked her who was with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace?... And she said that's easy... JESUS!... I said you are absolutely right!... Now I don't about you other brethren, you can hem and haw about who it was with each other but those who don't have to think about it much know who it really was... Brother Glen

 

[loDebar]

Well, She has been told it was Jesus, It might of been Jesus, but that is not shown positively by the words of Nebuchadnezzar.

 

[Aaron]

The KJV men took the liberty to add their own thoughts to the translation.

As do all translators, and as you did in your egregiously presumptuous post.

 

[tyndale1946]

Well, She has been told it was Jesus, It might of been Jesus, but that is not shown positively by the words of Nebuchadnezzar.

I don't think you want to argue with my wife and if you are married do you want to argue with yours?... She could read every post on here and after that, you know what she would say... You Men are making much to do about nothing... Us Women know its Jesus!... I'm only saying... Brother Glen

 

[loDebar]

 

[robycop3]

I told my wife about the discussion we were having on here so she took out her Bible and read about it again... So I asked her who was with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace?... And she said that's easy... JESUS!... I said you are absolutely right!... Now I don't about you other brethren, you can hem and haw about who it was with each other but those who don't have to think about it much know who it really was... Brother Glen

And she, as the rest of us, has the advantage of hindsight, and the whole Bible. Nebuchadnezzar didn't have those things.

 

[robycop3]

Now, can any Hebrew-reader here say POSITIVELY that the Hebrew of Dan. 3:25 says "the Son of God"?

 

[David Kent]

Most pagan gods had sons in their teaching.

I assume Nebuchadnezzer's God was Bel. In which case I should thought he would use "son of Bel" but no. he used Elohim.

 

[Deacon]

In all truth Daniel doesn't use the word elohim. This portion of Daniel was written in Aramaic. The word used is a less familiar form, elahin. But similar rules apply.
Here's a quote from a popular commentary

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.” Porteous 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).” According to Lacocque, “The expression is used in the inscriptions at Karatepe and Ugarit where it designates the members of the divine court.” 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.” 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 ʾĕlāhîn may be assumed to have the same force as ʾĕlōhîm 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. 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.

Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 123.

Rob

 

[loDebar]

In all truth Daniel doesn't use the word elohim. This portion of Daniel was written in Aramaic. The word used is a less familiar form, elahin. But similar rules apply.
Here's a quote from a popular commentary

Rob

good post, but notice Nebuchadnezzar did not say God , but Son God , suggesting a difference. Is it the appearance of a physical human type body? Was He there for he Hebrews in the flame instead of being seen by the King?

Why is it Aramaic?

 

[Deacon]

Why is it Aramaic?

That's a topic worthy of a whole lot of speculation.

Rob

 

[rsr]

Portions of Daniel (and Ezra, along with some isolated sentences and words elsewhere) were written in a descendant of Imperial Aramaic the Jews learned in the neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid empires. Why these portions are in Aramaic I do not know. There are several possible explanations, from chronological to practical to theologically esoteric.

My suspicion is that the "son of god" rendering made its way into the English Bible through the Latin Vulgate.You'll find it first in Wycliffe, which was translated from the Vulgate.

It's also in the Great Bible, which may be how it was spread to the Geneva and Bishops before being picked up in the KJV. I am at a loss to explain why Coverdale translated it as "the son of God" in the Great Bible but translated it as "a son of the gods" in both the Coverdale and Matthew's Bible. We know that he referred to Luther, but Luther rendered it as "a son of the gods" (ein Sohn der Götter). Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Anyway, the rendering had a long pedigree before the KJV.

In Latin, the key words are "filio Dei." Because Latin has neither definite nor indefinite articles, it may be rendered as "a son of god," "the son of god," a son of a god," "the son of a god," etc. depending upon context. If you're convinced that the fourth being in the fire is a Theophany (or Christophany) then "son of God" makes perfect sense. Jerome, BTW, thought "a son of god" or "angel" was the appropriate rendering and did not think it was in fact a Theophany.

The rendering, IMO, matters very little unless one is attempting to use it to prove a Theophany, and then it falls short.

 

[David Kent]

Why is it Aramaic?

The first part of the book is in Hebrew as is the last part. I guess it was written in Aramaic after the captives were under the Babylonians and when their kingdom passed into the hands of the Persians, it reverted to Hebrew.

 

[robycop3]

good post, but notice Nebuchadnezzar did not say God , but Son God , suggesting a difference. Is it the appearance of a physical human type body? Was He there for he Hebrews in the flame instead of being seen by the King?

Why is it Aramaic?

I believe that Jesus appeared to resemble a young man in His appearance in the furnace, but He also appeared to obviously be much more than just another young man. Nebuchadnezzar recognized the men he'd had cast into the furnace & knew the 4th was not one of them.

And he assumed the "gods" had been around for awhile, & thus would not appear to be young men, so Neb assumed Jesus was their son.

Still, no one has given me any reason to believe that, at that time, Nebuchadnezzar knew the 4th person in his furnace was THE Son of THE God.

 

[HankD]

I believe that Jesus appeared to resemble a young man in His appearance in the furnace, but He also appeared to obviously be much more than just another young man. Nebuchadnezzar recognized the men he'd had cast into the furnace & knew the 4th was not one of them.

And he assumed the "gods" had been around for awhile, & thus would not appear to be young men, so Neb assumed Jesus was their son.

Still, no one has given me any reason to believe that, at that time, Nebuchadnezzar knew the 4th person in his furnace was THE Son of THE God.

there are no definite articles in the last three words of the phrase and therefore it says literally

like son of God

"of" is not a separate word but a single letter prefix to the word "son".

Its confusing because you have to read right to left with all Semitic script.

God is Elohim (which is plural) and can be either a reference to the triune God as in Genesis 1:1 or a collective reference to pagan gods or even a group of human rulers.

דָּמֵה לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין