Biblical Hebrew Forum

[schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>]

Hi Folks,

Ok, this one is more biblical aramaic, (and some Latin and Greek) so I hope 
you don't mind.
And also it can veer into the interpretive issues, however my main question 
is the Ben Hayim text.

Daniel 3:25 
He answered and said,
Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire,
and they have no hurt; 
and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. 

We likely all know that "Son of God" is often translated differently,
such as "son of the gods", due to the plural form of the Aramaic
in the Masoretic Text le-bar-elahin
(some omit le, some have ber, some have alehin)

Some other translations -- "divine being" "a god" "(that of) an angel" 
(Judaica Press)

It was a little difficult to determine possible textual variations.
=====================================================

MAIN QUESTION - BEN HAYIM AND DSS

My main concern is the Ben Hayim Masoretic Text, (which is generally the same 
as the first two editions of Kittels).  I was wondering if that has any 
variation.

And I would conjecture that the DSS has the exact same plural form as the 
currently 
used Masoretic texts, I was also wondering whether there is any variation at 
all. 
(no footnote in the DSS Bible).

============================================
VULGATE 

The Vulgate is an early singular. 

Vulgate (Jerome)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=3&version=4
respondit et ait Ecce ego video quattuor viros solutos et ambulantes in 
medio ignis et nihil corruptionis in eis est et species quarti similis filio 
Dei 

Douay-Rheims
"the fourth is like the son of God." 

Jerome's commentary note gives some textual background.

Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (with Gleason Archer translation/note)
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm
“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.  
For that reasoning one should follow Symmachus [a 2nd century A.D. Ebionite 
who made a revised translation of the Septuagint], 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. . . . But 
as for its typical significance, this angel or son of God foreshadows our 
Lord Jesus Christ, who descended into the furnace of hell, . .  

==============================================================
GREEK OT

There are variations in the Greek OT,  which has 'aggelou theou'  with 
Theodotian 
perhaps having huio theou and Symmachus (see Jerome above) perhaps non-extant.

==============================================================

In addition, I put together some notes on the various commentaries.
(Gill, Wesley, JFB, Henry, Calvin, Geneva Bible, Thomas Meyers, and Rashi so 
far)
but I don't want to take us too far astray from the simple question of what 
are actually
any textual variants.

This page is reasonably interesting (not necessarily my view) however, in 
terms 
of the interpretive discussion.

http://webbpage.bravehost.com/Yavo/9_3_BarGiel_sonofman.html
SON OF MAN--MESSIAH--SON OF GOD By Rachel Bargiel

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic