Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 3:24-30
24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” 25 He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”
26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the burning fiery furnace; he declared, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire. 27 And the satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together and saw that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men. The hair of their heads was not singed, their cloaks were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them. 28 Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set aside the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. 29 Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.” 30 Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.
_______________________________
This is one of the most famous miracles described in the Old Testament. Looking at the note from The Pulpit Commentaries, in verse 24:
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. The Greek versions suffer in this verse also from the interpolation of the song. The LXX. renders thus: “And it was when the king heard them singing praises, and stood and saw them living, then was Nebuchadnezzar the king astonished and rose up hastily and said to his friends, Did we not cast three men into the fire bound? and thev said to the king, Truly, O king.” Theodotion does not seriously differ from this, “And Nebuchadnezzar heard them singing praises, and marvelled, and rose up in haste, and said to his lords, Did we not cast three men into the midst of the fire bound? and they answered, Truly, O king.” The Peshitta rendering is, “Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up trembling, and answered and said to his princes, Were there not three men which we cast into the midst of the furnace of fierce fire and bound? and they answered the king, It is true, O king.” As will be seen, the Peshitta varies less from the Massoretic than do the Greek versions. The Vulgar does not merit remark. The action of the king is introduced abruptly in the Massoretic text. This abruptness was probably the occasion of the interpolations made at this point. It may be observed that the interpolations—not-withstanding the efforts of redactors to soften the transition—all add to the difficulty. Theodotion has them immediately walking and praising God. The Septuagint translator, though he omits the walking, implies the praising. We are to understand the circumstances as of the nature of an auto-da-fe which Nebuchadnezzar was gracing with his presence, much as Philip II. attended the burning of the heretics in Madrid. The refusal of worship to the god to whom he had erected the golden image was an act not only of heresy, but also of treason of the blackest kind. The word haddabereen, translated “councillors,” is derived by some from the Persian hamdaver (Behrmann and V. Bohlen). Gesenius would derive it from דבר, “to do,” hence “leaders;” he explains the first syllable of the Hebrew article. The first interpretation is impossible, as is well shown by Bevan (in loco). The supposition of Gesenius is difficult to maintain, as it involves a passage from one language to another. Moses Stuart regards the noun as derived from the aphel, הappearing instead of .א This is not without parallel examples, e.g. אמלד. Fuller’s parallel of apalu used along with pal for “son” in Assyrian, shows a habit of introducing initial syllables to help pronunciation. The Septuagint translator probably read habereen; hence the rendering φίλοι. In the uncertainty as to the meaning of the word. the reading of the LXX. may be regarded as at least a possible way out of the difficulty. Some further discoveries, either in Babylon or elsewhere, may enable us to decide. The presence along with the king, at this execution, of the high officials of the empire, was fitted to give it all the solemnity of an “act of faith,” hut at the same time, their presence gave a signal meaning to the miracle.
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. The Greek versions do not present much worthy of note, only both insert malka, “king,” instead of the pronoun, and omit “answered.” From the fact that Daniel 3:24 ends with malka, it may have been dropped out of the Massoretic text. The insertion of ענה (‛ana), “answered,” may be due to the frequent recurrence of this phrase. The Peshitta omits “four,” otherwise agreeing with the Massoretic. The phrase,” the Son of God,” is clearly wrong; the correct translation is, “The appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.” Along with the three victims of his superstition was seen a fourth figure, like one of the figures portrayed on his palace walls as belonging to the demi-gods. This is the culmination of the king’s astonishment. It was astonishing to see those men loose that had been east into the furnace bound; still more so to see them walking, and none showing signs of having received any hurt; but most awe-inspiring of all is the vision of the fourth figure, like a son of the gods. We must not interpret this on Hebrew lines, as does Mr. Bevan, and comp. Genesis 6:2. He knows the usage in the Tar-gums is to retain the Hebrew plural in ־ים when “God” is meant, as in the Peshitta Version of the passage he refers to. As in most heathen mythologies, there were not only gods, but demi-gods, of several different classes. The god Nebuchadnezzar specially worshipped, Silik-Moulou-ki (Marduk), was regarded as the son of Hea. There was a god of fire also, who was associated with these. The suggestion of Dr. Fuller, that here in bar we have not the word for “son,” but rather a truncated form of this god of fire, Iz-bar, is worthy of consideration. It is impossible to say whether Ibis vision of a divine being was vouchsafed to those standing about Nebuchadnezzar as well as to himself. While we ought to guard against ascribing to the Babylonian monarch the idea that this appearance was that of the Second Person of the Christian Trinity, we are ourselves at liberty to maintain this, or to hold that it was an angel who strengthened these servants of God in the furnace. The Septuagint renders bar-eloheen by ἄγγελος. Theodotion has υἱῷ Θεοῦ.
The note brings up some good translation points regarding the unknown identity of the 4h person. Keeping in mind that this is a Babylonian speaker, in the story, but that it was written by men of Judah, we can look at other Old Testament passages that refer to “sons of God.” Maybe the most prominent such is at Genesis 6:2:
the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
Sons of God, in Hebrew, is bēn ‘ĕlōhîm – and is commonly understood to refer to a class of lesser celestial beings of which we might think of as angels. However, as the note also points out, Son of God has a particular and specific meaning to Christians as well. Christians interpret many Old Testament passages such as this one, as pre-Incarnate theophanies. (see the following excerpt, via christianity.com)
Is Jesus in the Old Testament?
Throughout the New Testament, the writers affirm that Jesus wasn’t just an important man: he was the one the Old Testament writers prophecied would come. Here’s a brief look at what the Old Testament says about Jesus.
Lisa Loraine Baker
The Bible is God’s Word that He breathed out to us (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Jesus, God the Son (John 10:30), assured us that His Word would endure: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). His story is woven throughout Scripture because all of it is about Jesus. All of it.
We can look at any book in the Bible and read either a whisper or a shout about Jesus (sometimes both). He may be found in the Old Testament and the New.
Does the Old Testament Talk about Jesus?
We need the whole Bible to understand Jesus, its Author. One can look at Genesis 1:1, compare it to John 1:1 and see Jesus in the opening of the Old and New Testaments. He is the Word, and all things were made by and for Him (Colossians 1:16-23).
Further references to Jesus abound in the Old Testament in the form of Pre-Incarnate Theophanies, types, and prophetic utterings.
1. Pre-Incarnate Theophanies (Old Testament appearances of God the Son):
In Genesis 18, a man identified as the Lord appears to Abraham with two companions. The two companions were angels who went on a mission to Sodom and Gomorrah. The Lord talked with Abraham about what was coming to those cities, and how Abraham’s wife Sarah would have a son.
Another stunning Old Testament appearance of Christ is seen in Daniel 3:24-25. King Nebuchadnezzar has Daniel’s three friends bound and thrown into a fire heated seven times hotter than normal (Daniel 3:19). The king observed a fourth man in the fire alongside the three men, one who looked like “a son of the gods” (Daniel 3:25). This fourth “man” is most likely Jesus.
That Christian belief is built upon a pre-Christian 2nd Temple Jewish belief, regarding God, that He manifested as two persons. This is an explanation that existed to explain passages wherein God seems to take a bodily form, and be witnessed. It also covers the various passages throughout the Old Testament wherein the “Angel of the Lord” seems to speak as the Lord. For a more comprehensive book on that topic, I recommend the following:
Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity by Alan F. Segal
That “two powers” doctrine was – after the time of Jesus – rejected by Jewish religious authorities, however, a likely major reason for the success of Jesus’s ministry, and the rapid spread of Christianity in the middle of the 1st century, was that His Jewish audience was familiar with the idea already. The early Church even built on this concept – which pre-dated Jesus, to construct the doctrine of the trinity.
Returning to TPC and its note on verse 26:
Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the Most High God, come forth and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, came forth of the midst of the fire. The variations of the Septuagint Version here arc inconsiderable. Instead of “spake and said,” it renders, “called them by name,” and omits the second repetition of the names, and the pleonastic “come hither;” instead of “Most High God,” it has “God of gods Most High.” Theodotion is in closer agreement with the Massoretic text; the only differnce is that “spake” is omitted. The Peshitta and Vulgate are in exact accordance with the Massoretic. The distinction between נְפַק and אֲתָה is “go out” and “come.” It is well rendered in our Authorized Version. only there was no need of “hither” being put in italics. As above mentioned, this shows the form of the furnace to be not unlike our own—open at the top, but having a door at the side. It was to this side door that the king approached. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges Jehovah to be “Most High God” does not imply any recognition of his supreme Divinity, any more than a king of France acknowledged the supremacy of the head of the Holy Roman Empire. when in the credentials of his ambassador the emperor was called Dominus urbis et orbis. It was simply a matter of what we may call religious etiquette to address gods of the higher class as “god of gods.” and “god most high.” In Daniel 2:47 Nebuchadnezzar had already declared the God of Daniel to be “God of gods” It is not impossible that to the Babylonians ‛illa‛a might have the appearance of a proper name.
It’s interesting that not only were they unburnt, they were immediately unbound once cast into the fire. Christians again use this passage and ascribe to it a typological significance. Christ appears in the midst of a fiery doom, breaks the bonds of those sentenced to death, and gives them life. It’s not that far from the harrowing of hell concept.
The note comments on the use of the description “Most High.” This is a common descriptor of the God of the Hebrews. However, it does not necessarily mean that Nebuchadnezzar has decided the God of his captives is superior to his own gods. By his way of thinking, the Babylonian gods were superior because they defeated the god of the men of Judah. The note says that the epithet was used as a manner of etiquette. It’s important to keep in mind that the king must believe he just saw a god walking in the midst of the fire. What if that god appeared before him? Manners matter. Continuing on:
And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king’s counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them. The versions present no variation of importance. We can, however, at this point compare the list of officials with that which we find in the beginning of this chapter, in Daniel 3:2 and Daniel 3:3. We find that the word haddabereen occupies the same place in the list as gedabreen, translated “treasurer,” from which one might be inclined to think that הhad taken the place of ,ג not an impossible change. The probability rather is that the word is to be regarded as collective, equivalent to “officials of the court,” to save the repetition of the remaining classes Whether or not these officials had seen the companion the three witnesses for the truth had with them in the furnace, they, at all events, were now able to bear testimony to the fact that the three friends had escaped, and “had quenched the violence of the fire” (Hebrews 11:34). This event was all the more important to the Babylonians as to them fire was a god high in the pantheon. The God of Israel was thus manifested as so much greater than Iz-bar, that he could deliver his servants even when in the very element in which Iz-bar had his power. The fact that even their “coats”—whatever these garments were—were not burned, and not even a hair singed, while the cords that had been used to bind them were consumed, emphasizes their deliverance, and shows it to be the work of a higher power, who could discriminate and limit the deliverance. The cords were consumed, but the garments of his servants were preserved even from the smell of fire. The Babylonians had conquered the city of Jehovah, had burned his temple, and had done this through the power of Marduk, so they thought; but here Bel-Marduk had been openly defied by three worshippers of Jehovah. They had been hurled into the very element of Iz-bar, the servant and ally of Marduk, yet fire had been unable to harm them or vindicate the honour of Bel-Marduk. What emphasized this was that the fire that spared the servants of Jehovah slew the votaries of Bel-Marduk, who were eager to show their reverence for Marduk by carrying these Jehovah-worshippers to the furnace. Such a miracle, so wrought before all the high dignitaries of the Babylonian Empire, would go far to take the edge off any taunting reference to the weakness of Jehovah’s Godhead as demonstrated by the ruins of Jerusalem. Jehovah had shown himself as the supreme Revealer of secrets when he enabled Daniel to tell Nebuchadnezzar his dream. He now manifested himself as Master of the most powerful of elements—fire. The Jews could thus maintain their faith unchallenged.
This must have been confusing for the Babylonians. As the previous note states, this event almost certainly does not remove their belief in the superiority of their own gods. They conquered Judah, after all. However, the God of the Jews has now shown Himself to be supreme in the power of secrets and dreams and also capable of defying their offerings to their own high god, Marduk. From their perspective, He may have appeared personally in their midst just now. The easiest logic for them is that Marduk is allowing this to happen, so they will allow the Jews to operate independently of the rest of their nation, with respect to worship, henceforth. At least for now.
Continuing on to verse 28, from Ellicott’s Bible Commentary:
(28) Have changed.—Literally, have transgressed
Another note, re: verse 28. There is a reference here to an angel.
angel = מַלְאַךְ malʼak, mal-ak’; (Aramaic) corresponding to H4397; an angel:—angel.
It is not stated, but we might assume then that the three from the furnace may have explained to the king who the 4th person was in the fire with them. This does not change the Christian interpretation, regarding the pre-Incarnate theophany, though, because as I mentioned above the belief is that the Angel of the Lord is Jesus. Continuing to verse 29, in Ellicott:
(29) Anything amiss.—The marginal version is to be preferred.
Not only now are the Jews in Babylon free to worship unhindered, it is a crime after this incident to speak anything offensive against their God. Inasmuch as some of Daniel is reminiscent of Joseph’s story in Genesis, Daniel might also remind readers of Ester’s story also. Concluding the chapter from verse 30 in TPC, with a lengthy but informative wrap-up comment. Take note that the comment treats the apocrypha as an addition, rather than its removal as a subtraction. This is a difficult position to defend, in my opinion, though many of good faith and good will have done exactly that. I will give that perspective its day in court by sharing the comment below:
Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, in the province of Babylon. The Septuagint renders here, “Thus, then, the king gave authority to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and appointed them to be rulers over the whole province.” There seems to have been a slight difference of reading, probably hashlayṭ instead of hatzlaḥ, and le’nol medeemah instead of la’mdeenath Babel. It seems difficult to decide which of these two readings is the preferable; perhaps, on the whole, the Massoretic is the simpler. The version of Theodotion is considerably interpolated, “Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon, and made them great, and reckoned them worthy to have authority over all the Jews in his kingdom.” The first portion agrees with the Massoretic text and with the LXX. in sense; but the last clause is a much later addition. The Peshitta agrees with the Massoretic. The exact meaning of halzlaḥ is “to make glad,” “to give rewards to,” and therefore is in no conflict with the Massoretic recension of the concluding verse of the preceding chapter, “And Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon.” It is to be observed that in the deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 43:2) there seems to be a reference to this event, “When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.” The deliverance from Egypt, and the passage of the Red Sea, and the entrance into Canaan, and the passage of the Jordan, are referred to in the first part of this verse, “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee, and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee.” It certainly is but natural to suppose that the deliverance of the three Hebrews from the furnace of Nebuchadnezzar is the historical reference of the latter.
Excursus on the Song of the Three Holy Children.
When the student of the apocryphal addition to the Book of Daniel passes from the consideration of Susanna and the Elders, and Bel and the Dragon, with their manifold absurdities and manifest tokens of’ a Greek origin, to that of the Song of the Three Holy Children, he feels he has come into a different atmosphere. He has not done more than casually perused the whole of the composition called “The Song of the Three Holy Children,” when he discovers it is in two distinct portions. The whole structure of the two songs indicates a Hebrew origin. The character of the two divisions is quite different. The first is intercessory, and it proceeds from one person; the second is liturgic, and purports to be the joint expression of the feelings of all three. In both there are manifold echoes of earlier psalms. In some cases the phrases are imitated, in other cases adopted with some slight modifications. At the same time, there are in neither portion any obvious tokens of Greek origin, such as may be found in the Story of Susanna, with its play on words which hold only in Greek, or in its Greek views of history as seen in the Story of Bel and the Dragon. When the examples of translation from Hebrew were so numerous as they were by the time that Ben Sira came down to Egypt, and when the translators had by common consent adopted a special style, it cannot be denied that not only could a cento of phrases from the Greek version of the Hebrew Psalter have been formed, but also the style might be imitated, even when the words and sentiments were original. Still, as the aim and ambition of the Jews in Egypt were rather to show the close resemblance there was between the works of the fathers of their race and the sages of Greece, the imitative activity of the Jewish literary falsarii was directed more to that than to suggest merely a Hebrew original of what they had composed. We have no indubitable instance of psalms being composed in Greek in imitation of the translation of the Psalms of the original Psalter. We have certainly the psalms which go to form the Psalter of Solomon; but these are generally admitted to have been composed in Hebrew, and translated from that into Greek. However, there would still be a dubiety. The only way is to examine this song, or rather these songs, to see whether they contain any traces of being translations from Hebrew originals.
As a basis of investigation, we have the two Greek and the Peshitta versions. In a subordinate position we have the Vulgate and the version of Paulus Tellensis. The first thing that one observes, on a casual comparison of the two Greek versions, is that they are much more nearly related, and resemble each other much more closely in regard to these songs, than they do in regard to the rest of the book. The resemblance of the Peshitta to beth is also close, but yet there are points of difference.
If we take the introductory sentence, we see considerable variation, greater than occurs elsewhere. The Septuagint begins thus: “Then Azarias stood and prayed thus, and having opened his mouth, confessed to the Lord with his companions in the midst of the fire, made by the Chaldeans to burn exceedingly, and said.” Theodotion is simpler—we give the ordinary rendering, “Then Azarias stood up and prayed on this manner, and opening his mouth in the midst of the fire, said.” The Peshitta is, “And Azariah arose and opened his mouth to bless in the midst of the fire, and he opened his mouth and prayed, and said thus.” All these versions have the appearance of being a union of two versions of the same tiring. In the Syriac this is most obvious In the Greek versions the evidence of reduplication is afforded by οὕτως occurring in the middle of the sentence, instead of naturally at the end, to introduce the speech referred to In the Syriac, which avoids this, it is evidenced even more by the repetition of the verb pethah, “to open.” But this reduplication of versions implies an original of which there were already two readings.A similar phenomenon is presented by the opening verse of the Song of Azariah. As rendered by the LXX. it is, “Blessed art thou, O Lord God of our fathers, and thy Name is worthy to be praised and glorified for evermore.” Theodotion, in the reading preferred by Tischendorf, has αἰνετός agreeing with Θεός. The Peshitta has changed the order, “to be exalted and praised is thy Name for everse” The “and” present in the two Greek versions is awanting. In the next verse the Septuagint renders, “Thou art righteous in all that thou hast done to us, and all thy works are true, and thy ways right, and all thy judgments are true.” Theodotion omits “to us” in the first clause, and has in the last “truth” instead of “true.” When we turn to the Peshitta, we find a reason for the resemblance of the second member of the second and fourth clauses. “Righteous art thou in all that thou hast done to us, and all thy works are in truth (beqooshtha), and thy ways right, and all thy judgments are faithful (meheemnin).“ In Hebrew, as in Syriac, this contrast could be maintained, but it was more difficult to the Hellenist, who had, perhaps, few words at his command. The following verse in the LXX. runs as follows: “Thou didst judgments of truth in regard to all that thou hast brought upon us, and upon thy holy city, the city of our fathers, because in truth and judgment didst thou all these things because of our sins.” The only difference between Theodotion and this is the omission of σου, “thy.” The Peshitta rendering does not evidence much difference from that of the Greek versions, “Because in judgment of truth was what thou didst to us, and in all that thou hast brought upon us and upon the holy city of our fathers, upon Jerusalem, because in righteousness (b’c’anootha) didst thou bring upon us all these things.” We shall only take the next verse, and shall conclude the verse-by-verse examination of the Song of Azariah. The rendering of the Seventy bears traces of being translated from a Shemitic dialect by one who had not a large vocabulary in Greek. “Because we sinned in all things and transgressed to turn aside from thee, and we sinned in all things, and the commandments of thy Law we obeyed not, neither observed, nor did we according as thou didst command us, in order that it should be well with us.” Theodotion is exactly the same. The Peshitta is different, “Because we are debtors of sin (hoobin deḥiṭin), and wicked before thee, and have removed far from thee, and have done against thy words, and have sinned against thee in all things, and to thy precepts have not hearkened, and did not keep them, and have not done anything which thou commandedst, to be well to us.” The sense here is evidently the same, but there has been a difference, if not of text, at least of apprehension of one and the same text. The Syriac could not have been made from the Greek, nor the Greek from the Syriac; they must have had a common source. It would be impossible to say with absolute certainty that this source must have been Hebrew; but the probability is in that direction. Aramaic does not so naturally lend itself to poetry as does Hebrew. Whatever poetry we have by Jewish authors in pre-Christian times which is not in Greek, has been in Hebrew.
That being settled, at all events conditionally, the next point is to examine the songs, and see whether they give any evidence in their contents of the background. In the first place, in regard to the Song of Azariah, if we take for granted that it was written in Hebrew, it follows almost necessarily from this that it was composed in Palestine. The next question that requires to be considered is the object of the composition. Was it intended to be placed here? was it written up to this, situation? or was it written for some other purpose, and placed here simply because some one thought it suited? The first thing bearing on this question which we observe is the names which these three Hebrews bear. In the Aramaic part which belongs to the Massoretic Daniel, they are called by their Babylonian names; in this portion their old Hebrew names are revived from the first chapter. That of itself is an indication that this portion has not been written for the place into which it has been put. Further, if this first psalmic fragment had been written for this place, it would have been put in the mouth of Hananiah. The arrangement of the names in Hebrew may have been merely according to the Hebrew alphabet, but instinctively one gives the first-named a certain precedence. Hence in the Peshitta this is called, “]’he prayer of Hananiah and his companions.” For the choice of Azariah instead, there must have been a reason. The simplest reason would seem to be that already there was a sacred hymn extant written by a certain Azariah, and some later editor, seeing this, and knowing that there was an Azariah here, he gave him the credit of it, and as this event was the crisis of his history, declared it to have been composed in reference to this event. Azariah was rather a common name among the Jews; there are eighteen instances of it chronicled in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible.’ It is certainly not so common after the Captivity, yet there was a captain in the Maccabean army called by this name, as above mentioned.
When we direct our attention to the song itself, we find what confirms us in our conclusions—that it was not written for this place, but was written as the natural expression of feelings produced by circumstances widely different from those narrated in the chapter before us. If we compare this with the prayer of Daniel, which we find in Daniel 9:1-27; we see the difference emphasized between circumstances of captives in Babylon and those presupposed by the Song of Azariah. If we turn to the thirteenth and fourteenth verses of the song (verses 37, 38), “For we, O Lord, are become less than any nation, and be kept under this day in all the world because of our sins. Neither is there at this time prince, or prophet, or leader, or burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, or place to sacrifice before thee, and to find mercy,” It will be noticed that the diminishing of the numbers of the nation, or the restriction of its territory, and the humiliating position it was placed in, is the point of Azariah’s complaint. Daniel’s sorrow is that they are driven to other countries: אְשֵׁר הִדַּחְתָם שָׁם בָכָל־הָאֲרָצוֹת, “in all the countries whither thou hast driven them.” In the first case, we have a nation humiliated in their own land; in the second, a nation sent into certain definite countries, and there re-preached with having no country or capital. Again, it is said in the hymn before us, “There is neither prince, nor prophet, nor leader.” It is to be noted that the word here is “prince,” not “king” (nasi’, not melek). In the original Hebrew there was probably a play on the words, lo-nasi’ velo-nabi’, “neither prince nor prophet.” As a matter of fact, in the period of Daniel, prophecy had not ceased, and all through the times of Jewish history it was known that there had been prophets during the time of the Exile. There was, at all events, Ezekiel by the river Chebar, and even if we take the date of the Septuagint for the inauguration of this golden image, anti say that it was the eighteenth year of Nebuchaduezzar, Jeremiah was still living and prophesying. As for “princes,” they were still in Jerusalem, if we reckon the eighteenth year strictly, but if we regard it as counted according to the Babylonian reckoning, and therefore that Jerusalem had already fallen, there were still “princes,” although captives. Moreover, Coniah was still living, the former king, as also was Zedekiah. if we turn to Daniel, he declares the reason of the fall of Jerusalem and of the captivity of the people—because kings and princes and people had refused to hearken to the word of the Lord as spoken by the prophets. Daniel implies the existence of prophets, princes, and kings. if not absolutely necessarily in the actual present, yet in the immediate past, which, historically genuine or not, fits the setting. In the Song of Azariah there is no reference to a king; there is reference to “a prince” (nasi’, not sar, which is usually “one of many”). In confirmation of this, there is not only the play on the words, if it is nasi’, but also the fact that the word used in both Greek versions is ἄρχων, which is the most common representation of nasi’ in the Septuagint£ This was the title of the head of the Sanhedrin, and borne usually by the high priest, it may also be noted that, while “sacrifices” and “offerings” are mentioned as having ceased, there is no mention of “priests.” if this song was written at a time when the “prince” was the head of the priests, this omission would be explicable. Taking this as our guide, we should fix the date of the composition of the Song of Azariah at a time when the high priesthood was in abeyance, that is, during the Maccabean struggle, from the time when Epiphanes definitely desecrated the temple till its reconsecration by Judas Maccabaeus. When we look at the state of the temple as implied in this Song of Azariah as compared with the prayer of Daniel, Daniel speaks of the sanctuary being a desolation, and by connection it is implied Jerusalem was a desolation also; but in the song before us there is no place for sacrifice or offering. The Jews are excluded from the temple, there is no place allowed them there, but the place itself is not a desolation.
If, again, we turn to the eighth verse of the Song of Azariah, we find still further evidences of the external circumstances in which it was composed. “And thou didst deliver us into the hands of lawless enemies, most hateful forsakers of God, and to an unjust king, and the most wicked in all the world.” The two Greek versions are here in absolute agreement; the Syriac here, as elsewhere, presents signs of its independent origin, “And thou hast delivered us into the hands of lords of enmity, evil men who are far from thee, and the habitation of a wicked kingdom, the most miserable in all the earth.” The structure of the latter half of this indicates, as it seems to us, that something has been misunderstood in the original document. Some word meaning “unto the power of” has been interpreted as being “dwelling-place,” that necessitated the change of “king” to “kingdom” If we then assume the Greek versions to be correct, we find a state of things exactly fitting the period we have suggested above. The mode of speaking of their oppressor—”an unjust king, the most wicked in all the earth”—is quite unlike anything in the Old Testament. When Hezekiah prays to God to be delivered from the power of Sennacherib, although he had reproached the living God, he does not declare that he is wicked. Sennacherib is denounced as proud and cruel, but not as wicked. That would imply a certain amount of godlessness, of which none of the Assyrian monarchs could be accused, and least of all could Nebuchadnezzar. Such a statement is in complete antagonism to the character given to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel. It was by no means an unnatural description of Ephiphanes. He seems to have had no belief in deities of any kind. His persecution of the Jews had in all likelihood a motive either of policy or of vengeance. Nebuchadnezzar had never attempted to persecute religion in the ordinary sense of the word. The officials of his court he might and did expect to follow him in worship.
Another thing to be observed is those that have turned away from God—ἀποσταστῶν—reḥeeqeen in the Peshitta. There were certainly many “apostates” at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but they were not apostates to the deities of Babylon. The “other gods” the Israelites were prone to worship were those of the nations around them. This apostasy was not connected with any treasonable submission to the Babylonian princes. So far as we can deduce the politics of the period from the prophecies of Jeremiah, the idolatrous party were patriotic so far as their resistance to Babylon was concerned, though they were always prone to coquet with Egypt. In the case before us, the enemies into whose hands the saints came were “apostates.” If, however, we turn to the First Book of Maccabees 1:43, we find that “many also of the Israelites consented to his (Epiphanes’) religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the sabbath.” When we turn to 2 Maccabees, if we may trust it, we find that Jason, having purchased the high priesthood, encouraged Hellenic customs, and even sent money to Tyre for a sacrifice to Melkarth. These gave entrance to Epiphanes, and supported him in his cruelties. We can readily understand how a zealous Jew of the Maccabean time would regard these “apostates” as greater enemies than the heathen followers of Epiphanes.
So far as we know, right down from shortly after the return from the Exile on to the period of the domination of the Seleucids, the high priest was nasi’ and head of the people. After the Maccabean period until the Herodian period, the head of the people was the high priest. At the death of Herod the Great, the former relationship was resumed. Even during the reign of Herod there was a prince, in the shape of the king. The mention of a prince, without any mention of a king, excludes all after John Hyrcanus. The assertion that there was no longer a prince, shuts off all the period after Judas Maccabaeus had assumed the high priesthood. We are thus led by another line to fix the date of this Song of Azariah as being the heart of the Maccabean period.
The apocrypha conversation comes up often in a Daniel study because only portions of Daniel are considered apocryphal. With most books, you’re either all in or all out. The very short summary of the Protestant perspective on the topic is that the Apocrypha texts were included in the Septuagint, but were never considered canonical. Thus, those texts were added in the sense that non-canonical books were declared canon despite there being (allegedly) no intention to treat them as such.
Here is the opposite argument, from the Catholic (and probably also Orthodox) perspective:
The Catholic perspective on the canon is that the books and texts that Protestants excluded were canon, and decreed so by various Church councils during the first 1500 years of the Church. This view is bolstered by the authority of the Church to make these canonicity decisions. We have copies of pre-Reformation Bibles (most notably among them the Guttenberg Bible, but also hand-written Bibles predating the printing press) which include the Apocrypha – without any kind of asterisk placed on or around those texts. We know that the Apostles used the Septuagint and we have no reason to believe they did not consider those books Scripture, given that they quoted those books. We also have now, thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, even more evidence that these books were widely considered “Scripture” by practicing Jews at the time of Jesus. This is presumably the reason that they were included by the religious leaders of the Jews during the creation of the Septuagint in the first place. That said, the Jewish perspective today is that their inclusion was not evidence of an intent to great them as canon.
On the subject of canon, things get even more complex with Eastern Orthodoxy, so I’ll share some of that in a video below, if you’re interested and while we’re on the subject.
Wikipedia has a really helpful table (the formatting isn’t awesome, when sharing here though), outlining canon over time and across Jewish and Christian traditions.
Judaism | Western tradition | Eastern Orthodox tradition | Oriental Orthodox tradition | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Books | Hebrew Bible | Protestant | Luther’s 1534 Canon | Anglican | Latin Catholicism | Greek Orthodox | Russian Orthodox | Georgian Orthodox | Armenian Apostolic | Syriac Orthodox | Coptic Orthodox | Orthodox Tewahedo | Church of the East |
| Torah | Pentateuch | ||||||||||||
| Genesis | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Exodus | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Leviticus | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Numbers | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Deuteronomy | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Nevi’im | Historical books | ||||||||||||
| Joshua | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Josue | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Judges | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Ruth | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 and 2 Samuel | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 and 2 Kings | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 and 2 Chronicles | Yes (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 1 and 2 Paralipomenon | Yes 1 and 2 Paralipomenon | Yes 1 and 2 Paralipomenon | Yes 1 and 2 Paralipomenon | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Prayer of Manasseh | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No – (inc. in Appendix in Clementine Vulgate) | Yes (?) (part of Odes) | Yes (?) (part of Odes) | Yes (?) (part of Odes) | Yes (?) | Yes (?) | Yes | Yes (part of 2 Chronicles) | Yes (?) |
| Ezra (1 Ezra) | Yes (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 1 Esdras | Yes Esdras B’ | Yes 1 Esdras | Yes 1 Ezra | Yes 1 Ezra | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Nehemiah (2 Ezra) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 2 Esdras | Yes Esdras Γ’ or Neemias | Yes Neemias | Yes Neemias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 1 Esdras (3 Ezra) | No | No (Apocrypha) | No | No 1 Esdras (Apocrypha) | No – (inc. in Appendix in Clementine Vulgate as 3 Esdras.) | Yes Esdras A’ | Yes 2 Esdras | Yes 2 Ezra | Yes 2 Ezra | No (?) – inc. in some mss. | No – inc. in some mss. | Yes Ezra Kali | No (?) – inc. in some mss. |
| 2 Esdras 3–14 (4 Ezra or Apocalypsis of Esdras) | No | No (Apocrypha) | No | No 2 Esdras (Apocrypha) | No – (inc in Appendix in Clementine Vulgate as 4 Esdras.) | No (Greek ms. lost) | Yes 3 Esdras | Yes 3 Ezra – inc. as noncanonical | Yes 3 Ezra | No (?) – inc. in some mss. | No – inc. in some mss. | Yes Ezra Sutu’el | No (?) – inc. in some mss. |
| 2 Esdras 1–2; 15–16 (5 and 6 Ezra or Apocalypsis of Esdras) | No | No (Apocrypha) | No | No (part of 2 Esdras apocryphon) | No – (inc. in Appendix in Clementine Vulgate as 4 Esdras.) | No (Greek ms.) | Yes 3 Esdr | Yes 3 Ezra – inc. as noncanonical | No | No | No | No | No |
| Esther | Yes Ester (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Additions to Esther | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tobit | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes Tobias (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Judith | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 Maccabees | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes 1 Machabees (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| 2 Maccabees | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes 2 Machabees (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| 3 Maccabees | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| 4 Maccabees | No | No (Apocrypha) | No | No | No | No (appendix) | No (appendix) | Yes – inc. as noncanonical | No (early tradition) | No (?) – inc. in some mss. | No (Coptic ms,) | No | No (?) – inc. in some mss. |
| Jubilees | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No |
| 1 Enoch | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No |
| 2 Enoch | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 3 Enoch | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 1 Ethiopic Maccabees (1 Meqabyan) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No |
| 2 and 3 Ethiopic Maccabees (2 and 3 Meqabyan) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No |
| Ethiopic Pseudo-Josephus (Zëna Ayhud) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No |
| Josephus’ Jewish War VI | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. |
| Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs | No | No | No | No | No | No (Greek ms.) | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No | No |
| Joseph and Asenath | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No (early tradition?) | No |
| Ketuvim | Wisdom literature | ||||||||||||
| Book of Job | Yes Iyov | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Psalms 1–150 | Yes Tehillim | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Psalm 151 | No | No (Apocrypha) | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Psalms 152–155 | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No (?) – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No (?) – inc. in some mss. |
| Psalms of Solomon | No | No | No | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. |
| Proverbs | Yes Mishlei | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (in 2 books) | Yes |
| Ecclesiastes | Yes Qohelet | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Song of Songs | Yes Shir Hashirim | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Canticle of Canticles | Yes Aisma Aismaton | Yes Aisma Aismaton | Yes Aisma Aismaton | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Book of Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Wisdom of Sirach or Sirach (1–51) | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes Ecclesiasticus (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Prayer of Solomon (Sirach 52) | No | No | No | No | No (Latin ms.) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Nevi’im | Major prophets | ||||||||||||
| Isaiah | Yes Yeshayahu | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Isaias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Ascension of Isaiah | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No – liturgical (?) | No | No | No – Ethiopic mss. (early tradition?) | No |
| Jeremiah | Yes Yirmeyahu | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Jeremias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Lamentations (1–5) | Yes Eikhah (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (part of Säqoqawä Eremyas) | Yes |
| Ethiopic Lamentations (6; 7:1–11:63) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes (part of Säqoqawä Eremyas) | No |
| Baruch | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Letter of Jeremiah | No | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (chapter 6 of Baruch) (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (part of Säqoqawä Eremyas) | Yes |
| Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch 1–77) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No (?) – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No (?) – inc. in some mss. |
| Letter of Baruch (2 Baruch 78–87) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No (?) – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No (?) – inc. in some mss. |
| Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) | No | No | No | No | No | No (Greek ms.) | No (Slavonic ms.) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 4 Baruch | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes (part of Säqoqawä Eremyas) | No |
| Ezekiel | Yes Yekhezqel | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Ezechiel | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Daniel | Yes Daniyyel (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Additions to Daniel | No | No (Apocrypha | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Trei Asar | Twelve Minor Prophets | ||||||||||||
| Hosea | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Osee | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Joel | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Amos | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Obadiah | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Abdias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Jonah | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Jonas | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Micah | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Micheas | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Nahum | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Habakkuk | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Habacuc | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Zephaniah | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Sophonias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Haggai | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Aggeus | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Zechariah | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Zacharias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Malachi | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Malachias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
If practicing Jews (re)define their canon, well after the time of Jesus, to exclude books already declared canon by the Church, should that mean anything to the Christian Church? I suppose it would depend on the reasons.
Is it possible that after 1500 years of Church use, God might reveal that books previously believed to be sacred Scripture are, in fact, not (or not anymore)? Certainly. By what process would that happen? That’s a trickier question.
Often what this boils down to is a debate over who has the authority to decide.
We will move onto Daniel Chapter 4 in the next section of verses.
