HCSB and Dan. 3:17

Okay, I'm back after thinking about this a bit. (Thinking is not my strong suit so bear with me.)

Pastor Larry, are ALL old manuscripts that contain this portion of Daniel in Aramaic or were there Hebrew manuscripts ALSO?

I was under the impression that there have been quite old Hebrew manuscripts of the entire Old Testament. Am I mistaken? Which manuscripts are you referring to and where did they originate?

If there ARE old Hebrew, isn't the Hebrew quite clear on this since Hebrew is such a strict language (although I do understand that we have to make some assumptions today based on the fact that it is such as old language.)

 

I think all the manuscripts of Daniel are Aramaic at this point. Chapters 2-7 is the Aramaic portion of Daniel. Chapters 1 and 8-12 are Hebrew. The oldest portions of the OT are the Qumran documents which date to the second century BC I believe. But this passage is in Aramaic.

Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar to some degree, but even in Hebrew, something like this would not be explicitly clear. There is quite frequently a debate about the antecedents of pronouns. Hebrew is not "that strict" per se.

 

Thanks for the answer Pastor Larry, I did study Hebrew and have several hours of it and Greek, but my brain is that of an engineer and therefore "language" concepts are hard to grasp.

What other portions of early manuscripts are Aramaic?

I know this is a bit off the beaten path here, but rather than starting a new thread just to answer a question, I will ask it here. With my humble appologies to the board administrators and moderators.

Oh, one other question since you mentioned it.

Is today's understanding and structure for translation of ancient Hebrew based primarily on the activities of the Messorites (sp?) who added the vowel symbols in the 300's?

In other words, do we make a lot of educated assumptions during translation based on their work? Does that make sense?

 

Part of Zech and one verse in Jer are in Aramaic, but I don't remember exactly which and I don't have my notes in front of me.

As for the Masoretes, they added the vowel points about 1000AD and much of our understanding is derived from them, which isn't bad, since they knew what they were talking about. We should not ascribe inerrancy to the vowel points. There are some places where they are probably wrong. The study of language is always descriptive, not prescriptive. IN other words, language is pretty fluid and rules are general, not set in stone. There are exceptions to them.

 

From Keil & Deilitzsch (sp?)

Dan_3:17-18
יכיל denotes the ethical ability, i.e., the ability limited by the divine holiness and righteousness, not the omnipotence of God as such. For this the accused did not doubt, nor will they place in question the divine omnipotence before the heathen king.(emphasis mine) The conclusion begins after the Athnach, and הן means, not see! lo! (according to the old versions and many interpreters), for which Daniel constantly uses אלוּ or ארו, but it means if, as here the contrast לא והן, and if not (Dan_3:18), demands. There lies in the answer, “If our God will save us, then ... and if not, know, O king, that we will not serve thy gods,” neither audacity, nor a superstitious expectation of some miracle (Dan_3:17), nor fanaticism (Dan_3:18)(emphasis mine), as Berth., v. Leng., and Hitz. maintain, but only the confidence of faith and a humble submission to the will of God. “The three simply see that their standpoint and that of the king are altogether different, also that their standpoint can never be clearly understood by Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore they give up any attempt to justify themselves. But that which was demanded of them they could not do, because it would have been altogether contrary to their faith and their conscience. And then without fanaticism they calmly decline to answer, and only say, 'Let him do according to his own will;' thus without superstitiousness committing their deliverance to God” (Klief.

In Christ,

Chad

 

Actually no. As K&D put it, they were not questioning the existence or omnipotence of their God, they just weren't expecting any miracles. Regardless they were not going to worship the king. They were men full of faith, not men wavering in their faith.

So while the HCSB could be technically right here, I think context proves it incorrectly translated this passage.

Chad

 

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it based on my very limited knowledge, then I would hope that Holman makes this as one of the corrections on a following publication.

I do like the idea of having an alternative to the NIV for an easy-to read Bible.

I have always had a little problem with NIV based primarily on their pricing and marketing and also the fact that they are producing the NEW NIV which is gender neutral.

The Holman Bible may have had other motives (profit, royalties, etc.) to drop their costs, but this has produced a reasonably new "easy-to-read" translation, even if it is a "thought-for-thought" much like the NIV. At least it is my understanding that it is a little more literal than the NIV.

Just my humble thoughts.

Oh, today I noticed new material being published for children in our church carried the KJV paralleled with the HCSB, instead of the NIV for the first time. I guess their contract has run out.