Contratos por Inicio de una Nueva Actividad

Before any change may occur in Nebuchadnezzar because of what he sees (Dan 3:24–25), his efforts in ordering the construction, dedication, and veneration of the golden image (vv.1–7) implies that whatever it represents (his god, his kingdom, or himself) is of great value to him. Certain Chaldean sages approach him privately to accuse, somewhat slanderously (Dan 3:8), Judean ministers high up in the imperial hierarchy who do not honour his decree, gods, or

46_{Here, I allude to Valeta’s terse judgment on Nebuchadnezzar’s character at the end of Dan 3: “It seems that}

kings and leopards perhaps do not change their spots so easily.” Valeta, 87.

statue (v.12). They are only too happy to remind Nebuchadnezzar of his decree (Dan 3:10–11), that everyone summoned to the dedication must fall and prostrate before the statue at the sound of the orchestra, with a fiery death as punishment for disobedience (vv.5–6). Upon hearing this accusation, Nebuchadnezzar’s reactions are an emotive state of anger (ה ָמ ֲח ַּו ז ַּג ְר ִב), and his speech-action of ordering the culprits to be summoned into his presence (א ָכ ְל ַּמ ם ָד ֳק, suggesting a more public scene, Dan 3:13).48 _{Ostensibly, Nebuchadnezzar’s emotive state is}

occasioned by his offence against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, for not honouring his gods (reflecting his piety), for disobeying an order meant to promote imperial unity (reflecting his anxiety), or for holding the king himself in disdain (reflecting his hubris). Even so, his next speech-act shows that he does not lose all rationality in his anger, since he can still question the accused about their disobedience, and offer them a second chance to prove the accusation wrong (Dan 3:14–15). Nebuchadnezzar’s specific challenge to them, “And who is the god who will save you from my hands?” (Dan 3:15), could reflect his piety (if he understands their refusal to worship as impious), as well as his arrogance (by elevating himself above any god they might worship), while his anxiety is more likely to be suppressed before the gathered ministers (vv.24, 27).

However, against every expectation of Nebuchadnezzar and his gathered court, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego make a riposte, and possibly even address him by his personal name

“Nebuchadnezzar” (without “king” or “live forever,” Dan 3:16).49 _{Their riposte shows alarming}

disrespect to the great king, in that they do away with the need to make a formal defence (Dan 3:16),50 _{and even suggest that the king needs to learn something about them and their God}

48 _{The narrator later informs the reader of the presence of all Nebuchadnezzar’s ministers when he judges the three}

Judeans (Dan 3:24, 27).

49 _{Depending on how the punctuation in Dan 3:16 is understood. Alternative punctuation in Dan 3:16 would alter}

this interpretation, by reading: “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego responded and said to the king

Nebuchadnezzar, ‘There is no need for us to give you an account of ourselves about this.’” However, this still

lacks the court protocol enunciated by the Chaldean accusers in a less official setting (“O king, live forever!” Dan

3:9). For this more “courteous” reading of the punctuation, so that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego speak without addressing the king simply as “Nebuchadnezzar,” see Goldingay, 64, 66; Koch, Daniel 1-4, 251; Collins,

Daniel, 177. For the “discourteous” reading (which I am following), where they boldly address the king by his personal name, without title or “live forever!” (which intensifies Nebuchadnezzar’s enragement, Dan 3:19), see

Lacocque, Le livre de Daniel, 58.

(v.18).51 _{They even have the audacity to issue a counter-challenge to Nebuchadnezzar, calling}

upon their own God’s reality, power, and fidelity (Dan 3:17).52 _{Wesselius perceptively}

recognises their imitation of Nebuchadnezzar’s speech (compare Dan 3:16–18 to vv.14–15) in an “echo dialogue” as symbolic of “their defiance and their dropping of courteous and humble address” before Nebuchadnezzar: “by using the same expressions they put themselves on an

equal footing with him.”53 _{Nebuchadnezzar’s reaction to their riposte is the emotive state of}

extreme rage (וּנּ ַּת ְשׁ ֶא ֙י ִה ֙וֹפ ְנ ַּא םִ֤ ל ְצוּ א ַָ֗מ ֱח י ֣ ִל ְמ ְת ִה), and his speech-order to heat the furnace sevenfold for their execution (Dan 3:19). Why this heightened state of offence, which has the

“counterproductive” effect of killing his men who throw the three into the furnace (Dan

3:22)?54 _{Against Nebuchadnezzar’s implicit claim of his own piety in worshipping his gods}

(Dan 3:14), their retort offends against his public religiosity, because of their assertion that they are not godless, but serve a God to whom they appeal to save them (v.17), rejecting the service of Nebuchadnezzar’s gods, even on pain of a fiery death (v.18).55 _Perhaps

Nebuchadnezzar’s sense of his self-importance has also been offended, since they demonstrate complete disregard for honouring him with a desperate plea for mercy, or even with a proper explanation for their disobedience (Dan 3:16).56 _{Perhaps he is also stressed by his heightened}

51 _{An alternative way of reading the syntax of Dan 3:18 is to read ַעי דְּי א ל ן ֵה ְּו as a complete phrase (as opposed to}

the more standard reading of א ל ן ֵה ְּו by itself), which would translate as: “And if it was not known, let it be so to

you, O king, …” However, this alternative syntactical reading does not seem to have as much scholarly support,

so I will adopt the more common interpretation (where a passive participle combined with ה י ה in the infinitive can

indicate the imperfect). See Peter W. Coxon, "The Syntax of the Aramaic of Daniel: A Dialectal Study," Hebrew

Union College Annual 48 (1977): 109; Collins, Daniel, 177; James A. Wharton, "Daniel 3:16-18," Interpretation

39, no. 2 (1985): 173; Koch, Daniel 1-4, 252, 284; Goldingay, 64, 66; Ernest C. Lucas, "A Statue, a Fiery Furnace

and a Dismal Swamp: A Reflection on Some Issues in Biblical Hermeneutics," Evangelical Quarterly 77, no. 4

(2005): 292; Lacocque, Le livre de Daniel, 58; Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting Politics, 49; Valeta, 171;

Hebbard, 98.

52_{“If there is our God …” or “If our God isable …” (Dan 3:17)? The translation depends on whether י ַתי א is read}

as a verb of existence or as an emphatic copula. Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 7th ed., Porta

Linguarum Orientalium (Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz Verlag, 2006), 45. For the reading of י ַתי א as an emphatic

copula (resulting in their questioning of God’s power, but not God’s existence), see Peter W. Coxon, "Daniel III

17: A Linguistic and Theological Problem," Vetus Testamentum 26, no. 4 (1976): 407-8; Collins, Daniel, 177,

187; Lucas, "A Statue, a Fiery Furnace and a Dismal Swamp," 292; Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting

Politics, 49; Lacocque, Le livre de Daniel, 58; Valeta, 171. For the reading of י ַתי א as a verb of existence (resulting

in their questioning of God’s existence as a kind of negative rhetorical question), see Goldingay, 64, 66; Hebbard, 98.

53 _{Wesselius, 208.}

54 _{See Goldingay, 74.}

55 _{Fewell provides an insightful commentary on the difference between Nebuchadnezzar’s piety and that of}

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, as the contrast of the piety of power, which promotes those who imitate it, to

the piety of the vulnerable, marked by courageous resistance to power. Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: Plotting

Politics, 50.

sense of anxiety, before the gathered officials of the empire (Dan 3:24, 27) who witness this scene of impudence. Up until now, Nebuchadnezzar maintained sufficient control over his expression, demeanour, and gravitas in public, but his change of face (Dan 3:19), and his command that results in his guards burning to death (v.22), indicates that he has now lost control. Even before seeing the godlike figure in the furnace (Dan 3:25), Nebuchadnezzar has already been overwhelmed by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s defiance.