I'm looking for a bit of language help here. Daniel 12:2 in the NAS says:

Daniel 12:2

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to shame and eternal contempt.

The word "many" is extremely problematic for interpreters. I'm no exception. The construction seems to be waw consecutive with verse 1, using the word rab which is commonly translated "many." Thus, the common translation.

But as I look through the word analysis window in BibleWorks 7, I see something curious. Down in the later definitions (#4-7) I see such equivalents as "manifold," "great," and "abounding."

The LXX translates rab with polus, which BDAG commonly identifies with "many," but allows "superlative" and "very great/large."

This raises a question. Rather than saying that "many," as in a large portion of those sleeping in the dust of the earth, could Daniel 12:2 be saying "the great many" who sleep in the dust of the earth? Put differently, could we be looking at an inexact translation with the common anarthrous rendering? Granted, there is no article in the Hebrew or Greek, but is that determinative? I've seen discussions where the article usage in those languages is not the same as in English. Certainly, if this could legitimately be rendered "the many," then our interpretation difficulties would be lessened.

Any thoughts? John Reece?

Ted

Originally posted by Ted

I'm looking for a bit of language help here. Daniel 12:2 in the NAS says:

Daniel 12:2

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to shame and eternal contempt.

The word "many" is extremely problematic for interpreters. I'm no exception. The construction seems to be waw consecutive with verse 1, using the word rab which is commonly translated "many." Thus, the common translation.

But as I look through the word analysis window in BibleWorks 7, I see something curious. Down in the later definitions (#4-7) I see such equivalents as "manifold," "great," and "abounding."

The LXX translates rab with polus, which BDAG commonly identifies with "many," but allows "superlative" and "very great/large."

This raises a question. Rather than saying that "many," as in a large portion of those sleeping in the dust of the earth, could Daniel 12:2 be saying "the great many" who sleep in the dust of the earth? Put differently, could we be looking at an inexact translation with the common anarthrous rendering? Granted, there is no article in the Hebrew or Greek, but is that determinative? I've seen discussions where the article usage in those languages is not the same as in English. Certainly, if this could legitimately be rendered "the many," then our interpretation difficulties would be lessened.

Any thoughts? John Reece?

Ted

Hi Ted,

Thanks for the question.

The ‘waw’ cannot be ‘waw consecutive’, because ‘waw consecutive’ occurs only as a verbal prefix — that is, it is only prefixed to verbs; rab is not a verb.

In Daniel 12:2, rab is not singular, it is plural: רַבִּים (rabbīm), which is more literally rendered ‘multitudes’.

John

Originally posted by John Reece

Hi Ted,

Thanks for the question.

The ‘waw’ cannot be ‘waw consecutive’, because ‘waw consecutive’ occurs only as a verbal prefix — that is, it is only prefixed to verbs; rab is not a verb.

In Daniel 12:2, rab is not singular, it is plural: רַבִּים (rabbīm), which is more literally rendered ‘multitudes’.

John

Thanks for the insight (once again) John. This verse has always been one of (if not the) most difficult passages for me to comfortably fit in my (or any) eschatology. You said "multitudes" would be a better translation. Which of the following (or add one of your own), would you say is the better translation:

A multidude of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to shame and eternal contempt.

OR

The multidude who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to shame and eternal contempt.

If this question seems silly, remember I have zero (zilch, nada) training in Hebrew and only a year of Clasic Greek (of which I have forgoten 99%)

Originally posted by Faramir

Thanks for the insight (once again) John. This verse has always been one of (if not the) most difficult passages for me to comfortably fit in my (or any) eschatology. You said "multitudes" would be a better translation. Which of the following (or add one of your own), would you say is the better translation:

A multidude of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to shame and eternal contempt.

OR

The multidude who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, and some to shame and eternal contempt.

Neither.

The word is plural: multitudes.

Originally posted by John Reece

Hi Ted,

Thanks for the question.

The ‘waw’ cannot be ‘waw consecutive’, because ‘waw consecutive’ occurs only as a verbal prefix — that is, it is only prefixed to verbs; rab is not a verb.

In Daniel 12:2, rab is not singular, it is plural: רַבִּים (rabbīm), which is more literally rendered ‘multitudes’.

John

Postscript:

The ‘waw’ in Daniel 12:2 is a coordinate conjunction (‘and’), best left untranslated in this context.

Brown, Driver, and Briggs gives as the primary definition of rab ‘multitude’, the plural of which is ‘multitudes’.

The better rendering of the plural רַבִּים (rabbīm) in the context of Daniel 12:2 is ‘many’.

I call attention to the plural form only as a fact that must be considered when looking up definitions of the singular and doing word studies based on the singular.

Originally posted by Faramir

If this question seems silly, remember I have zero (zilch, nada) training in Hebrew and only a year of Clasic Greek (of which I have forgoten 99%)

Okay. that means you have 3.65 days of effective training in Classic Greek.
Just kidding.


Indeed Dan 12:2 presents an interesting concept. And the full preterists like to say that "many" means "all".

Doesn't Dan 12:2, from a Preterist view, fit well with the idea of the judgments of 70AD described in Matt 13 and with the 1st resurrection of the saints who were martyred from the time of the start of the Church?
Then those believers alive at 70AD also were changed 1Cor 15:50-52. Those who were alive didn't get resurrected at this time. But Paul discovered a mystery that those who were alive would be treated co-equally with those who died cause all believers who went through the persecution and tribulation had the same privileges. (And if everyone then were resurrected, Paul would not have had any mystery since the idea of resurrection was common knowledge.)

I'm unsure on the details of those rising to shame. But this may have been a rising unto judgment of those that died as unbelievers from the time of Christ until 70AD.

Originally posted by mikewhitney

Okay. that means you have 3.65 days of effective training in Classic Greek.
Just kidding.


Indeed Dan 12:2 presents an interesting concept. And the full preterists like to say that "many" means "all".

Doesn't Dan 12:2, from a Preterist view, fit well with the idea of the judgments of 70AD described in Matt 13 and with the 1st resurrection of the saints who were martyred from the time of the start of the Church?
Then those believers alive at 70AD also were changed 1Cor 15:50-52. Those who were alive didn't get resurrected at this time. But Paul discovered a mystery that those who were alive would be treated co-equally with those who died cause all believers who went through the persecution and tribulation had the same privileges. (And if everyone then were resurrected, Paul would not have had any mystery since the idea of resurrection was common knowledge.)

I'm unsure on the details of those rising to shame. But this may have been a rising unto judgment of those that died as unbelievers from the time of Christ until 70AD.

Well the problem that I see for the preterist in this verse is that many (but not all) who "sleep in the dust of the earth" will awake. That certainly sounds like it is talking about people who are dead at the time of the event. IMO it would take some exegitical gymastics (again IMHO) to get it to mean anything else. And the preterist do not have any major (or minor that I am aware of) eschatological event that involes either a partial resurrection or a partial judgment of the dead. (and either a judgment or a resurrection would fit IMO without the need for exegetical gymnastics).

So the word "many" (if it means some but not all) is still problematic IMO. If the Many means "all" then the problem is solved (IMO) for preterist. (Hince my keen interest in this thread).

Now futurist do have a partial resurrection, but there "secret rapture" is limited to the saved, so their problem would be the "some to life some to contemp".

Originally posted by John Reece

Hi Ted,

Thanks for the question.

The ‘waw’ cannot be ‘waw consecutive’, because ‘waw consecutive’ occurs only as a verbal prefix — that is, it is only prefixed to verbs; rab is not a verb.

In Daniel 12:2, rab is not singular, it is plural: רַבִּים (rabbīm), which is more literally rendered ‘multitudes’.

John

Postscript:

The ‘waw’ in Daniel 12:2 is a coordinate conjunction (‘and’), best left untranslated in this context.

Brown, Driver, and Briggs gives as the primary definition of rab ‘multitude’, the plural of which is ‘multitudes’.

The better rendering of the plural רַבִּים (rabbīm) in the context of Daniel 12:2 is ‘many’.

I call attention to the plural form only as a fact that must be considered when looking up definitions of the singular and doing word studies based on the singular.

So, would it be legitimate to translate the verse as, "The multitudes of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake,..."?

This would seem to resolve the problem created by the use of "many" which suggests something less than all causing us to wonder what happens to the rest if I understand the original question correctly.

Originally posted by Faramir

And the preterist do not have any major (or minor that I am aware of) eschatological event that involes either a partial resurrection or a partial judgment of the dead.

There is the raising of "many saints" after Christ's resurrection which was definitely a physical resurrection. Whether or not that is the answer (I believe it is), it is an event involving a resurrection involving "many." Mauro takes the position that this does not refer to a physical event (the verse in Daniel 12). I think he has some good points, and I think one can have it both ways, or even more than two ways with it sounding in multiple referents, including the first resurrection and the judgment of the first century apostates, the resurrection of the many after Christ's resurrection, and the general resurrection.

I have also heard that the "many" was a colloquialism for the Jewish people, and that Daniel's concern is for the Jewish people, and if so, since ethnic Israel lost its place in the first century, I don't have an issue with that passage referring to the general resurrection since for dead Jews that is the next major event for them.

Originally posted by rhutchin

So, would it be legitimate to translate the verse as, "The multitudes of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake,..."?

No.

The term is רבים (rabbīm) = 'multitudes' (or 'many').

If the meaning were 'the multitudes', the term would be הרבים (hārabbīm).

Originally posted by Darth Xena

There is the raising of "many saints" after Christ's resurrection which was definitely a physical resurrection. Whether or not that is the answer (I believe it is), it is an event involving a resurrection involving "many."

The problem I have with the Matthew Res. is the fact that Matthew records "saints" rising, nothing about "rising to shame". (which I would assume would be non-saints).

Mauro takes the position that this does not refer to a physical event (the verse in Daniel 12). I think he has some good points, and I think one can have it both ways, or even more than two ways with it sounding in multiple referents, including the first resurrection and the judgment of the first century apostates, the resurrection of the many after Christ's resurrection, and the general resurrection.

I've read Mauro on this (though not recently) I don't remember finding his explanation of that verse (and I was specifically looking for an explanation of this verse) all that great. I probably should look again though.

I have also heard that the "many" was a colloquialism for the Jewish people, and that Daniel's concern is for the Jewish people, and if so, since ethnic Israel lost its place in the first century, I don't have an issue with that passage referring to the general resurrection since for dead Jews that is the next major event for them.

That makes the most sense to me from the context of Daniel and from a Preterist perspective.

Thanks.

Originally posted by John Reece

rhutchin
So, would it be legitimate to translate the verse as, "The multitudes of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake,..."?

John Reece
No.

The term is רבים (rabbīm) = 'multitudes' (or 'many').

If the meaning were 'the multitudes', the term would be הרבים (hārabbīm).

To close the loop. Could it be translated, ""All of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake,..."?

Originally posted by rhutchin

To close the loop. Could it be translated, ""All of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake,..."?

No.

From C. F. Keil's commentary on Daniel:

It appears surprising that רבים, (many), shall awake, since according to the sequel, where the rising of some to life and and of some to shame is spoken of, much rather the word all might have been expected. This difficulty is not removed by the remark that many stands for all, because רבים does not mean all.

Hofmann remarks, that the opinion that the expression "sleeping in the dust of the earth" is not connected with the word many (רבים), but with the verb "shall awake" (יקיצו) : "of them there shall be many, of whom those who sleep in the earth shall arise" (Hofm.). So also C. B. Michaelis interprets the words by reference to the Masoretic accentuation, which has separated רבים from מישני (sleeping), only that he takes םן in the sense of stating the terminus mutationis a quo. But by this very artificial interpretation nothing at all is gained; for the thought still remains the same, that of those who sleep in the dust many (not all) awake. The partitive interpretation of םן is the only simple and natural one, and therefore with most interpreters we prefer it. The רבים can only be rightly interpreted from the context. The angel has it not in view to give a general statement regarding the resurrection of the dead, but only discloses on this point, that the final salvation of the people shall not be limited to those still living at the end of the great tribulation, but shall include also those who have lost their lives during the period of the tribulation.

-- C. F. Keil, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, Volume IX, Translated from the German (Eerdmans, reprinted July 1985), page 481.

Originally posted by Faramir

The problem I have with the Matthew Res. is the fact that Matthew records "saints" rising, nothing about "rising to shame". (which I would assume would be non-saints).

Not all fulfillments are recorded. I think by the significant use of "many" in Daniel (which has its obvious problems if referring to the general resurrection alone) and then Matthew's choice of "many" is meant to alert us to that passage, and further significant that only Matthew mentions it. Just because a rising to shame is not recorded doesn't mean it didn't happen, it would seem logical that it could - just as some very righteous had the privilege of being an advance team as it were, so would some very wicked. I don't think God would give them the honour of being appear to hang out in Jerusalem for a bit as He did with the righteous.

I've read Mauro on this (though not recently) I don't remember finding his explanation of that verse (and I was specifically looking for an explanation of this verse) all that great. I probably should look again though.

On it's own, likely not, ,but then again, I don't have a problem with one referent having to exhaust this passage.

That makes the most sense to me from the context of Daniel and from a Preterist perspective.

Thanks.

I think all three may be in fact true.

Originally posted by John Reece

rhutchin
To close the loop. Could it be translated, ""All of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake,..."?

John Reece
No.

From C. F. Keil's commentary on Daniel:

It appears surprising that רבים, (many), shall awake, since according to the sequel, where the rising of some to life and and of some to shame is spoken of, much rather the word all might have been expected. This difficulty is not removed by the remark that many stands for all, because רבים does not mean all.

Hofmann remarks, that the opinion that the expression "sleeping in the dust of the earth" is not connected with the word many (רבים), but with the verb "shall awake" (יקיצו) : "of them there shall be many, of whom those who sleep in the earth shall arise" (Hofm.). So also C. B. Michaelis interprets the words by reference to the Masoretic accentuation, which has separated רבים from מישני (sleeping), only that he takes םן in the sense of stating the terminus mutationis a quo. But by this very artificial interpretation nothing at all is gained; for the thought still remains the same, that of those who sleep in the dust many (not all) awake. The partitive interpretation of םן is the only simple and natural one, and therefore with most interpreters we prefer it. The רבים can only be rightly interpreted from the context. The angel has it not in view to give a general statement regarding the resurrection of the dead, but only discloses on this point, that the final salvation of the people shall not be limited to those still living at the end of the great tribulation, but shall include also those who have lost their lives during the period of the tribulation.

-- C. F. Keil, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, Volume IX, Translated from the German (Eerdmans, reprinted July 1985), page 481.

Then, it seems that we are left to ponder the meaning of "multitudes." So, let me ponder.

Is it necessary that "mulitudes" mean "many" as to give the impression that some, but not all, will arise from death at that time? Could we falsely read an English understanding into the Hebrew thought here. Can we take "multitudes" in the sense of "multitudes (of people) have died (since the beginning); multitudes shall arise." The author then might be read as declaring that a great many people have died (or will have died by that time) so that a great many people (in fact, all who have died) will arise.

Is it possible that the "many vs all" argument is a fiction created by a modern misunderstanding of the author because the author never intended "multitudes" to denote something less than all who will have died?

I will be putting this thread on my preteristsite next week. Great information john.