I got it wrong! It was “a son of the Gods” in Dan 3:25 which was incorrectly translated as “a son of God.”
Compare here to see different treatment as son of Gods, son of God, looks like a God… Daniel 3:25 - Bible Gateway
Interesting—and, yes, a good example of Christians reading Jesus into the Old Testament. Looks like the main offender is the King James Version and its variants.
I recall this being a major plot point in the novel East of Eden. Within the novel, it’s indicated that the Hebrew word timshel means “thou mayest” and this has significant implications on the overall messaging of the Bible, particularly the Abel and Cain story.
I think the above is all fiction, though.
Are there Bible verses that Jews and Christians disagree on the translation? Yes.
I would guess most of them.
I would guess very few of them.
Now, the implications of the translated words, on the other hand, is the topic for real disagreement.
Like in Genesis 37:8? I don’t follow.
It’s been about 20 years since I read the book and my memory is failing me. I want to say it meant that instances of “thou shall” should be interpreted as “thou mayest.” Again, my recollection at this point is poor.
Note that the book of Daniel is written (entirely? I don’t remember) in Aramaic, not Hebrew. But the languages are similar enough for purposes of this question.
The word “God” is a translation of the Hebrew “Elohim”. Or in this case, the Aramaic “Elahin”. Both of these words SEEM to be plural, as they end with the same standard plural suffix. However, in almost every case, it is not a plural, but refers to the one and only God. (There are a small number of cases where it is indeed plural, but in those cases it refers not to God, but to “great ones”.)
It is unusual for a single noun to have a plural form, but not unheard of. In English, this is most commonly seen in “scissors”, “pants”, “eyeglasses”. I was unhappy with that list, because they are all pairs of things, and I can easily see how that contributes to the plural form. So I was pleasantly surprised to find an article on this in Wikipedia, titled Plurale tantum, which gives examples that don’t involve pairs: “riches”, “surroundings”, “thanks”, and others.
An additional problem for this particular verse is the prior words “son of”. It is an extremely common idiom in both Hebrew and Aramaic to use these words NOT to describe a descendant, but to signify that one is part of some sort of group. This corresponds very closely to how we would append “-ite” or “-nik” to a noun in English, as in “Reaganite” or “beatnik”. The most common example is “bar mitzvah” which most obviously cannot mean “son of a mitzvah (commandment)” but indicates that the person is subject to the commandments. ALOHA_HATER linked us to Bible Gateway, and I see that some of those translations understand this phrase in this idiomatic sense, and that’s why they translate it as “like an angel”.
Along those lines, aren’t there references to angels as “sons of the dawn”?
“Sons of the dawn” may or may not mean something, but an “angel” is just an angel (someone sent with a message). I.e., maybe “sons of dawn” are religious or theophanic angels but those terms cannot be completely synonymous.
In Daniel, Elohim is weird. If a Jewish priest or writing uses it, it means singular.
But in that verse, Daniel is supposedly quoting a pagan king, whose religion is polytheistic.
And it’s in no way clear that the early Hebrew religion wasn’t also.
At least henothesitic.
Certainly Judaism came from polytheistic roots. But by the time the scriptures were written down (as opposed to oral traditions), it was firmly monotheistic (albeit with some peculiar language left over from those polytheistic oral traditions).
I suspect the term is not well known. Until I looked it up after reading heyour post post, I was unaware there was a single English word for the mixture. Apparently it’s called “linsey-woolsey.”
And, no, I’d never heard of Shatnez, either.
I used the word above
I looked up the Vulgate (Latin version) of Daniel 3, since the Vulgate was the standard Catholic version for many centuries, and it also uses the singular, ‘similis filio Dei’ (‘like a son of God’) with the Dei capitalized.
But I did a double take when I tried to look it up, because the text of the chapter is very different from the KJV and NIV. It includes a whole large section that isn’t in those versions, and verse 25 corresponds with verse 92 in the Vulgate.
The Revised Standard Catholic Edition includes that section, but translates that phrase as ‘son of the gods’.
Apparently there are whole sections of the book of Daniel that appear in the Septuagint and in other ancient translations, and in the modern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox versions, but not in the Hebrew or Protestant versions.
As regards the translation issue, the contrast is not between Catholic and Protestant translations, but between older and newer translations. The Vulgate and the KJV both have the singular “God”; the NIV and the RSVCE both have the plural “the gods”.
On the wider point about the text of the chapter as a whole - yes, different Christian traditions not only differ about which books they accept as canonical, but about what is the canonical text of some books - specifically, Esther and Daniel. The disputed passages appear in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew/Aramaic text.
Which Christians would those be?