Htydjtk

In Daniel 3:25, both Young's Literal and Green's Literal give :

... a son of the gods

whereas the KJV gives :

... the son of God.

Young lists the word Elah, as being the Chaldee word which Nebuchadnezzar uttered and I presume that he uttered it in the plural.

But if that were transferred into Hebrew, would he not have said 'Elohim' the plural version, or 'composite' version of the singular 'El' ?

And therefore should it not be translated 'God' as the KJV ?

Is it interpretation to try to figure out what he, himself, at that time in his life, actually knew or believed of God ?

If he uttered a pluralised form, or it might be called a composite form, should it not be translated (despite being Chaldee) in the way in which Elohim is translated into English ?

Also, is the definite article in front of 'son' missing ? If so, why would the KJV have translated it as 'the' ?

I do not wish to wander into interpretations, I am simply trying (despite not being an Hebrew scholar) to understand for myself, what exactly the King said at the time.

In Aramaic, אלה 'elāh is the general word for "(a) god". When a particular god is meant, the noun is in the emphatic state, אלהא 'elāhā' "the god". The plural אלהין 'elāhīn "(the/some) gods" is used only for groups of gods, as Niehr wrote in his lemma of אלה in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (vol. XVI, pp. 33, 37):

For the use of '^elāh in Biblical Aramaic, one must emphasize fundamentally that the plural '^elāhîn or '^elāhayyā' always means "(the) gods" and is not comparable to Hebrew '^elōhîm "God." — p. 37

_{To explain why: Aramaic was a thriving language at the time that Biblical Aramaic came forth from so-called "Imperial Aramaic", and Biblical Aramaic came into existence in a highly pluralistic context where אלהין (the Aramaic plural) could be used for e.g. the Persian pantheon. Furthermore, Hebrew אלהים had become almost like a personal name. It is therefore not odd that אלהים was not translated into Biblical Aramaic (because names are rarely translated, and because this would suggest a polytheistic perspective which the biblical authors wanted to avoid).}

According to Rosenthal (A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic⁷, §47) a construct chain such as בר־אלהין in 3:25 is either fully determined ("the son of the gods") or fully undetermined ("a son of some gods"). He argues that "a X of the Y" would be expressed with X in absolute state followed by the preposition ל and Y, as in מלך לישראל "a king of Israel" in Ezra 5:11. However, he suggests to read בר־אלהין in Daniel 3:25 as "a divine being", because בר "son" may also be used to indicate class membership (just as בני־ישראל "the sons of Israel" means "the Israelites").

I agree with Rosenthal and would read Daniel 3:25 also as "a divine being". This is similar to the translation Niehr gives (p. 37): "a divine one" with (3:25); "(holy) divine spirit" with רוח in 4:5f.,15; 5:11,14; "divine wisdom" with חכמה in 5:11. This is in contrast to the Babylonian gods (2:11; 3:12,14,18; 5:4,23).

The conversion of Nebuchadnezzar takes place after 3:25, namely between that verse and the following, in which he addresses Daniel's companions as servants of אלהא עליא "the Most High God". Here, אלהא is in singular and emphatic, i.e., "the god". This is the moment where Nebuchadnezzar exchanges his previous polytheistic point of view for a monotheistic one.