Theodotion's Greek Text of Daniel: An Analysis of the Revisional Process and Its Semitic Source 9004527052, 9789004527058, 2023002188, 9789004527881

Citation preview

Theodotion’s Greek Text of Daniel

Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible Editorial Board Hans Ausloos (Université catholique de Louvain) Russell Fuller (University of San Diego) Matthias Henze (Rice University) Armin Lange (University of Vienna) Noam Mizrahi (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Emanuel Tov (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

volume 7

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/thbs

Theodotion’s Greek Text of Daniel An Analysis of the Revisional Process and Its Semitic Source

By

Daniel Olariu

leiden | boston

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023002188

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. issn 2214-5958 isbn 978-90-04-52705-8 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-52788-1 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by Daniel Olariu. Published by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. Koninklijke Brill nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill nv via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To my Judge, whose times and laws and deep and hidden things I have come to marvel at and love.

∵

Contents Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii Terms and Sigla Employed in the Discussion Remarks on Form and Style xix

xvii

1 Introduction 1 1 State of Research on the Theodotionic Problem 2 1.1 The Figure of Theodotion and the Character of His Translation from the Patristic Sources 2 1.1.1 Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–200) 3 1.1.2 Origen Adamantius (ca. 185–253) 4 1.1.3 Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–340) 8 1.1.4 Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 310–403) 9 1.1.5 Jerome of Stridon (ca. 347–419) 10 1.1.6 Evaluation 12 1.2 From Historical Theodotion to Proto-Th 14 1.2.1 The Problem of Pre-Theodotionic Readings 15 1.2.2 Towards a Solution: The Proto-Th Hypothesis 18 1.2.3 Theories on Proto-Th 20 1.2.4 Evaluation 29 1.3 From Proto-Th to the Kaige Theory 31 1.3.1 Appellation 32 1.3.2 Attribution 32 1.3.3 Provenance and Date 33 1.3.4 Setting 34 1.3.5 Extent 34 1.3.6 Character 35 1.3.7 Evaluation 36 1.4 From the Kaige Theory toward Midway Solutions 38 1.4.1 Positive Reception of Barthélemy’s Theory 38 1.4.2 Testing Barthélemy’s Claims: The Characterizations of Th-Dan as a Revision and as a Member of the Kaige Group 40 1.4.3 Toward Intermediate Solutions 47 1.4.4 Evaluation 52 1.5 Summary 53 2 The Purpose and Importance of the Present Study 54 3 Methodology 58

viii 4 5

contents

Tools 63 Trajectory of the Study

64

2 The Character of a Revision 66 1 Previous Recensional Studies 66 1.1 Kevin G. O’Connell 68 1.2 Leonard J. Greenspoon 69 1.3 Emanuel Tov 70 2 Recensional Techniques 71 2.1 Kaige(-Th)’s Recensional Techniques 72 2.2 Aquila’s Recensional Techniques 76 2.3 Symmachus’s Recensional Techniques 79 2.4 Recensional Techniques in Jer b′ 80 2.5 Evaluation 81 3 The Characterization of the Revisional Process in Th-Daniel 1–12 84 A Recensional Consistency 86 1 Stereotyping 87 1.1 Hebrew/Aramaic—Greek Equivalents 87 1.1.1 Substitution of Free with Stereotyped Renditions 87 1.1.2 Root Consistency 107 1.2 Greek—Hebrew/Aramaic Equivalents 114 1.2.1 Restricting Equivalents 114 1.2.2 Root Consistency 120 2 Quantitative Representation 128 2.1 Elimination of og-Dan Pluses according to mt 129 2.1.1 Short Pluses 129 2.1.2 Long Pluses 150 2.2 Supplementation of og-Dan Minuses according to mt 162 2.2.1 Short Minuses 162 2.2.2 Long Minuses 192 3 Linguistically Accurate Representation 202 3.1 Replacement of Imprecise Renderings 204 3.2 Replacement of Erroneous Renderings 206 3.2.1 Contextual Exegesis 206 3.2.2 Linguistic Exegesis 213 3.2.3 Theological Exegesis 221 3.3 Different Vorlage 225

contents

4

B

C

ix

Word-Order Representation 231 4.1 Minor Transpositions 231 4.2 Major Transpositions 237 5 Transliterations 238 Recensional Techniques 247 6 Treatment of First-Found Equivalents 247 6.1 Retained and Employed Subsequently 248 6.2 Retained but Replaced Subsequently 255 6.3 Rejected but Adopted Subsequently 260 6.4 Retained and Employed Subsequently, Except for Its Last Occurrence 262 7 Partly Maintained—Partly Revised Equivalents 263 8 Th-Dan’s Use of the og Context for Selecting Its Equivalents 270 8.1 Immediate Context 270 8.2 Wider Context 275 9 Standardization vis-à-vis lxx Vocabulary 280 9.1 Substitution of Rare Renditions with Standard Equivalents 280 9.1.1 Unique lxx Equivalents 281 9.1.2 Rare lxx Equivalents 285 9.2 Substitution of Rare Words with Standard Equivalents 288 9.2.1 Hapax Legomena 289 9.2.2 Rare lxx Words 293 10 Synonymous Equivalents 298 10.1 Synonymous Compound Forms Representing the Same Lexeme 299 10.2 Synonymous Renderings Representing a Different Lexeme 302 11 Exegesis Based on Remote Passages 305 Recensional Inconsistencies 309 12 Inconsistencies Influenced by the Base Text 310 12.1 Contextual Exegesis 311 12.1.1 Additions 312 12.1.2 Omissions 321 12.1.3 Substitutions 321 12.2 Interchange of Equivalents 326 12.2.1 Absolute Alternation 326 12.2.2 General Alternation 327

x

contents

D

12.3 Other Techniques 336 12.3.1 Transpositions 336 12.3.2 Contextual Guesses 339 13 Inconsistencies Influenced by the Difficulties of the Source Text 341 13.1 Contextual Exegesis 341 13.1.1 Additions 341 13.1.2 Omissions 347 13.1.3 Substitutions 349 13.2 Synonymous Semitic Lexemes 360 Evaluation 363

4 The Nature of Th-Dan’s Vorlage 365 1 Minuses in Th-Dan 366 1.1 Recurring Minuses 366 1.1.1 ‫( ענה…ואמר‬in Reply … He Said) 367 1.1.2 ‫( גבריא אלך‬These Men) 374 1.1.3 ‫( ואראה בחזון‬i Saw in the Vision) 383 1.2 Individual Minuses 386 2 Pluses in Th-Dan 392 3 Differences in Words 400 4 Evaluation 407 5 Summary of Results and Conclusions 408 1 Recensional Character of Th-Dan 410 1.1 Common Basis 410 1.2 Th-Dan as a Consistent Recension 412 1.2.1 Recensional Consistency 412 1.2.2 Recensional Techniques 421 1.2.3 The Nature of Th-Dan’s Inconsistencies 2 Insights on Th-Dan’s Vorlage 433 3 Historical Aspects of Th-Dan’s Revision 437

427

Appendix 1: Proto-Th and Th-Dan: A Comparative Synopsys 445 Appendix 2: Samples of Inner-Greek Corruptions in Th-Dan 448 Appendix 3: The Distribution of the Dialogic Formula ‫ענה … ואמר‬/… ‫ענו‬ ‫ ואמרין‬in mt-Dan 451 Appendix 4: The Distribution of the Phrase ‫“ גבריא אלך‬These Men” in mt-Dan 455 Bibliography 459 Index of Modern Authors 476 Index of Ancient Texts 480

Acknowledgments Every book has its own story. This is even more true of doctoral monographs. For this work, the story began with the dream of reading the Bible in its original languages. It goes back to my first encounter with the Hebrew Scriptures as an undergraduate student and to my early intuition that they conceal a treasure trove. I was hungry enough for knowledge to embark upon a journey into the unknown, pursuing these riches. The journey took me to Israel, to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. There in the Bible Department, I spent about ten wonderful years digging for treasures in the Book of Daniel. This monograph reflects a slightly revised version of my doctoral research, which compares the HebrewAramaic text of Daniel with the Greek versions of the same book. My advisers, Prof. Emanuel Tov and Prof. Michael Segal, deserve all my hearty appreciation. Not only was their mentorship always supportive along the way, but also their role model inspired me to pursue excellence. I continue to admire their rigor and creativity in research, and I endeavor to follow in their footsteps. Reflecting on the unique opportunity of being guided by such an exceptional team of experts in textual studies, I admit that all the universe must have worked together for it to happen. Earlier in my academic journey as an undergraduate student, I was fortunate to have teachers who broadened my intellectual and theological horizons. Dr. Aldea Traian introduced me to archaeological excavations, instilled in me a love for Israel, and encouraged me to study in Jerusalem. Dr. Zoltán SzallósFarkas exposed me to the depth and beauty of the Bible. Lăiu Florin taught me that the interpretation of a text requires careful, detailed exegetical work. It was a great honor to become their colleague for a time at Adventus University of Cernica in Romania. I will always remember their role in my formative years. Even earlier, my parents, Ștefan and Viorica Olariu, were my first informal instructors, who opened up for me the fascinating world of biblical stories. To them I owe the opportunity to attend high school, college, and to pursue graduate studies. It turned out that the name they gave me—Daniel—was the name of the biblical book that became my doctoral topic. They were ready to sacrifice everything to help the dreams of their children to be fulfilled. Their support was possible with the involvement of my brothers and sisters and my brothers -in-law and sisters-in-law. They created the ideal space to nurture my dreams. I am indebted to all of them, and my achievement is also theirs. Special thanks also go to the vibrant Romanian Jewish community that I met in Israel. Of this group, I especially mention Costel and Elza Alexe, who showed

xii

acknowledgments

me and my family that we could feel at home even though we were far away from home. The financial support that I have received from different institutions deserves full recognition and thanks. For the first years of my stay in Israel, I benefited from the Rothberg Family Fund Scholarship and from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Scholarship. For the years of my doctoral studies, I received a scholarship offered by the Inter-European Division of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in conjunction with Adventus University. In the final years of writing my dissertation, the support scholarships from the Hebrew University were very much appreciated. For the months I spent in Berlin and Vienna studying German, I thank the Goethe-Institute in Jerusalem and the Centre for Austrian Studies, respectively. The list of those who were instrumental in my formation or who helped me along the way is seemingly inexhaustible. Of this large group, I wish to particularly thank those who were instrumental in bringing the publication process to completion. These include Prof. Emanuel Tov and Prof. Armin Lange, who suggested the publication of my research in this series; Prof. Alison Salvesen (Oxford University) and Dr. Guy Darshan (Tel-Aviv University), who offered insightful comments as external readers; Dr. Jason Driesbach, who served as a copyeditor; and Dirk Bakker and Bart Nijsten, the Brill editor and typesetter, respectively. Lastly, and they know the last are first, I thank my wife Denisa-Simona, my son Levi-Raphael, and my daughter Eva-Elizabeth for journeying with me into the unknown. They enrich my life every day. Their presence at my side brings colorful joy into my scholarly, sometimes monochrome domain. To my charming wife, who experienced all the stages of this volume by having me less available, I will remain forever grateful. Daniel Olariu Friedensau, Saxony-Anhalt February 2023

Abbreviations aasf ab abd alghj anf anrw

basor bdb betl bhs Bib BibS(F) bioscs bkat BSac bz bzaw cad

CahRB catss

cbqms ConBOT DBib

dcb

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Ante-Nicene Fathers Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972– Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983 Biblica Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895–) Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Bibliotheca Sacra Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956– 2010 Cahiers de la Revue biblique The Revised catss Hebrew/Greek Parallel Text. Edited by Emanuel Tov and Frank Polak. Accordance electronic edition. Version 1.3. Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2008 Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series A Dictionary of the Bible, dealing with the Language, Literature and Contents, including the Biblical Theology. Edited by James Hastings. 5 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898–1904 Dictionary of Christian Biography. Edited by William Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London: Murray, 1877–1887

xiv

abbreviations

dch

Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J.A. Clines. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2014 Dictionary of Early Christian Literature. Edited by Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings. Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. New York: Crossroad, 2000 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Encyclopedia of Christianity. Edited by Erwin Fahlbusch, Jan Milic Lochman, John Samuel Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas Vischer. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999–2008 Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971– 1972 Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000 Eretz-Israel A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Takamitsu Muraoka. Leuven: Peeters, 2009 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. Translated by Arther E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E.J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998 Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George A. Buttrick. 4 vols. New York: Abingdon, 1962 Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith Crim. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976 The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 5 vols. Chicago, IL: Howard-Severance, 1915 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–1988 Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer. 12 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1925

decl

djd ec

EncJud edb ErIsr gels gkc halot

hrcs

hsm htr icc idb IDBSup ioscs isbe1 isbe2 jaos jbl je

abbreviations jets jqr jscs JSJSup JSOTSup JSPSup jss jts leh L&N

lsj mpi msu nawg nets Neot njps npnf1 npnf2 obo odcc Or otl ots pg pl plo rb RevQ rtl sais

xv

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003 Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989 Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996 Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens Nachrichten (von) der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 Neotestamentica Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New jps Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2 Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 Orientalia (ns) Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Patrologia Graeca [= Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca]. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886 Patrologia Latina [= Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina]. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864 Porta Linguarum Orientalium Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Revue théologique de Louvain Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture

xvi sb sbl sbs sc scs StPB SubBi tdnt

tdot

Text ThWAT

tlg tlot

tq tsaj tsk twot vt VTSup wbc wgrw wunt zaw zpe znw

abbreviations Sources bibliques Society of Biblical Literature Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Sources chrétiennes. Paris: Cerf, 1943– Septuagint and Cognate Studies Studia Post-biblica Subsidia Biblica Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. 16 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975–2018 Textus Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–2016 Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni, with assistance from Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997 Theologische Quartalschrift Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Theologische Studien und Kritiken Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980 Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Writings from the Greco-Roman World Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Terms and Sigla Employed in the Discussion = ≠ √ < > ⟨…⟩ → » * […] §(§) ca. cf. ch(s). bce ce col(s). e.g. etc. et al. ibid. i.e. Kaige(-Th) l(l). Lit. lxx ms(s) μτ(-Dan) Mu n(n). no(s). og-Dan (the) og op. cit. pap pl(s). Proto-Th

(item 1) equals (item 2) (item 1) is not equal to (item 2) root derived from (textual tradition 1) developed into (textual tradition 2) the editor’s addition see further (reading 1) developed into (reading 2) asterisked material in Septuagint of Job text left out in a cited passage subsection(s) circa confer, compare chapter(s) before the Common Era Common Era column(s) exempli gratia, for example et cetera, and so forth, and the rest et alii, and others ibidem, in the same place id est, that is Kaige(-Theodotion) line(s) literally Septuagint manuscript(s) Masoretic Text (of Daniel) the 2nd Göttingen Edition (1999) edited by Mu(nnich) footnote(s) number(s) Old Greek Daniel (the) Old Greek text (of Daniel) opere citato, in the work cited papyrus plural; plate(s) Proto-Theodotion

xviii Q Q Ra s.v. Th Th-Dan Zi

terms and sigla employed in the discussion Qumran Qere Ra(hlfs) edition sub verbo, under the word Theodotion Theodotion Daniel 1st Göttingen Edition (1954) edited by Zi(egler)

Remarks on Form and Style 1. This study complies with The sbl Handbook of Style, 2nd ed., ed. Billie Jean Collins et al. (Atlanta, GA: sbl, 2014), in connection with the updated explanations, clarifications, and expansions posted on The sbl Handbook of Style’s blog: https://sblhs2.com. 2. The English sources for the translation of Scripture are njps for the Hebrew text and nets for the Greek texts. The short, English definitions for individual Hebrew and Greek lexemes reflect those included in the Accordance modules bhs-w4 (with Westminster Hebrew Bible Morphology) and lxx1 & 2 (Kraft/Taylor/Wheeler Septuagint Morphology Database v. 4.7). 3. When Aramaic and Greek versification differ in Daniel 4–6, the reference to mt is followed by the reference to og/Th-Dan in square brackets. Thus, Dan 4:15[18] indicates ch. 4 with v. 15 in mt, but v. 18 in og/Th-Dan. Similarly, the one-chapter differentiation in Psalms is indicated by a reference in the square brackets after the reference of the chapter in Hebrew. Thus, Ps 34[33]:5 represents ch. 34 in mt and ch. 33 in lxx. When Hebrew and Greek references differ entirely, the parallel versification in Greek is provided in square brackets, as in Ps 10:13[9:34]. 4. For the sake of precision, superscript numbers were used in order to supply additional information about the words under discussion, such as follows: Dan 2:62º indicates the second occurrence of a word in verse 6; Dan 2:62X indicates that a word occurs twice in verse 6; Dan 2:61º, 3º refers to the first and third occurrence of the same word in verse 6. 5. In order to distinguish between lexemes, Aramaic words and roots are marked with the notation “0‫ ”־‬at their end as in 0‫קבל־‬. The notation attached to a Semitic word, such as “3‫”־‬, “2‫”־‬, or “1‫ ”־‬indicates the number of the root with which the word has been associated in halot. Thus, 2‫ גאל־‬indicates the second Hebrew root listed in halot while 0‫־‬1‫ ַחי־‬indicates the first Aramaic root in the same reference work. 6. This work uses an internal cross-reference system in order to link its parts—the concepts and the examples discussed. The system sequentially indicates the chapter, the section, and the subsection(s). Thus, ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 refers the reader to ch. 3 of this work, section A of this chapter, paragraph 1.1.1.1. If the paragraph is followed by a lexeme (e.g., ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 [0‫ )]ענה־‬or a biblical reference (ch. 3 A §2.1.1.1 [Dan 2:18]) in parentheses, the reader is directed to a specific example which is listed in that paragraph. 7. Greek readings are accented except for quotations from single mss. 8. Hebrew readings are cited without vowels except when their presence is needed in order to avoid ambiguity.

chapter 1

Introduction The Book of Daniel is well known for its many textual problems, which have implications for tracing its textual history.1 The book’s bilingual text, with some portions in Hebrew (Dan 1:1–2:4a; 8:1–12:13) and others in Aramaic (Dan 2:4b– 7:28), has led scholars to dispute the priority of either an Aramaic or Hebrew original. Furthermore, there are two opposing traditions regarding the placement of the book in the canon. The Masoretic Text (mt) includes Daniel among the Writings while Septuagint (lxx) places it among the Prophets. Closely connected to the research goal of this study are the problems related to the Greek witnesses. The book was transmitted in two complete, parallel versions: the Old Greek (og[-Dan]) and Theodotion (Th-Dan).2 The former displays significant textual divergences in Daniel 4–6, while the latter raises intriguing questions regarding its proper characterization as either a de novo translation or a revision. This study reflects a text-critical approach and aims to contribute to the longstanding Theodotionic problem. Consequently, the scholarly literature3 that will be surveyed henceforth encompasses only those studies that relate specifically to both the problem in question and this area of research. 1 For recent surveys of the status quo in textual studies on the book of Daniel, see Daniel Olariu, “18.1 Textual History of Daniel,” in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, vol. 1C (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 517–527; Amanda M. Davis Bledsoe, “The Different Editions of the Book of Daniel: A History of Scholarship,” Currents in Biblical Research 13.2 (2015): 175–190; Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83/2 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 586–607. For general surveys, see David M. Valeta, “The Book of Daniel in Recent Research (Part 1),” Currents in Biblical Research 6 (2008): 330–354; John J. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83/1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1–15. 2 Dalia Amara, “18.3.1 Septuagint,” in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, vol. 1C (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 542–554. 3 The Danielic scholarship can be traced consulting several important bibliographies: Henry O. Thompson, The Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography (New York: Garland, 1993); Cecile Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint (1970–1993), VTSup 60 (Leiden: Brill, 1993); Emanuel Tov, A Classified Bibliography of Lexical and Grammatical Studies on the Language of the Septuagint and Its Revisions, 3rd rev. and enl. ed (Jerusalem: Academon, 1982); Sebastian P. Brock, Charles T. Fritsch, and Sidney T. Jellicoe, A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint, alghj 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1973). Valuable entries also appear in Lorenzo DiTommaso, A Bib-

© Daniel Olariu, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004527881_002

2 1

chapter 1

State of Research on the Theodotionic Problem

In order to clearly ascertain all the textual issues associated with the Greek version attributed to Theodotion as well as to put in perspective the research goals of our analysis, we will proceed by surveying the various theories posited in scholarly literature in approaching the Theodotionic problem. The review of research is structured according to the major shifts that are discernible when tracing inquiries into the Theodotionic problem from the first patristic references until recent analyses. The first notable shift is marked by the association of a new text ex hypothesi with the historical figure of Theodotion known from the patristic sources. This text remains known in scholarly literature under the name “Proto-Theodotion” (Proto-Th). A second shift is marked by the further affiliation ex hypothesi of another new group of texts known as Kaige to the name Theodotion (Kaige[Th]). Though partly intended to bring clarification to the Theodotionic problem, this affiliation further complicated the issues. As it will be detailed below, the challenges posed by working with theories based on many hypothetical layers of texts and nuanced views led scholars to formulate confused, incomplete, and sometimes inexact accounts regarding the nature of the Theodotionic problem. As a corollary of these textual challenges, since the earliest patristic references, the Theodotionic problem represents one of the most intriguing areas of lxx research today. 1.1

The Figure of Theodotion and the Character of His Translation from the Patristic Sources The mystery which shrouds the personality of Theodotion and, implicitly, the version associated with his name (Theodotion’s version), is perpetuated by the early patristic comments, which are scanty and often contradictory. The church fathers that directly or indirectly refer to Theodotion and his work include, chronologically, Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen Adamantius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Jerome of Stridon.4

liography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999, JSPSup 39 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). The reader will benefit further from two important works of collected essays that have dealt specifically with Danielic literature. See Adam S. van der Woude, ed., The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, betl 106 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993) and John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (VTSup 83/1 + 2; Leiden: Brill, 2001). 4 For the sake of clarity, a few remarks on the citation method referring to patristic sources are in order: (1) When a source is quoted for the first time, we offer both the reference to the source

introduction

3

The opinions of the church fathers are subsequently quoted from the pl and pg series. Though produced a long time ago, they are still valuable resources gathering in a single place (almost) all relevant, original works of the patristic writers. The decision to use this series to refer to the source texts is grounded in pragmatism, aiming at consistency. The same holds true for their English translations. Again, we give precedence to the classic series such as anf, npnf1, and npnf2. Had we worked with recent translations, we would need to quote from various, incomplete series, in different languages, devoid of certain works that we referred to in this monograph only in passing. When works of interest were lacking in these series, we referred to modern editions.5 1.1.1 Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–200) In his Contra haereses (ca. 180),6 Irenaeus offers the first patristic testimony on Theodotion as a historical figure in the context of the Jewish-Christian disputes about Isa 7:14: God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes.7

text and its translation in English; (2) for subsequent citations from the same source, we refer the reader only to its English translation; (3) the patristic citations for which an English translation is lacking (or in some cases could not be retrieved) are referred to only by their source text. 5 The pragmatic decision we made accords with the focus of our study and, thus, reflects its limitations, which is a text-critical analysis of the Hebrew-Aramaic text and the Greek versions of Daniel and not a work on patristics, in which case working with modern editions would be a required methodological stricture. Even if we had quoted from modern series, there would not have been substantial new readings to change the picture. 6 This work, which originally was composed in Greek and now is persevered only fragmentarily, comprises five books. However, the work came to us in a complete form in Latin and its translation is believed to have been made by the beginning of the third century. See Cleveland A. Coxe, introductory note to Against Heresies (anf 1:311–312). In Migne’s collection, pg 7:437a–1224d, the available Greek fragments were interspersed into the Latin text. For the composition date of Contra haereses, see Cleveland A. Coxe, note to Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.1 (anf 1:451, n. 11). 7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.1 (anf 1:451). The Greek text, which follows the quotation from Isa 7:14, reads: ὡς Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος, καὶ Ἀκύλας ὁ Ποντικὸς, ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι. Irenaeus of Lyons, Contra haereses 3 (pg 7:946a–b).

4

chapter 1

In this brief comment, Irenaeus provides useful information, clarifying the provenance of Theodotion, namely, Ephesus of Asia Minor. He further notes a particular of his religious identity, that is to say he undertook a religious conversion experience, becoming a Jew. The most we can add to these particulars is Irenaeus’s characterization of Theodotion and Aquila as “expounders” of Scripture.8 The fact that he mentions Theodotion before Aquila may occasion the question of whether it affords some piece of information concerning the chronological precedence of the former over the latter. Similarly, the lack of any mention of Symmachus alongside Theodotion and Aquila could provide a further chronological clue to their disposition in relation to each other.9 1.1.2 Origen Adamantius (ca. 185–253) A further attestation to the historical Theodotion comes through the literary legacy of Origen,10 the voluminous author11 and prodigious scholar12 of the 8

9

10

11

12

There is no doubt that by the phrase μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων τὴν Γραφὴν “audent interpretari Scripturam (Latin),” “presuming to expound the Scripture,” Irenaeus alludes to Aquila’s and Theodotion’s work as translators. The passage which was quoted above continues with Irenaeus’s argument from the Old Greek translation that supports the Christian interpretation of Isa 7:14. Though the continuation is not extant in a Greek form, the Latin text uses similar wording to the Septuagint: “interpretatum vero in Graeco ab ipsis Judaeis multum ante tempora adventus Domini nostri” (pg 7:946b); “but it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.1 [anf 1:451]). In this case, Irenaeus’s silence would most likely point to the fact that the translation of Symmachus was not yet accomplished. See, for instance, Samuel Davidson, A Treatise on Biblical Criticism: The Old Testament, vol. 1 (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1853), 219. There are numerous passing references by church fathers to the life and literary activity of Origen. However, the most notable treatments of his floruit are Eusebius’s Historiae Ecclesticae 6 (pg 20:519a–636c); Eng. trans., Eusebius, Church History 6.1–39 (npnf2 1:249– 281); Jerome’s De viris illustribus (pl 23:663b–667b); Eng. trans., Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (npnf2 3:373–374); Epiphanius’s De mensuris et ponderibus, trans. from Syriac as Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, ed. and trans. James Elmer Dean, Studies in Ancient Orient Civilizations 11 (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1935), 15–39; and further by the same author but a more hostile treatment, Epiphanii, Adversus Haereses 2/1 (pg 41:1067d–1076b); Eng. trans., Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books ii and iii, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 131–134. The industrious character of Origen made Jerome to rhetorically ask “Who has ever managed to read all that he has written?” Jerome, Letter to Paula 33 (npnf2 6:46). According to Epiphanius’s account, Origen’s writings amounted to 6000 volumes (Williams, Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, section iv:44[64].63.7–8, 189). However, Jerome disputes the accuracy of this number (Jerome, Apology against Rufinius 2.22 [npnf2 3:513–514] and Apology against Rufinius 3.23 [npnf2 3:530–531]). For Origen’s prodigious personality and knowledge, see Jerome’s account of Lives of Illus-

introduction

5

first half of the third century. In his magnum opus, the Hexapla (ca. 231–245),13 which was structured as a synopsis of parallel biblical texts in six columns, Origen incorporated a Greek text that he attributed to Theodotion into the sixth column.14 In the other Hexaplaric columns, Origen included a form of the Hebrew text extant in his days (col. 1), a transliteration of the Hebrew text into Greek letters (col. 2), a Greek translation attributed to Aquila (col. 3),15 a second Greek translation attributed to Symmachus (col. 4),16 and a third Greek translation—the Old Greek or Septuaginta—as it was preserved in Origen’s time (col. 5).17

13

14 15

16

17

trious Men 54 (npnf2 3:373–374), wherein he claims that “he [Origen] understood dialectics, as well as geometry, arithmetic, music, grammar, and rhetoric, and taught all the schools of the philosophers.” Ibid., 374. Some historical background information puts Origen’s monumental achievement in perspective: Origen learned Hebrew mainly for this project, to which he supposedly devoted around twenty-eight years (Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses 2/1 [pg 41:1073b–c]; Williams, Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, section iv:44 [64].3.1–4, 133–134). Furthermore, it is estimated that “if it [Hexapla] had been written on papyrus scrolls, it would have comprised fifty large volumes; if in the form of a codex, it would have filled nearly seven thousand pages.” Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, 3rd. ed. (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1941), 109. See further Cleveland A. Coxe, introductory note to The Works of Origen (anf 4:230). Eusebius, Church History 6.16 (npnf2 1:261). For a recent discussion on the ancient sources referring to Aquila in both Christian and Jewish literature, see Jenny R. Labendz, “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives,” htr 102 (2009): 353–388. According to Eusebius’s account, who admittedly relies on Origen himself for this information, Origen “received these with interpretations of others, from one Juliana, who, he also said, derived them by inheritance from Symmachus himself.” Eusebius, Church History 6.16 (npnf2 1:264). In addition to these four Greek texts, Origen came across with other translations of certain biblical books, which he appended as additional columns to the Hexapla. Consequently, Origen’s work comprised for some books seven columns (Heptapla), eight columns (Octopla), and even nine columns (Enneapla). Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (npnf2 3:374). Commenting on these texts, Jerome notes that “though no one knows to what authors they are to be attributed, [they] exhibit so pleasing a variety of their own that, in spite of their being anonymous, they have won an authoritative position.” Preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (npnf2 6:484). When counting only the columns of Greek translation in Origen’s Hexapla, the other versions are known under the names Quinta, Sexta, and Septima. While nothing is known for the Septima, both Epiphanius and Jerome offer some details about the other two. Whereas Jerome records that Quinta “was found on the coast of Actium” (Preface to the Translation of Origen’s Two Homilies on the Song of Songs [npnf2 6:485]), Epiphanius informs us that it was discovered “in wine jars in Jericho with other Hebrew books and other books” in the time of Antoninus Caracalla (Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, 35). Among other books, readings from Quinta are preserved in Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs. About the Sexta, Epiphanius remarks that it was

6

chapter 1

As might be expected from such a voluminous work, which probably comprised fifty volumes altogether, the Hexapla seems to have proved to be unpractical, “far too bulky for common use, and too costly for transcription.”18 These practical considerations presumably generated the need for a simplified edition. Ostensibly, the response to this necessity was the Tetrapla, a work which incorporated only the last four Greek texts from Origen’s six-columned Bible.19 Evidence suggests that in the making of the Hexapla, a process of selectivity was operating at the level of manuscript transmission. Origen’s primary goal was to produce a recension of the Old Greek translation in order to parallel the Hebrew text quantitatively and, thus, to assist the church in its polemics with the Jews.20 In order to achieve his purpose, Origen marked the Greek text with diacritical signs:21 with obeli (–) and metobeli (: or /.) at the beginning and

18 19

20

21

found “in Nicopolis, near Actium,” in the time of Alexander, the son of Mammaea. Readings from the Sexta are found in the books of Psalms, Song of Songs and Habacuc. Coxe, introductory note to The Works of Origen (anf 4:230). The Tetrapla is evidenced by the explicit reference to it by Eusebius: “In a separate work he also prepared an edition of Aquila and Symmachus, and Theodotion, together with the Septuagint, in what is called the Tetrapla” (Church History 6.16 [npnf2 1:263]). A further evidence comes from the title attached to the ms 88 of the Book of Daniel, Δανιὴλ κατὰ τοὺς Ο´ ἐκ τῶν τετραπλῶν Ὠριγένους “Daniel according to lxx from Origen’s Tetrapla.” The view that the Tetrapla preceded the Hexapla, which most likely originated with Montfaucon, is highly problematic; for this view see Montfaucon op. cit. from Fridericus Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875), 1:xii–xiii; Davidson, Treatise on Biblical Criticism, 201; and Coxe, introductory note to the Works of Origen (anf 4:230). Similarly, Orlinsky’s radical view that no such a work ever existed is untenable. Harry M. Orlinsky, “Origen’s Tetrapla—A Scholarly fiction?” in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations, Library of Biblical Studies (New York, NY: Ktav, 1974), 382–391. In this regard, Origen’s remarks are insightful: “And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even though it should not be in our Scriptures. So if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as it is their manner scornfully laugh at the Gentile believers for their ignorance for the true readings as they have them. So far as to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew.” Origenis epistola ad Africanum de historia Susannae (pg 11:60b–61a); English trans., A Letter from Origen to Africanus (anf 4:387). The apologetic rationale behind the Hexapla might have further influenced Origen to organize its columns in a pedagogical-patterned fashion, as Orlinsky suggests in “The Columnar Order of the Hexapla,” jqr 27 (1936–1937): 137–149. For the system of notation employed in the Hexapla, see Origen, Commentariorum Evanghelium Matthaeum 15 (pg 13:1924a–c), no English trans. available; Jerome, Preface to Psalms (npnf2 6:494) and Preface to Genesis quoted in Apology against Rufinus 2.25 (npnf2 3:515–516). In addition to the obelus and asterisk, Epiphanius mentions other two signs, lemniscus (÷) and hypolemniscus (⨪). Like the use of obeli, they were placed at the

introduction

7

the end, respectively, indicating those words, phrases, or passages in the Old Greek translation (col. 5) which represented pluses over against the Hebrew text (col. 1); and with asterisks (※) and metobeli (: or /.), those words, phrases, or passages copied from cols. 3, 4, and/or 6 into the Old Greek (col. 5) in order to fill its minuses over against the Hebrew Text.22 It is this recension of the Old Greek that was mainly copied and transmitted over the centuries and reached our days.23 As such, the significance of this Origenic recension of the Old Greek is twofold: (1) it represents a witness to the form of the early Greek translation of the Septuagint and, indirectly, to its Hebrew Vorlage; and (2) it embeds readings from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion that have survived only in its manuscripts.24

22

23

24

beginning of pluses in the Old Greek over against the Hebrew Text. Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, 17–18 (obelus), 21–21 (asterisk), 22–23 (lemniscus and hypolemniscus). As can be inferred from Origen’s own words, the form of the Old Greek text in Origen’s time differed remarkably from the Hebrew Text. In this letter, besides making note on the textual differences between the Old Greek/Theodotion and the Hebrew Scriptures/Aquila in the book of Daniel, Origen reviews to Africanus some other major and minor extant disparities between these texts in the books of Esther, Job, Jeremiah, Genesis, and Exodus. Origenis epistola ad Africanum de historia Susannae (pg 11:47b–86d); English trans., A Letter from Origen to Africanus (anf 4:386–392). The Hexapla was preserved in the library of Caesarea, where Origen’s disciple Pamphilus was in charge. The history of transmission of the Hexaplaric recension starts with the copying work of Pamphilus and Eusebius who popularised this recension in Palestinian region (see Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis, Praefatio Hieronymi in librum Paralipomenon [pl 28:1324b–1325a]; Apologia adversus libros Rufini [pl 23:450d–451a]; Commentariorum in epistolam ad Titum [pl 26:595a–b]). A next significant step in its transmission represents the literal translation of it in 616–617 by Paul, Bishop of Tella, in Mesopotamia, from one of the Hexaplaric codices in circulation at that time. Most likely, the Hexapla met its end along with the library of Caesarea in ca. 638, once the Saracens invaded and captured Caesarea (see Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to Old Testamemt in Greek [Cambridge: University Press, 1900], 75). Among the collections of readings from the Hexaplaric manuscripts which survived the Middle Ages and were produced starting with the beginning of the of the sixteenth century, the most notable are those prepared by Bernardo de Montfaucon, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt (Paris, 1713), and Field’s Origenis Hexaplorum (see n. 25). A new, updated edition of the Hexapla is now in progress under the auspices of International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. For more details on Hexapla Project, see Timothy M. Law, “A History of Research on Origen’s Hexapla: From Masius to the Hexapla Project,” bioscs 40 (2007): 30–48 (47– 48). Alison Salvesen, “The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Modern Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible” in Let Us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda, VTSup 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 95–109.

8

chapter 1

Origen’s textual undertakings shed further light on the profile of the text attributed to Theodotion. His high regard for Theodotion’s version is demonstrated by his resort mainly to Theodotion to fill in the minuses in the Old Greek in comparison with the Hebrew Text.25 This is particularly true in the books of Job, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, where Origen used Theodotion to supply long portions that were absent in the Old Greek. In addition, from the extant Theodotionic readings throughout the fragmentary manuscripts of Origen’s fifth column, it may be inferred that the Theodotionic text covered almost the entire Bible,26 and even contained supplemental materials such as the apocryphal book of Baruch and the Additions to Daniel.27 Lastly, another piece of evidence that indicates the preeminence of the Theodotionic text for Origen relates to the text of Daniel itself. In his lost work Stromata, Origen supposedly discontinued the use of og-Dan and replaced it with Th-Dan.28 1.1.3 Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–340) Eusebius mentions Theodotion twice in his influential work Church History (ca. 325).29 However, he does not contribute new background information about the floruit of Theodotion. The first reference appears in Eusebius’s citation of the tradition regarding the Scriptures that was passed on by Irenaeus. In this instance, Eusebius restates the precise words of Irenaeus, which were dis25

26 27

28

29

Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis, Praefatio Hieronymi in librum Paralipomenon (pl 28: 1325a). See further Rufinus’s comment written in the context of his dispute with Jerome over the translation of Origenic writings into Latin: “But Origen also, you will tell us, in composing his work, called the Hexapla, adopted the asterisks, taken them from the translation of Theodotion.” Apology 2.36 (npnf2 3:476–477). According to Gwynn, Theodotion’s translation covered all the Hebrew Scriptures except Lamentations. John Gwynn, “Theodotion,” dcb 4:970–979 (978). Due to their absence in the Hebrew, the Additions to Daniel were vigorously debated by the Jewish and Christian apologists. Traces of these disputes appear in Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus (anf 4:386); Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.26 (npnf2 1:276); Rufinus, Apology 2.33 (npnf2 3:475); and Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (npnf2 3:517) and, by the same author, Preface to Daniel (npnf2 6:493). There are only three fragments left from Origen’s Stromata, which ostensibly included ten volumes—one from vol. 6 and two from vol. 10. Fragmenta ex Origenis libri Stromatum (pg 11:101a–108a). In this respect, Jerome notes: “Wherefore also Origen asserts in the ninth book of the Stromata that he is discussing the text from this point on in the prophecy of Daniel, not as it appears in the Septuagint, which greatly differs from the Hebrew original, but rather as it appears in Theodotion’s edition.” S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum in Danielem prophetam (pl 25:514a); Eng. trans., Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason L. Archer (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1958), 48. However, the date for the first seven volumes (out of ten) of Ecclesiastical History is set to ca. 303. The other three volumes “were added in successive editions, the final edition with book 10 being revised as late as c. 325.” odcc, s.v. “Eusebius.”

introduction

9

cussed above.30 Similarly, discussing “Origen’s research into the divine words,” which ultimately resulted in the Hexapla, Eusebius only mentions Theodotion’s translation in conjunction with those attributed to Aquila and Symmachus.31 1.1.4 Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 310–403) In De mensuris et ponderibus (ca. 392),32 Epiphanius offers the most extensive patristic discussion of the background of Origen’s Hexapla, both in reference to its notation33 and its incorporated Greek texts.34 Intriguingly, the new details about Theodotion that Epiphanius offers include one fact that conflicts with what was noted in other authors: But after this [Symmachus’s translation], in the time immediately following, that is, in the time of Commodus—I mean, in the time of Commodus ii—there was a certain Theodotion of Pontus, of the doctrine of Marcion, the heresiarch of Sinope. Having been angered with his heresy, he turned aside to Judaism and was circumcised and learned the language of the Hebrews and their writings; he also published (a translation) on his own account. He published many things in agreement with the seventy-two, for he derived many (peculiar) practices from the translational habit(s) of the seventy-two.35

30

31 32

33 34

35

The quote from Irenaeus reads: “Concerning the translation of the inspired Scriptures by the Seventy, hear the very words which he writes: “God in truth became man, and the Lord himself saved us, giving the sign of the virgin; but not as some say, who now venture to translate the Scripture, ‘Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bring forth a son,’ as Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus, both of them Jewish proselytes, interpreted; following whom, the Ebionites say that he was begotten by Joseph.”” Eusebius, Church History 5.8 (npnf2 1:223). Eusebius, Church History 6.16 (npnf2 1:262). In this context, Eusebius characterizes the versions of the three as “well known translations.” This work was originally composed in Greek, of which only fragments are extant; however, the work was translated in Latin and Syriac. The only complete manuscripts are preserved in Syriac and they constituted the base for the Chicago English edition from which we quote. For further details on the background of this edition, see both Martin Sprengling’s foreword and James Elmer Dean’s introduction to Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, vii–xii and 1–9, respectively. Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, 16–18. In addition to the obeli and asterisks, Epiphanius discusses other two signs, lemniscus and hypolemniscus. Ibid., 22–23. Epiphanius starts his account on the Greek texts by referring to the Old Greek translation (ibid., 23–28), and further details on the versions attributed to Aquila (ibid., 29–32), Symmachus (ibid., 32–33), Theodotion (ibid., 33–34), and the “fifth” and “sixth” translations (ibid., 34–37). Ibid., 33.

10

chapter 1

Epiphanius is at variance with Irenaeus (and implicitly Eusebius) regarding the provenance of Theodotion, namely, Sinope of Pontus as opposed to Ephesus of Asia Minor. As far as the new details are concerned, his comments provide further biographical insights to the historical figure of Theodotion. Epiphanius sets Theodotion’s floruit under the time of Commodus ii, which proves to be of significance in assessing Epiphanius’s reliability as a historical witness. Furthermore, we learn new information about the background of Theodotion’s conversion to Judaism: he seemingly came into conflict with the adherents of Marcion’s ideas,36 to whom he also belonged. Lastly, Epiphanius offers a value-judgment on Theodotion’s version, explaining that its similarity in translational style to the Septuagint implies the reliance of the former on the latter. 1.1.5 Jerome of Stridon (ca. 347–419) From Jerome we receive significant information on the textual history of the Theodotionic version of Daniel as well as a relevant overall description of its character. He mentions twice the decision of the church to discontinue the use of og-Dan in favor of Theodotion’s version. In both the Preface to his translation of Daniel (ca. 392) and his Commentary on Daniel (ca. 407) at 4:6 [v. 8 mt]—where he notes the absence of vv. 6–9 from og-Dan, Jerome states: The Septuagint version of Daniel the prophet is not read by the Churches of our Lord and Saviour. They use Theodotion’s version, but how this came to pass I cannot tell. Whether it be that the Language is Chaldee, which differs in certain peculiarities from our speech, and the Seventy were unwilling to follow those deviations in a translation; or that the book was published in the name of the Seventy, by some one or other not familiar with Chaldee, or if there be some other reason, I know not; this one thing I can affirm—that it differs widely from the original, and is rightly rejected.37 With the exception of the Septuagint translators (who for some reason or other have omitted this whole passage [i.e. vv. 6–9]), the other three

36 37

For a discussion of Marcion’s views, see Gerhard May, “Marcionites,” ec 3:397–398; and odcc, s.v. “Marcion.” Eusebii Hieronymi, Praefatio Hieronymi in Danielem prophetam (pl 28:1291b); English trans. Jerome of Stridon, Preface to Daniel (npnf2 6:492). See also Jerome’s Preface to Joshua (ca. 404) where, defending his translation, points to the fact that the Church reads Daniel from Theodotion: “Quare Danielem juxta Theodotionis translationem, Ecclesiae susceperunt?” Praefatio Hieronymi in librum Josue ben Nun (pl 28:464a).

introduction

11

translators have translated the word [i.e. ‫ ]ָאֳח ֵרין‬as “associate” (collega). Consequently by the judgment of the teachers of the Church, the Septuagint edition has been rejected in the case of this book, and it is the translation of Theodotion which is commonly read, since it agrees with the Hebrew as well as with the other translators.38 Although he does not offer a definite explanation for the rejection of Old Greek Daniel, both comments show Jerome’s suspicion that the questionable quality of this translation was to be blamed for its differences with the Hebrew original. The characterization of Theodotion’s version as closely adhering to the Hebrew original is presented once more in Jerome’s writings, in his Preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (ca. 381–382). After acknowledging the difficulties involved in his translation of Eusebius’s Chronicle, Jerome offers overall characterizations of all Hexaplaric Greek versions: […] and how difficult the task [of translation] is, the sacred records testify; for the old flavor is not preserved in the Greek version by the Seventy. It was this that stimulated Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; and the result of their labors was to impart a totally different character to one and the same work; one strove to give word for word, another the general meaning, while the third desired to avoid any great divergency from the ancients.39 In addition to his aim to “[avoid] any great divergency from the ancients,” Jerome offers a further characterization of the translation approach adopted by Theodotion. In the Preface to Job (ca. 392),40 while defending against opponents who charged that his translation was “a censure of the Seventy,”41 Jerome had recourse to the previous translation practices exhibited in the works of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Origen’s Hexapla. In this context, Jerome characterizes Theodotion’s approach as a combination of Aquila’s literalism and the freer style of Symmachus: I’m compelled at every step in my treatment of the books of Holy Scriptures to reply to the abuse of my opponents, who charge my transla-

38 39 40 41

Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 48. Jerome, Preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (npnf2 6:483–484). Praefatio S. Hieronymi in librum Job (pl 28:1079a–1084a); English trans. Jerome of Stridon, Preface to Job (npnf2 6:491–492). Ibid., 491.

12

chapter 1

tion with being a censure of the Seventy; as though Aquila among Greek authors, and Symmachus and Theodotion, had not rendered word for word, or paraphrased, or combined the two methods in a sort of translation which is neither the one nor the other; and as though Origen had not marked all the books of the Old Testament with obeli and asterisks, which he either introduced or adopted from Theodotion, and inserted in the old translation, thus showing that what he added was deficient in the older version.42 This characterization of the translation attributed to Theodotion, however, contrasts with other particulars Jerome offers about the life of Theodotion, which conflict with the testimony given by earlier authors. In a brief description of the life and works of Origen, the “immortal genius,” Jerome associates Theodotion with the Ebionite sect and does not characterize him as a Jewish proselyte: Who is there, who does not also know that he was so assiduous in the study of the Holy Scripture, that contrary to the spirit of his time, and of his people, he learned the Hebrew language, and taking the Septuagint translation, he gathered the other translations also in a single work, namely, that of Aquila, of Ponticus the Proselyte, and Theodotion the Ebionite, and Symmachus an adherent of the same sect who wrote commentaries also on the gospel according to Matthew, from which he tried to establish his doctrine.43 1.1.6 Evaluation The survey of patristic evidence regarding the person and literary legacy of Theodotion reveal not only discrepancies about his floruit, but also evidence of a change of perception: the stance of the church fathers regarding the Greek version attributed to Theodotion shifted from suspicion to positive acceptance. Regarding biographical particulars, the church fathers contribute little to unraveling the mystery which shrouds the historical person of Theodotion. The most compelling information concerns the shared tradition among the patristic writers that Theodotion was a Christian convert to Judaism. However, less 42

43

Ibid. Similarly, Jerome characterizes Theodotion’s translation technique as “taking a middle course between the ancients [Seventy] and the moderns [Aquila and Symmachus]”. See Preface to the Four Gospels (npnf2 6:488). Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (npnf2 3:373–374).

introduction

13

certain is the information regarding his adherence to Marcionite (Epiphanius) or Ebionite (Jerome) ideas. Even more intriguing are the conflicting accounts of Theodotion’s background: Irenaeus (and Eusebius) assigns his floruit to Ephesus, and Epiphanius assigns it to Pontus, while Jerome, who was likely aware of this disagreement, is silent on Theodotion’s origins.44 Regarding the date of Theodotion’s version, the scanty information offered by the church fathers occasions arguments inferred from both silence and the disposition of the three versions in Origen’s Hexapla. Consequently, whereas Irenaeus’s silence regarding Symmachus might suggest that Theodotion’s translation was accomplished first, the tradition of mentioning the names of the versions in the order Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion might indicate the opposite. However, most likely, this order is secondarily derived under the influence of the disposition of their texts in Origen’s Hexapla and by no means reflects their historical sequence.45 Whereas the church fathers fall short in providing consistent historical information on the personality of Theodotion, the patristic sources afford us evidence for a significant shift of attitude within the Christian church, regarding the translation attributed to him. At the time of the first patristic comments on Theodotion, found in the writings of Irenaeus, the Old Greek translation had been generally adopted and was considered “the Bible” in the Christian circles. Moreover, important church fathers of the time (e.g., Justin Martyr [ca. 100– 165],46 Irenaeus [ca. 130–200],47 Clement of Alexandria [ca. 150–215]48) treated

44

45

46 47 48

If not directly, Jerome could have known about Irenaeus’s tradition about Theodotion by way of Eusebius’s writings, e.g., Church History 5.8 (npnf2 1:223). Jerome and Epiphanius were contemporaneous, corresponded each other, and took the same part in the Origenistic controversy. See W.H. Fremantle, prologomena to Jerome (npnf2 6:xxi–xxii). The Hexaplaric disposition of the Greek versions in the order Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion demonstrably gave rise to a tradition which further perpetuated an imprecise understanding of their chronological order. The three translations were referred to in this order in the subsequent literature to Origen’s Hexapla: Eusebius, Church History 6:16 (npnf2 1:262); Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2.33–34 (npnf2 3:517), Letter to Pammachius 58.19 (npnf2 6:78), Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions (npnf2 6:486), and passim; Augustine, The City of God 18.43 (npnf1 2:386). By contrast, Origen mentions these versions in the order Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. See Origen, Commentary on John 2.24 (anf 10:371). Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 71 (anf 1:234). Irenaeus states that “the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God.” Against Heresies 3.21.2 (anf 1:452). Similarly, Clement states: “It was not alien to the inspiration of God, who gave the prophecy, also to produce the translation, and make it as it were Greek prophecy.” Stromata 1.22 (anf 2:334–335).

14

chapter 1

this translated Bible as inspired, conferring on it a status equal to the writings of the prophets.49 Also by that time, the Jewish community benefited from at least two new Greek translations—Aquila and Theodotion. In Jewish-Christian polemics, these texts with their new readings on key messianic passages undermined the long-established Christian interpretations, which were based on the Old Greek translation. Taking note of these changes, the Christian writers immediately reacted, denouncing the readings and, with them, the texts as a whole, as reflecting a Jewish apologetic agenda. Almost two centuries later, however, Jerome’s writings document a radically opposite situation. In contradistinction to the translations produced by Aquila and Symmachus, the Church regarded as favorable the version of Theodotion, abandoning previous hostile charges against it. This development of favorable appreciation ostensibly resulted in Theodotion completely supplanting the Old Greek text of Daniel.50 As might be expected, this shift from suspicion towards positive appreciation demands an explanation and, though it lies beyond the main scope of the present analysis, we will turn to this question later, attempting to underscore some plausible factors that nurtured such a change. 1.2 From Historical Theodotion to Proto-Th Besides the conflicting patristic statements about the floruit of Theodotion, a further problem preoccupied scholarly attention from the eighteenth century until the middle of the twentieth century: the pre-Theodotionic quotations. That is to say, scholars observed that Theodotionic readings—especially, but

49

50

The catalyst for adopting the view that the Old Greek was inspired was the pseudepigraphal letter of Aristeas which was imported on Christian soil by Justin Martyr, To the Greeks (anf 1:278–279). In order to emphasize the divine origins of the Old Greek, subsequent patristic literature refers to it, expanding or underscoring certain aspects of it. See further Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.22 (anf 2:334–335); Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.2–4 (anf 1:451–452); Tertulian, Apology 18 (anf 3:32–33); Eusebii Pamphili Evanghelicae Preparations, ed. Edwin H. Gifford, vol. 1 (Oxford: Typographeo academico, 1903), 444–571 [books 8–9], Eng. trans. The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea, trans. W.J. Ferrar, vol. 2, Translations of Christian Literature (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1920), 96–189; Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, 23–27; Augustin, The City of God 18.42–43 (npnf1 2:385–387); Jerome, Preface to Genesis quoted in Apology against Rufinus (npnf2 3:515–516); and John Chrysostom, Gospel of St. Matthew 5.4 (npnf1 10:32–33). Among others that have inferred a value-judgment from the Church’s decision to replace Th-Dan with og-Dan, see Émile Golay, “Texte et versions de l’Ancien Testament,” Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Bible 2:742–760. In this respect, Golay states: “En tout cas sa traduction du livre de Daniel a supplanté celle des lxx, et nous pouvons ainsi nous rendre compte beaucoup mieux de la valeur de son travail.” Ibid., 753.

introduction

15

not exclusively, from the book of Daniel—were found in compositions antedating the historical Theodotion, as known from the patristic sources. 1.2.1 The Problem of Pre-Theodotionic Readings The earliest recognition of pre-Theodotionic quotations can be traced back to the eighteenth century, and arose primarily in connection with debates about the dating of patristic works. The first disputed composition which brought into discussion the version attributed to Theodotion relates to the date of Justin Martyr’s work, Dialogue with Trypho. The previous doubts expressed by Tentzel51 and Koch52 regarding the traditional authorship of this composition assigned to Justin Martyr, received further confirmation by the later investigations of Wetstein,53 Stroth,54 and Credner.55 As a result of these studies, it became acknowledged that in addition to the usual biblical quotations in Dialogue with Trypho from the Septuagint, there were other, unexpected quotations which, perplexingly, corresponded to readings attributable to ThDan.56 Seeing that the apparent textual dependence of Dialogue with Trypho

51 52

53 54

55 56

Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel, Exercitationes selectae, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1692), 182. The objections against the authenticity of Dialogue with Trypho raised up by Koch were theological in nature (e.g., reference in it to doctrines that were supposedly developed after Justin’s time); he ultimately advanced the claim that the actual author of it was Trypho of the third century, one of the disciples of Origen. Christian Gotliebb Koch, Justini Martyris cum Tryphone Judaeo dialogus (Kiloni: Riechelius, 1700). Johann Jacob Wetstein, Prolegomena in Novum Testamentum, ed. Johann S. Semler (Halle: Renger, 1764), 173–174. Stroth’s contribution to the elucidation of Theodotionic quotations in Dialogues with Trypho was first anticipated by him in “Fragmente des Evangeliums nach den Hebräern aus Justin dem Märtyrer” in Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur, ed. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, vol. 1 (Leipzig, Weidmann: 1776), 37–38. His contribution to the discussion of the problem consists of a three-part analysis: “Beyträge zur Kritik über der lxx Dollmetscher, aus Justin dem Märtyrer und anderen Kirchenvätern,” in Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur (Erstes Stüd.), ed. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, vol. 2 (Leipzig, Weidmann: 1778), 66–124; “Beyträge zur Kritik der lxx Dollmetscher, aus Justin dem Märtyrer, Eusebius, Basilius, Chrysostomus und anderen Kirchenvätern (Zweites Stüd.),” in Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur, ed. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, vol. 3 (Leipzig, Weidmann: 1778), 213–258; and “Beyträge zur Kritik der lxx Dollmetscher, aus Justin dem Märtyrer, Eusebius, Basilius, Theodoret und anderen Kirchenvätern (Drittes Stüd.),” in Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur, ed. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn vol. 6 (Leipzig, Weidmann: 1780), 124–163. Carl August Credner, Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften, vol. 2 (Halle: 1838), 178–181, 253–274. Justin refers twice in his works to the book of Daniel: (1) Dan 7:13 is quoted in Apologia prima pro christianis (pg 6:404c); Eng. trans., Apology 1.51 (anf 1:180), though he mistak-

16

chapter 1

on Theodotion’s version conflicted with the patristic sources that purportedly placed the floruit of Justin Martyr prior to Theodotion, these scholars and others57 attempted to find some resolution. A further outgrowth of the discussion regarding the pre-Theodotionic quotations is attested at the turn of the twentieth century and was primarily stimulated by the combined observation of Harris58 and Hort59 that the composition of Shepherd of Hermas60 demonstrably presupposes the version of Th-Dan.61 However, given the interest of Salmon62 in establishing an early date for Shepherd of Hermas—at the beginning of the second century ce and not subsequent to Theodotion’s versions as implied by the observations of Harris and Hort as well as in the timing assigned to Shepherd of Hermas by the Muratorian Canon63—he tackled those related issues that his theory of an early date

57

58 59 60

61

62 63

enly refers to Jeremiah, i.e., διὰ Ἱερεμίυ του προφέτου, as the source of this citation; (2) Dan 7:9–28 is quoted at length in Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone (pg 6:540c–541d); Eng. trans., Dialogue with Trypho 31 (anf 1:209–210). Important for our discussion is the latter passage, which overall agrees with the Old Greek version of Daniel. However, when it disagrees, significant readings which cannot be explained by coincidence align with Theodotion. Besides Wetstein, Stroth, and Credner, other erudite scholars such as Gallandi, Krom, and Eichhorn entered the debate, attempting to solve the problem. For the solutions advanced by these scholars to the problem posed by the pre-Theodotionic quotations, see Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:974–975; Charles Semisch, Justin Martyr: His Life, Writings, and Opinions, trans. J.E. Ryland, vol. 1, The Biblical Cabinet 41 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1843), 82–86; and further below. J.R. Harris, “On the Angelology of Hermas,” Johns Hopkins University Circulars 3.30 (1884): 75. F.J.A. Hort, “Hermas and Theodotion,” Johns Hopkins University Circulars 4.35 (1884): 23. For both the content and the reception of this composition as an inspired text among the early Christian church and writers such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, see Carolyn Osiek, “Hermas, Shepherd of,” edb, 577–579; M.H. Shepherd, “Hermas, Shepherd of,” idb, 2:583–584; Cleveland A. Coxe, introductory note to The Pastor of Hermas (anf 2:3–8); Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1867), 58–64; and Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Eusebius Pamphilus: Church History, Life of Constantine, & Oration in Praise of Constantine, npnf2 1; Accordance electronic ed. 14 vols. (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890), paragraph 1717. The quotation in question that stirred up the debate is found in the fourth vision of the first part of the book (Pastor [pg 2:911–912]; Eng. trans. Pastor of Hermas 1.4.2 [anf 2:18]) and, by its wording, refers demonstrably to Th-Dan 6:23. For an extensive discussion of the problems involved, see J.R. Harris, Hermas in Arcadia and Other Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge Universit Press, 1896), 21–25, where the previous note of Hort is reprinted (Ibid., 23–24). George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, 4th enl. ed. (London: John Murray, 1889), 579–609. The Muratorian Canon contains the earliest inventory of the authoritative books of the

introduction

17

gave rise to. Furthermore, Salmon involved one of his colleagues in the debate, Gwynn, whose main task was to investigate in depth the pre-Theodotionic quotations problem and come up with an alternative model that might accommodate an early date for Shepherd of Hermas.64 Although Gwynn’s study of pre-Theodotionic quotations was only a means to the dating of the patristic works Dialogue with Trypho and Shepherd of Hermas, the outcome of his examinations further expanded the spectrum of the probable readings predating the historical Theodotion. Consequently, by the middle of twentieth century, it was commonly accepted that traces of pre-Theodotionic readings can be identified in compositions of church fathers, New Testament writers, and apocryphal works. To the initial group were assigned patristic writers such as Barnabas,65 Clement of Rome (ca. 96),66 Hermas (ca. 140–155),67 Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165),68 Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–

64

65

66

67

68

New Testament. Among the books listed in this document, which was partially preserved only in Latin, Shepherd of Hermas is mentioned as a recently produced composition: “But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome.” For the Latin text, see Hans Lietzmann, Das Muratorische Fragment und die monarchianischen Prologe zu den Evangelien, Kleine Texte für theologische Vorlesungen und Übungen 1 (Bonn: Marcus and Weber, 1902), 8; Eng. trans., Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 307. Consequently, this piece of information contributes both to our discussion of pre-Theodotionic quotations and to the dating of the document itself (middle of the second century). For an updated discussion of the Muratorian Canon, see Eckhard J. Schnabel, “The Muratorian Fragment: The State of Research,” jets 57 (2014): 231– 264. The contribution of Gwynn to the Theodotionic debate resulted in the first, most comprehensive study published at the end of nineteenth century. Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:970– 979. The authorship of this composition is disputed. Clement of Alexandria attributes Epistle of Barnabas to the apostle Barnabas (cf. Acts 14:14). Most likely, the epistle was written “at some time between 70 and 150” (odcc, s.v. “Barnabas, Epistle of.”). A reading of ThDan 7:24 is reflected in the Epistle of Barnabas 4:5. See Robert Henry Charles, The Book of Daniel, The Century Bible (Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1921), xxviii. Dan 7:10, 13 was quoted in Clement, The First Epistle to the Corinthians 1.34 (anf 1:14), cf. Credner, Beiträge, 2:263, 273. While the tendency displayed by Clement is to ordinarily use lxx, he also shows “an occasional tendency to agree with Theodotion and even with Aquila against the lxx.” Swete, Introduction, 410. The date assigned to the work of Hermas follows the view of the Muratorian Canon (odcc, s.v. “Hermas”). For the Theodotionic reading reflected in Shepherd of Hermas, see above n. 61 and Swete, Introduction, 411. For the Theodotionic readings in Dialogue with Trypho, see above n. 56; Credner, Beiträge, 2:253–274; and Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:974.

18

chapter 1

200),69 Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215),70 Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160– 225),71 Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 170–236),72 Origen (ca. 185–253).73 To the second group, the search for citations in New Testament literature led to the identification of Theodotionic readings in the Gospels,74 epistles,75 and Revelation.76 The relevant works of the third group that were judged as showing certain reliance on Theodotion were Baruch77 and 1Maccabees.78 1.2.2 Towards a Solution: The Proto-Th Hypothesis Facing the evidence of the large number of Theodotionic readings in the New Testament, early patristic writings, and apocryphal books—readings that demonstrably antedate the floruit of the historical Theodotion—scholars were left with only two options: either to question the historical integrity of the

69

70

71 72

73 74

75

76

77 78

Dan 2:44 was quoted in Against Heresies 5.26.1 (anf 1:555); Dan 12:7 in Against Heresies 4.26.1 (anf 1:496); and Dan 12:9–10 in Against Heresies 1.19.2 (anf 1:344). Cf. Franciscus Camillus Overbeck, Quaestionum Hippolytearum specimen (Jena: Schreiber, 1864), 105– 107; and Salmon, Historical Introduction, 599–600. Apparently, he was the first to quote Dan 9:27 according to Th-Dan in Against Heresies 5.25.4 (anf 1:554). Dan 9:24–27 was quoted in Stromata 1.21 (anf 2:329); Dan 2:27–28 in The Stromata 1.4 (anf 2:329); Dan 7:9 twice in The Stromata 2.11 and 3.3 (anf 2:265, 275). Cf. Swete, Introduction, 47, 426–428. Dan 7:13–14 was quoted in An Answer to the Jews 14 (anf 3:172). Cf. Credner, Beiträge, 2:264– 266. Overbeck, Quaestionum Hippolytearum, 103–105. See also Joseph Ziegler, “Der Bibeltext im Daniel-Kommentar des Hippolyt von Rom,” Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen: Philologisch-Historische Klasse 8 (1952): 165–169. Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:974. Dan 7:13 was quoted in Mark 14:62. Cf. Credner, Beiträge, 2:264. Furthermore, Dan 4:34[37] was quoted in Matt 13:32 (and its synoptic parallels, Mark 4:31–32 and Luke 13:19); Dan 12:3 in Matt 13:43; Dan 12:1 in Mat 24:21 (and its synoptic parallel, Mark 13:19). Cf. Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:975; and Salmon, Historical Introduction, 607. Dan 12:12 was quoted in James 1:12 and Dan 6:23[22] in Heb 11:33 (he mistakenly refers to Heb 12:33). Cf. Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:975. Besides Daniel, Theodotionic readings from Isa 25:8 and Zech 12:10 were quoted in 1 Cor 15:54 and John 19:37, respectively. Alfred Rahlfs, “Über Theodotion-Lesarteh im Neuen Testament und Aquila-Lesarten bei Justin,”znw 20.1 (1921): 182–199; and “History of the Septuagint Text” in Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta lxx interpretes, ed. Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), xl. Dan 7:13 was quoted in Rev 1:7. Cf. Credner, Beiträge, 2:264. Furthermore, Dan 5:23 was quoted in Rev 9:20; Dan 10:20 in Rev 12:7; Dan 7:21 in Rev 13:7; Dan 10:6 in Rev 19:6; Dan 7:9 in Rev 20:4; Dan 2:35 in Rev 20:11. Cf. Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:975; and Salmon, Historical Introduction, 605. Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:976; Salmon, Historical Introduction, 608; Swete, Introduction, 48. Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:976.

introduction

19

patristic testimony about the floruit of Theodotion or to look for alternative explanations. The earliest scholarly answers generally took the second option. The first of these alternative explanations, though giving rise to other problems, theoretically assumes later dates for those compositions that quotes or alludes to Th-Dan. This alternative accounts for the first attempt to solve the problem of pre-Theodotionic readings in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. Consequently, Wetstein,79 who was followed in his approach by Hort,80 explained the Th-Dan readings in this composition as a result of the dependence of its author, i.e., someone other than Justin, on Origen’s Hexapla. A further solution, though more complex, was proposed by Gallandi. In order to defend the traditional authorship of Dialogue with Trypho, Gallandi objected to Wetstein’s explanation, suggesting that Justin knew Aquila’s text and, subsequently, readings from this text were borrowed by both Theodotion and Symmachus, thus explaining the shared readings between Justin and Theodotion.81 Stroth offered a different means to resolve the problem, namely, to assign a date ten years earlier to the floruit of Theodotion, allowing that Justin Martyr knew him and his version.82 Equally notable was Krom’s attempt,83 later adopted by Eichhorn,84 which explained the Theodotionic readings in Justin’s work as latter editorial corrections (or marginal glosses and insertions) under the influence of Origen’s Hexapla. However, none of these alternatives received later acceptance, mainly because they only accounted for the pre-Theodotionic quotations in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. Though anticipated by others,85 credit goes to Credner for synthesizing the most compelling explanation to the problem posed by pre-Theodotionic read79 80

81 82 83

84 85

Wetstein, Prolegomena in Novum Testamentum, 174. Based on a Theodotionic reading singled out in Shepherd of Hermas (see above nn. 61, 63), Hort has suggested that this composition presupposes Theodotion’s version and, therefore, was produced subsequent to it. “Hermas and Theodotion,” 23. Andreas Gallandi, Bibliotheca veterum patrum atiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiaticorum, vol. 1 (Venice: Albritii, 1765)], lxxxv–lxxxvii. “Beyträge zur Kritik über der lxx Dollmetscher, aus Justin dem Märtyrer und anderen Kirchenvätern,” 66–124. Krom’s solution represents another attempt to rescue the traditional paternity of Justin Martyr ascribed to Dialogue with Trypho. Hermanus Johannes Krom, Diatribe de authentia Dialogi Justini Martyris cum Tryphone Judaeo (Medioburgi: Gillissen, 1778), 76–77. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3rd. ed., vol. 1 (Leipzig: Meidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1803), § 173 (368–369), §198 (399). See, for instance, Michaelis, who in the translational unit of Dan 3–6 detects traces of a different lxx translation that can be earlier or later than the og. Johann David Michaelis, “Daniel secundum septuaginta, ex tetraplis Origenis,” in Orientalische und Exegetische Bibiothek, ed. Johann David Michaelis, vol. 4 (Frankfurt: Garbe, 1773), 18, 29. See further Leonhard Bertholdt, Daniel aus dem Hebräisch-Aramäischen neu übersetzt und erklärt mit

20

chapter 1

ings. Not only has his solution functioned as a template for subsequent generations of scholars who have widely accepted it in modified ways, but it also was an innovative explanation, departing from previous attempts. Credner86 contended that the answer does not depend on assuming a later date for Dialogue with Trypho, nor on positing an earlier date for Theodotion, nor on allowing for later scribal or editorial corruption with Hexaplaric readings,87 since none of these alternatives could account for the Th-Dan readings which he found reflected in Rev 1:7, Mark 14:62, and Clement of Rome.88 According to Credner, therefore, the solution rather consisted of postulating ex hypothesi the existence of a new text, the common source for the pre-Theodotionic readings as well as the base text for Theodotion’s version itself.89 Credner further maintained that this hypothetical text represented a Christian creation of the first part of the first century, being most likely a revision rather than a translation.90 1.2.3 Theories on Proto-Th Credner’s innovative proposal was favorably received by subsequent scholars who have maintained its main claim while further developing the characterization of the postulated text in light of the new data. Some aspects of the new hypothesis of a Proto-Th text demanded clearer explanations, especially concerning the character of its relationship with both the Alexandrian text (the og) and the version produced by Theodotion as known from patristic literature. In accordance with its characterization, we distinguish three types of possible conjectures: Proto-Th as (1) an independent translation, (2) a revision, or (3) an “oral” translation. 1.2.3.1 Proto-Th as an Independent Translation The theory that has achieved the widest recognition among scholars affirms the quality of Proto-Th as an independent translation. Reworking Credner’s pro-

86

87 88 89 90

einer vollständigen Einleitung und einigen historischen und exegetischen Excursen (Erlangen: Palm, 1806), 95; Heinrich Andreas Christoph Hävernick, Commentar über das Buch Daniel (Hamburg: Perthes, 1832), xlvii. However, Lengerke has opposed to the solution hinted by previous scholars. Caesar von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel (Königsberg: Verlage der Gebrüder Bornträger, 1835), cix. For the collated text of Dan 7:9–28 from Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho which assisted Credner in his comparative study with og-Dan and Th-Dan, see Credner, Beiträge, 2:178–181. For its discussion, see ibid., 2:253–274. Ibid., 2:313–315. Ibid., 2:263–264, 273. See further nn. 72, 74, 76. Ibid., 274. Ibid.

introduction

21

posal, Gwynn91 pioneered this theory, undertaking the most elaborate study in its support. Following a minute analysis of the patristic sources referring to Theodotion, Gwynn concludes that the version associated with Theodotion’s name in these sources was produced ca. 180 ce.92 In order to make a stronger case for the necessity of assuming ex hypothesi the Proto-Th text, Gwynn expands the amount of pre-Theodotionic readings from the book of Daniel in New Testament literature, and further adds into discussion the presence of Th-Dan readings in the deuterocanonical books of Baruch and 1 Maccabees.93 In light of the new readings attested in Baruch, and following the “weight of opinion” of his days, which ostensibly maintained an early date for at least the first part of this composition, i.e. 4th–3rd century bce, Gwynn was deemed to ascribe “pre-Christian” origins to the postulated version, departing thus from Credner’s proposal.94 As far as its relationship with the Alexandrian version is concerned, Gwynn conjectures that the “other Jewish version [Proto-Th], whose existence we have inferred was prior in date as well as superior in quality to the Chisian paraphrase [Old Greek], the latter being of Maccabean period, the former possibly a century later.”95 In support of his theory of “two rival Septuagintal Daniels,” Gwynn refers to the Septuagint of Ezra, which analogously was transmitted in two texts known as “canonical” and “First Esdras.”96 A further benefit of this hypothesis, it is claimed, is that it offers a “full explanation of how it came into esteem and use.”97 The answer to this question consists of how Christians have perceived the nature of Theodotion’s version: “[…] not as an independent translation, but merely as a revised form of the version which had the ancient and (as was supposed) inspired authority of the lxx., varying probably so little from that venerable version [Proto-Th] as to be practically

91

92 93 94 95

96 97

Notwithstanding he asserts that he will offer “a different solution,” Gwynn follows on the steps of Credner, about whom he states that “have rightly divined […] that a version underlies Theodotion’s which is older than the New Testament, and which is not the Chisian lxx.” Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:975. Ibid., 970–973. Ibid., 975–976. For Gwynn’s contribution to identify additional pre-Theodotionic readings, see above nn. 57, 64, 76–78. Ibid., 976. Ibid., 977. Gwynn is indebted, as he himself acknowledges, to Pusey for the view of the Maccabean setting of the Old Greek version. See Edward Bouverie Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Parker, 1868), 369–383. Ibid. Put differently but still in Gwynn’s words, the intriguing question is “How came the Church to accept and read in lieu of lxx. Daniel, the version of Theodotion, a Jewish proselyte, or at best a heretic?” “Theodotion,” 4:977.

22

chapter 1

identical with it […].”98 Lastly, regarding the time when Theodotion’s revision has superseded Proto-Th in the Churches’ use, Gwynn conjectures as somewhere between “Irenaeus, who used the primary lxx. exclusively, and Origen, who was entirely unaware of its existence.”99 The in-depth study on the pre-Theodotionic quotations undertaken by Gwynn has persuaded many subsequent scholars, though they often refine certain aspects of his proposal. Like Gwynn, Bludau100 accepts the hypothesis of Proto-Th as the base text for Theodotion’s revision.101 He also views this text as an independent translation, but he departs from Gwynn in intimating that Proto-Th chronologically succeeds the Alexandrian text. Bludau further posits that in all probability, this new translation represents an attempt of a Hellenistic Jew who, “knowing the imperfections of the translation of Daniel, and having a sufficient knowledge of the Hebrew and Aramaic,” aimed to produce a better, substitute text for the Alexandrian version.102 Reflecting on the reasons for the replacement of the Old Greek with Theodotion’s text in the Church’s use, Bludau points to the perceived opinion among the learned Christians that Theodotion represented a slight revision of the earlier, known translation which, ultimately, was offering a better translation of the key messianic passage of Dan 9:24–27.103 Swete’s synthesis regarding the solution offered to the problem of pre-Theodotionic quotations allows for the existence of “two pre-Christian versions of Daniel, both passing as ‘lxx.’”104 Furthermore, he concedes to Alexandrian origins for both Septuagintal versions, the lost one being used by the early Palestinian Church.105 Lastly, after noting that the complete disappearance of the

98 99 100

101 102 103 104 105

Ibid. Ibid., 978. Bludau’s monograph was mainly shaped as an extensive analysis of the character of the Old Greek translation. However, he thoroughly reviews and discusses in one of his introductory chapters the problem of pre-Theodotionic readings in order to provide a pertinent answer the questions of “when” and “for what reason” the Theodotion’s translation has displaced Old Greek in the Church. See August Bludau, Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhältnis zum massorethischen Text, BibS(F) ii 2/3 (Freiburg: Herder, 1897), § 3, 6–25. See also Bludau’s article, “Die Apokalypse und Theodotions Danielübersezung,” tq 97 (1897): 1–26. Ibid., 21, 23. Ibid., 22. Ibid., 23–24. Swete, Introduction, 48. Ibid., 49, 395–396. Similarly, Alexander Sperber (“New Testament and the Septuagint” jbl 59 [1940]: 193–293) contends that the New Testament writers knew and quoted from two Greek versions, known as the lxx.

introduction

23

postulated text which was widely used in the first two centuries, could amount to an “obvious objection” to the two-parallel translation theory, Swete affords an explanation to this difficulty: “But Theodotion’s revision of Daniel may have differed so little from the stricter Alexandrian version as to have taken its place without remark.”106 Thackeray’s interest in the Theodotionic problem was stirred up by an intriguing observation while investigating the Septuagint books of Kingdoms (1– 4 Kgs).107 Assessing the translational style of these books, Thackeray observed that they display diverse styles in different translational sections. Consequently, he identified two layers of texts, stemming from different hands. According to his theory, the first stratum comprises the sections of 1 Kgs (α [according to Thackeray’s notation]), 2Kgs 1:1–11:1 (ββ), and 3 Kgs 2:12–21:43 (γγ), representing “a primitive partial rendering,”108 most likely was produced by a “company.”109 The second stratum demonstrably reflects the work of a single translator,110 originating from the need to fill in the lacunas in the sections of 2Kgs 11:2–3Kgs 2:11 (βγ) and 3Kgs 22–4Kgs (γδ).111 Furthermore, Thackeray discerns that the style of βγ and γδ112 is not confined only to them, but runs through larger sections of the Septuagint, including the books of Judges (B text) with Ruth, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Th-Dan, and 2 Esdras,113 of whom the distinctive idiosyncrasy is their similarity in style to that of Theodotion.114 In spite of the fact that he does not further tackle the issue of the relationship between this thread of works and Theodotion,115 he does so regarding the sec106 107

108 109 110 111 112 113

114 115

Swete, Introduction, 49. His preliminary study on the Septuagint of the four books of Kingdoms dates to the beginning of the twentieth century: Henry John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” jts 8 (1907): 262–278. Though initial comments on the relationship between Theodotion and Septuagint of the four books of Kingdoms could be found in Thackeray’s monograph, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 6–10, 14–15, the more developed form of his theory that will be summarized here is found in his later work, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: Oxford University, 1921), 16–28. Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 17–18 (17). Ibid., 17. Ibid., 18. Ibid., 16. According to Thackeray’s notation, the sections βγ and γδ are collectively referred as βδ. See Grammar, 10. According to Thackeray’s classification, these books are placed as subgroup number three, “literal or unintelligent versions,” of the larger group of works deemed as “translations.” Ibid., 13–15. Ibid., 13, 14. Thackeray limits himself to only suggesting three possible alternatives that may explain

24

chapter 1

tion βδ, about which he inquires whether “Theodotion or ‘Ur-Theodotion’ is the second translator.”116 After he dismisses the possibility of having genuine Theodotionic supplemental materials in βδ, Thackeray argues that this section is the work of a Proto-Th, “an anonymous version which Theodotion incorporated nearly entire, introducing some quite minor alterations of his own.”117 In terms of translation techniques, the translator of this “anonymous version” or “lost original” is “a pioneer of the literal school and a predecessor of Aquila.”118 Lastly, after undertaking a detailed lexical analysis on the uses of πάροδος and παροδίτης in sepulchral Asiatic inscriptions,119 Thackeray concludes that the translator of Proto-Th in βδ was a “western Asiatic,” from whom his neighbor Theodotion adopted his version, and that “to this anonymous Asiaticus we owe the completion of the unfinished work of Alexandria.”120 Because of his general preoccupation in developing the “multiple translation theory” as opposed to Lagarde’s “Urtext” hypothesis,121 Kahle discusses the alleged Proto-Th version as a further evidence for the variety of Jewish translations circulating side by side in primitive times, and which was later adopted by Christians.122 Therefore, argues Kahle, pre-Theodotionic quotations suggest

116 117 118 119

120 121

122

the textual crux of having such large portions of text in the Septuagint exhibiting Theodotionic characteristics: (1) the contamination of the oldest uncials with Theodotionic interpolations; (2) the replacement of books or translational sections of the earlier version with genuine Theodotionic material; or (3) “the original versions may have been written in a style afterwards employed by θ.” Ibid., 14. Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 24. Ibid., 25. Ibid., 26. According to Thackeray’s argument, πάροδος represents a rare term which is specific to βδ and Theodotion. On the other hand, παροδίτης is characteristic of Aquila, reflecting his trait of replacing rare equivalents with classical ones. Searching these words in sepulchral inscriptions, Thackeray counts παροδίτης as occurring in forty places in the mainland of Greece, but πάροδος only in seven places, mainly in cities on the west coast having Ephesus as their center. Ibid., 26–27. Ibid., 28. In its simplified form, Lagarde’s hypothesis posits the existence of an “original” Greek translation of the Hebrew text, from which all other subsequent, differing manuscripts emerged. See Paul de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1863), 1–4. By contrast, Kahle’s model ascertains diverse Greek translations circulating side by side in the initial stage; subsequently, at the end stage of the transmission history, a specific form of text emerges as the definite tradition. For Kahle’s literature on the topic, see n. below. In its emerging form, Kahle’s theory was first articulated in “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes,” tsk 88 (1915): 399–439. However, a more developed form of it is found in Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy (London: Oxford University Press, 1947). In his explanation on the Theodotionic

introduction

25

that “besides the two Greek texts preserved to us, other texts of Daniel existed in the first Christian century, and that one of these texts, now lost to us, was the Greek Daniel which was used by Josephus.”123 Furthermore, the form of this lost text was greatly valued; not only that it was “well known” and “widely used” in Christian compositions, but also it represented the authoritative lxx text form of Daniel for Theodotion’s revision.124 Considering the relationship between these texts “Theodotion did not alter materially the text of the earlier translation when he adapted it to the authoritative Hebrew text.”125 Lastly, reflecting on the phenomenon of the transliterated words, Kahle deduces a Jewish target audience for Theodotion’s revision, competent to grapple with difficult Hebrew terms.126 Other scholars have also adhered to the hypothesis of Proto-Th as a translation independent from the Alexandrian text and the base text for Theodotion’s revision,127 but the syntheses of Ottley and Redpath deserve special attention since they add new reflections on the Theodotionic problem. Regarding the religious identity of historical Theodotion, Ottley presents a narrative opposite to the common one, stating that he was of Jewish origins but subsequently embraced the Christian faith.128 Regarding the preeminence gained by Theodotion’s revision as against the other two parallel lxx versions, of which only one survived, Ottley counts on their rapid acceptance and proliferation

123 124 125 126 127

128

problem, Kahle is followed by Aage Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon of the Old Testament; The Text of the Old Testament; The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, 6th ed., vol. 1 (Copenhagen: Gad, 1961), 90–91. Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 156. Ibid., 169. Ibid. Ibid., 170. “Theodotion,” Enciclopedia Judaica Castellana, ed. Eduardo Weinfeld and Isaac Babani, vol. 10 (México: Editorial Enciclopedia Judaica Castellana, 1951), 228; John W. Wevers, “Septuagint,” idb 4:273–278 (275) and, by the same author, “Theodotion,” idb 4:618–619; Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, 108; Frederic G. Kenyon, Daniel 3,72–6,18: The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Description and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, Fsc. vii Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, vol. 1 (London: Walker, 1937), x; Joseph Ziegler, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 16/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoech & Ruprecht, 1954), 61–62. See Richard R. Ottley, A Handbook to the Septuagint (London: Methuen & Go. ltd., 1920), 39. Furthermore, in Ottley’s view, the question of whether Theodotion based his revision on the Alexandrian version is not settled. Ibid., 40. Similarly, Hirsch expresses doubts about “whether this Greek’s version which underlines Theodotion’s text is the Septuagint as contained in the Chigi manuscript or another, independent translation.” Emil G. Hirsch, “Theodotion,” je 12:127–128.

26

chapter 1

as an explanation.129 Distinctive to Redpath is the attempt, based on the analogy to the books of Judges, Esdras, and supposedly Daniel, to theorize about a broader phenomenon for other books of having two Greek versions as well— “a literal translation, and one which had more of the nature of a paraphrastic commentary.”130 1.2.3.2 Proto-Th as a Revision In contradistinction to the previous group, the view adopted by Salmon, Schürer, Cornill, Driver, and Charles stresses the character of Proto-Th as a revision. Salmon accepts much of Gwynn’s theory but interprets certain aspects differently. An extensive analysis of the pre-Theodotionic quotations leads him to reject the opinion that “the Christian Churches up to the middle of the second century used the lxx. version of the Book of Daniel, and afterwards rejected it and replaced it by Theodotion’s.”131 The data rather demands postulating the existence of a different version of Daniel which, in the collection of the Greek translations of Hebrew Scriptures in the time of Irenaeus and other church fathers, was recognized as the Septuagint.132 Furthermore, Salmon suggests a close relationship of Proto-Th with both the Chisian text and Theodotion’s version. The advantage of a “substantial agreement” of the older version with Theodotion’s is that “the substitution of the latter version in Church use might easily take place silently.”133 Conversely, in arguing for traces of the older, lost version in Rev 1:14 and 19:16, he shows that the Danielic readings are “on the side of the lxx,” and “not dependent on Theodotion’s version.”134 Consequently, he assigns Proto-Th an intermediary position between og-Dan and Th-Dan, which suggests that Proto-Th was a revision of the Chisian text rather than an independent translation.135

129

130 131 132 133 134 135

Ibid., 40. A similar explanation on the preeminence attained by Theodotion was earlier suggested by Bevan. After noting the lack of information about whether Theodotion’s revision had ever been used by Hellenistic Jews, he states the opposite situation in the Christian circles where “his translation of Daniel rapidly became so popular as almost entirely to displace the old Septuagint version.” See Anthony A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892), 2. As a further proof that demonstrate its popularity, claims Bevan, consists of its use by Porphyry (ca. 270ad) in criticizing the book of Daniel. Ibid., 3. Henry A. Redpath, “Versions, Greek,” DBib 4:866. Salmon, Historical Introduction, 602. Ibid., 602–603. Ibid., 603. Ibid., 606–607. Our assessment of Salomon’s position is in line with that of Driver (see further below).

introduction

27

Notwithstanding the doubts about whether Theodotion was a Jew, Schürer deals with his version as part of Graeco-Jewish literature.136 Like Aquila’s, Theodotion’s version represents “a monument in the struggle between Judaism and Christianity,” and “a polemical weapon” in the hands of Jewish apologists.137 Schürer eventually came to admit the necessity of postulating a protoTheodotionic text,138 but his stance differs from other opinions in arguing that Theodotion used the Alexandrian text as the base for his revision.139 Furthermore, he notices and attempts to explain a puzzling fact concerning the transmission history of Theodotion’s revision: its complete disappearance from Jewish sources. In answering this question, Schürer posits that Theodotion is a “predecessor of Aquila” in terms of translational style and that it became superfluous and was superceded within the Hellenistic Jewish communities once the stricter translation of Aquila was produced and adopted.140 Cornill firmly believes that the base text for Theodotion’s recension was not the “Egyptian Bible” (Codex Vaticanus) which is closely related to column four of Origen’s Hexapla, but “one which runs through the oldest Christian literature and Josephus, and which may be a Palestinian recension.”141 This recension, it is further contended, represents one and the same text with the postulated “Ur-Lucian.”142 Embarking on his revising work, Theodotion relied on

136 137 138

139 140 141

142

Emil Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1898), 3:321–324. Ibid., 318. Ibid., 324. However, in the earlier edition of his voluminous work, and the base for its first English edition, Schürer diminishes the significance of pre-Theodotionic quotations, denying the existence of a Proto-Th altogether. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, trans. Sophia Taylor and Peter Christie, vol. 3/2, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library2 25 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886), 172–175; trans. of Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1886). Our synthesis of Schürer’s view is based on his 3rd ed. of his work, as referred to it above (n. 136). Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 3:322. Ibid., 324. Carl Heinrich Cornill, Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, trans. G.H. Box, Theological Translation Library 23 (New York: Williams & Norgate, 1907), 518; trans. of Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Freiburg: Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1891). Ibid., 522–523. In arriving at his conclusion on the relationship between “Ur-Lucian” and Proto-Th, Cornill is indebted to results of Adam Mez’s study, Die Bibel des Josephus: Untersucht für Buch v–vii der Archäologie (Basel, Jaeger & Kober, 1895), 83–84. In his analysis, Mez determined pre-Lucianic readings in the biblical passages cited by Josephus, advancing the opinion that they point to a primitive text antedating the Christian theologian and martyr, Lucian of Antioch (ca. 312, cf. odcc, s.v. “Lucian of Antioch”). This

28

chapter 1

this older revision, “retaining what could be retained of it, always, so far as it was feasible” in view of his purpose to conform it as closely as possible to the mt.143 Before mentioning Charles’s contribution, Driver’s brief but perceptive synthesis of the problem of pre-Theodotionic quotations warrants mention. Accordingly, explicating the nature of the relationship between Theodotion’s revision and the postulated text of “‘Theodotion’ before Theodotion,” Driver asserts that “a revision of the lxx. had been begun before Theodotion, though Theodotion was the first to carry it through systematically.”144 Charles’s view on the problems raised by the Septuagint of Daniel reflects a development from confident to more cautious statements.145 Whereas initially he ascertains pre-Christian origins for both the Alexandrian and Proto-Th texts,146 he completely omits this claim in his later, more expanded treatment of the problem.147 Equally, the confident assessment of their relationship as that of a translation-revision148 was later reworked by Charles into a more nuanced explanation with seemingly the same result.149 Most noteworthy is his consideration of the intricate issue of the Vorlagen presupposed by these translations. As such, inquires Charles, “did these two versions go back to different Semitic originals; or did the notable variations between these two versions arise

143 144

145

146 147 148 149

postulated, primitive text was labelled in subsequent literature as “Ur-Lucian.” See further Henry John Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian, The Hilda Stich Stroock Lectures (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929), 75–99 and Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 150–156. Cornill, Introduction, 517. Samuel R. Driver, The Book of Daniel: With Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: University Press, 1900), xcix–c (n. 3). Regarding the setting which determined Theodotion’s revision, Driver reflects that “the age was one in which a desire was felt to have a Greek version of the Old Testament more faithful than that of the lxx.,” and Theodotion’s revising approach “sought merely to revise the lxx. version, by correcting its more serious deviations from the Hebrew.” Ibid., xcix. Charles’s opinion on the problems of Septuagint Daniel can be traced in both of his commentaries on the same book. Charles, Daniel, 1921, xxvi–xxxi; and Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), l– lviii. Daniel, 1921, xxix. Compare Charles’s statement from Daniel, 1921, xxix, with his lengthier treatment of the Theodotionic problem in Daniel, 1929, l–lviii. Describing the relation of “the two pre-Christian Greek versions,” Charles asserts that “one of which was the lxx and the other a revised lxx.” Daniel, 1921, xxix. Since Charles maintains that the “pre-Theodotion text […] was in part based on the lxx and a redacted edition of the Hebrew-Aramaic text of Daniel,” it could still be inferred that in his view Proto-Th is more in the nature of a revision. Daniel, 1929, liv.

introduction

29

within the Greek itself?”150 According to Charles, the evidence points to the overall superiority of the og’s underlying text, and especially in Daniel 4–6.151 1.2.3.3 Proto-Th as an Oral Targum Montgomery’s unique solution to the pre-Theodotionic readings is fostered by his observation on the character of the supposed Theodotionic readings occurring in Baruch 1:15–2:19. Realizing that the genre of the passage reflects “a prayer following Biblical and liturgical forms,”152 he argues that the transition to the Hellenistic synagogue necessitated Greek targums, which initially circulated as oral traditions. Consequently, the Theodotionic readings in Baruch’s prayer are explained as stemming from this oral source and the non-Theodotionic readings described as corrections of it “from his knowledge of the original Heb[rew].”153 Montgomery then applies this model of thinking in order to explain the problem of “Ur-Theodotion.” Whereas the previous groups postulate the existence of Proto-Th in written form, Montgomery proposes the “hypothesis of a Hellenistic oral Targum” as the source of the pre-Theodotionic readings.154 Ultimately, this “oral Targum” is further linked with the Theodotion of the late second century: “He is the Hellenistic Onkelos, whose work was facilitated by the presence of a large amount of customary oral translation of the Scriptures, possessed by him memoriter.”155 Montgomery’s proposal has received further (partial) support by Wevers156 and Metzger.157 1.2.4 Evaluation The cumulative evidence of Theodotionic readings from Daniel antedating historical Theodotion has emerged as an additional challenge in unraveling the mystery regarding his version. Until the middle of the twentieth century, scholarly explanations to this puzzling problem have commonly accepted the 150 152 153 154

155 156

157

Ibid., lvi. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, icc (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1964), 50. Ibid. According to Montgomery, two necessities have dictated the emergence of an oral Targum to the book of Daniel: (1) to correct the Alexandrian translation’s “faulty readings” and (2) to fill in its “lacunae” over against the Hebrew text current in the targumist’s days. Ibid. Ibid. Grappling with the Theodotionic problem, Wevers offers two alternatives, the second of which concedes that “pre-Theodotion may have been an oral Targ. which existed for correcting lxx and for filling in lacunae. This would then later have been put into writing by Theodotion.” Wevers, “Theodotion,” 4:618–619. For the other alternative, see the discussion above (and n. 133). Bruce M. Metzger, “Versions, Ancient,” idb 4:749–760 (752).

30

chapter 1

integrity of the patristic tradition regarding the floruit of Theodotion in the late second part of the second century (ca. 180 ce). (This tendency notwithstanding, historical fallacies discerned in Epiphanius’s records, did attract vigorous criticism.158) Therefore, in order to solve the problem, the only plausible alternative left for scholars was the solution which presupposed ex hypothesi the existence of an additional textual layer. Beside Proto-Th, the postulated text was variously designated in the afore-mentioned literature as “venerable version,” “proper version,” “proper lxx,” “lost version,” “pre-Theodotion,” “ ‘Theodotion’ before Theodotion,” “stricter Alexandrian version,” and “Ur-Theodotion,” each attribute of these appellations pointing to different aspects of its characterization. This proposed solution to the problem of pre-Theodotionic readings gave rise to many questions related to the relationship of Proto-Th with both the Alexandrian and Theodotionic texts. As might be expected when working with a hypothetical text, and as our brief synopsis of the views in Appendix 1 shows, the scholarly conjectures concerning the presumed document’s date, setting, characterization, and the circumstances that necessitated its emergence, vary greatly. However, the fundamental claim of the hypothesis was widely shared: Proto-Th epitomized the base text for Theodotion’s later, lightly retouched revision.159 Furthermore, to explain the complete disappearance of proto-Theodotionic manuscripts, scholars have pointed to analogous examples within the Septuagintal corpus that were also transmitted in two parallel textual traditions. Consequently, Gwynn and Salmon have vigorously argued for the Septuagint of Esdras as the best analogy,160 whereas Charles161 and Redpath162 suggested as comparable cases the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Septuagint 158

159

160 161

162

The list of scholars who have noticed historical blunders in Epiphanius’s records is long. Among the most detailed repudiations see Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:970–973, and Salmon, Historical Introduction, 597–599. However, see further Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 172–173; Swete, Introduction, 42–43; Montgomery, Daniel, 46–47; Charles, Daniel, 1929, li; Henry John Thackeray, “Septuagint,” isbe1 4:2722–2732 (2725–2726). To my knowledge, the only exception among the scholars that have accepted the ProtoTh hypothesis but still posited the Alexandrian version as the base text for Theodotion’s revision is Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 3:321–324. Gwynn, “Theodotion,” 4:977; Salomon, Historical Introduction, 603–604. Regarding the analogy of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Charles states: “A further and better analogy to the existence of two different versions of the Book of Daniel, which in fact represent in a minor degree two recensions of that book, may be found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, of which there are two distinct Greek versions, one of which is represented by three mss., and the other by six.” Daniel, 1929, lvi. Redpath, “Versions, Greek,” 4:866.

introduction

31

of Judges, respectively. The dominant opinion that Proto-Th was an independent translation that, in the earliest times, was circulating side-by-side with the Alexandrian version, corresponded to Kahle’s interest in developing his “multiple translation theory.”163 Indeed, Kahle was quick to integrate it as an additional example to support his hypothesis, and to go further, advancing that the two postulated texts, Proto-Th and “proto-Lucian,” both stand for the same textual tradition.164 At the same time, Lagarde’s view regarding the development of textual traditions from an archetype translation found expression in the assessment of Proto-Th as a revision. According to this view, the textual relationship presupposes a linear development: the version attributed to Theodotion represents a revision of the Proto-Th lost revision of the Alexandrian text.165 1.3 From Proto-Th to the Kaige Theory As shown above, in the first part of the twentieth century, the hypothesis of Proto-Th emerged as the most probable model offered by the Septuagintal scholars to the pre-Theodotionic quotations problem. However, the existing state of affairs did not last long. Thanks to Barthélemy’s stimulating analysis of the Naḥal Ḥever scroll published in the middle of the twentieth century,166 a new hypothesis was advanced, having bearings on the Theodotionic problem: the Kaige theory. Given its both seismic impact on the Septuagintal studies in general167 and substantial bearings on the Septuagint of Daniel as well, we will 163 164 165

166

167

See above nn. 121–122. Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 156, 168–174. Montgomery’s position regarding the nature of Proto-Th is ambiguous. After making his case characterizing Proto-Th as a “Hellenistic oral Targum,” Montgomery surprisingly states: “Of course such a theory does not exclude the possibility of literary predecessors of the historical Theodotion.” Daniel, 50. The Naḥal Ḥever scroll (8ḤevXIIgr) was preliminary announced by Dominique Barthélemy as “Rédécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la Septante,” rb 60 (1953): 18–29. Almost ten years later, the scroll was officially published by Barthélemy in his influential monograph Les devanciers d’Aquila: Premiére publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963). Excerpts from his studies on the Naḥal Ḥever scroll have been subsequently republished by Barthélemy in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, obo 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 66–90. According to Strugnell, however, the scroll was published by Barthélemy “in a preliminary fashion.” John Strugnell, preface to The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr), by Emanuel Tov with the collaboration of Robert A. Kraft and contribution of Peter J. Parsons, djd 8 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), vii. The scroll in its entirety has been published in the editio princeps by Emanuel Tov in the aforementioned work. The impact of Barthélemy’s monograph, Les devanciers d’Aquila, on lxx research has been described by Tov as “a book which in many ways has revolutionized scholarship.” Tov, forward to Greek Minor Prophets Scroll, ix.

32

chapter 1

further proceed to describe Barthélemy’s theory and evaluate it in light of the previous established model. Furthermore, in order to facilitate our comparison of the presumed Kaige version with the hypothetical Proto-Th layer of text, we will overview essential aspects of the former regarding its appellation, attribution, geographical provenance, date, character, setting, and extent. 1.3.1 Appellation By Kaige(-Th), the name of Barthélemy’s theory captures one of the two essential claims regarding the characterization of the text designated by this appellation. The first is the significance of a peculiar word equivalent repeatedly occurring in certain Greek witnesses: Barthélemy noted that the Hebrew additive particles ‫ גם‬and ‫ וגם‬were typically translated in these witnesses, and not others, as καίγε.168 This unusual rendering became the epitome of Barthélemy’s theory, serving as the main idiosyncrasy which distinguishes the Kaige group of texts from the reminder of the books of Septuagint.169 1.3.2 Attribution Though the second element of the theory’s appellation refers to “Theodotion,” for Barthélemy it rather represents a misnomer for the genuine author of the version associated with “Theodotion,” namely, the historical figure Jonathan ben ʿUzziel.170 In backing up his bold claim, Barthélemy initially criticizes the reliability of the ancient patristic sources for establishing a precise date for the floruit of Theodotion.171 The only exception to this negative assessment represents Irenaeus’s mention of Theodotion before Aquila, this sequential order “fitting perfectly” with Barthélemy’s overall conclusion that the Kaige group antedates Aquila’s revision.172 To support his contention that Theodotion is a misnomer for Johnathan ben ʿUzziel, Barthélemy critically explores the Jewish traditions related to the latter’s personality.173 He accepts the tradition that Jonathan was a contempo-

168 169 170 171

172 173

Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 31–47. For the results obtained by Barthélemy, see further below our discussion regarding the “extent” of the Kaige group. Ibid., 148–156. In the scope of his criticism, Barthélemy includes the references to Theodotion from Epiphanius, Irenaeus, Jerome, and the seventh-century work Paschal Chronicle. Ibid., 144– 148. For the general character of the latter document, see further odcc, s.v. “Chronicon Paschale.” Les devanciers d’Aquila, 147. Barthélemy distinguishes three strands of Jewish tradition regarding the floruit of Jonathan: (1) he was contemporaneous with Shammai (y. Ned. 5:6; b. B. Bat. 133b); (2) he

introduction

33

rary of Shammai and Hillel, but he disputes the view that purports that the tradition attributes to Jonathan the Aramaic translation of the Prophets.174 Barthélemy supports his perspective with three arguments that demonstrably link Jonathan to a Greek translation and not to the Aramaic Targum. First, he argues that the rationale of the ban prohibiting Jonathan from rendering the Writings into Aramaic—namely, that they “contain the times of the Messiah” (b. Meg. 3a)—accords precisely with the “Jonathan-Theodotion” Greek translation of Daniel (especially Th-Dan 9:25).175 Then, on the basis of the interdiction recorded in rabbinical sources that declined authorization of translational work in other languages but made an exception for Greek, Barthélemy infers that it is “unlikely that a disciple so highly esteemed by Hillel as Jonathan ben ʿUzziel would have made an Aramaic translation.”176 Lastly, Barthélemy observes that the confused tradition of the sages regarding the literary legacy of Jonathan-Theodotion is similar to that of Onkelos-Aquila from the Jewish sources. For Barthélemy, the original, genuine tradition of Jonathan and Onkelos as Greek translators was, in subsequent rabbinic literature, imprecisely related to the Aramaic Targums to the Torah and the Prophets, respectively.177 1.3.3 Provenance and Date According to Barthélemy, Kaige(-Th) represents a Jewish Palestinian document of the first century.178 In order to pinpoint most precisely the date when it was produced, he makes reference to two of the earliest Kaige quotations in New Testament literature,179 namely the quotations from Isa 25:8 in 1 Cor 15:54 and from Joel 3:2 in Acts 2:18. He contends these argue for a terminus a quo before 57ce. This date corrollates with the Jewish traditions regarding

174 175 176

177 178

179

affirmed himself as the best disciple of Hillel, “occupying with the study of the Torah” (y. Ned. 5:6; b. B. Bat. 134a; b. Sukkah 28a); (3) and he was accredited as performing the Aramaic translation to the Prophets (b. Meg. 3a). Ibid., 149. Ibid., 150. Ibid., 150–151. The interdiction is associated with the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel (cf. m. Meg. 1:8) and, as Barthélemy contends, is further in effect in the third century (cf. b. Meg. 9b). An attempt to explain the rationale behind this interdiction is provided by y. Meg. 1:9, 71c: “They investigated and found that the Torah can be properly translated only into Greek.” Ibid., 151. Ibid., 152–153. Though judiciously assessed, see Barthélemy’s interesting conjecture regarding the attestation of the name Theodotion only on two ossuaries from the Mount of Olives. Whereas on the first the name is inscribed in Greek as θεοδοτιωνοc, on the second it is written with Hebrew characters ‫תדטיון‬, having attached the Greek epithet διδαcκαλου. Ibid., 156. Ibid., 148.

34

chapter 1

“Jonathan-Theodotion,” which assign his floruit to the time of Shammai and Hillel (ca. 30–50ce). 1.3.4 Setting For Barthélemy, two complementary elements occasioned the emergence of Kaige(-Th). The first is reflected in the rationale provided by Jonathan for carrying out his translation of the Prophets: “in order that disputes not increase in Israel” (cf. b. Meg. 3a). Barthélemy understands this explanation in the context of an increasing need on the side of the Hellenistic Jews, who “relied on texts that often diverged strongly from those used by the Hebrew speakers,” to be equipped with a more accurate Greek translation conforming closely to the “authorized form of the Hebrew text.”180 Complementary to this first element, the new version could also serve apologetic purposes. Since the interval of ca. 30–50 ce marks in Palestine “the intense Christian propaganda based on the Septuagint of the prophets,”181 Barthélemy sees a Jewish response in the same time frame as very probable. Accordingly, the Jewish reaction was most likely characterized by a sustained recensional effort to produce and disseminate texts that could assist Jewish community to counter Christian evangelistic agenda.182 1.3.5 Extent Using the peculiar word equivalent καίγε for ‫ גם‬or ‫ וגם‬as a criterion, Barthélemy has determined a strand of specific Greek witnesses pertaining to the Kaige group. Consequently, he writes: Nous classerions dans cette catégorie: la traduction des Lamentations et vraisemblablement celles du Cantique des cantiques et de Ruth, la recension majoritaire des sections βγ [2Sam 11:2–1 Kgs 2:11] et γδ [1 Kgs 22–2Kgs] des Règnes, la recension des Juges dont témoignent plus spécialement les manuscrits i r u a2 et B e f s z, la recension Théodotion de Daniel, les ajoutes Théodotion à la Septante de Job et Job et celles souvent anonymes à la Septante de Jérémie, la colonne Théodotion des hexaples et la Quinta des Psaumes. La nouvelle recension anonyme du Dodécaprophéton trouverait naturellement place dans cet ensemble.183

180 181 182 183

Ibid., 151. Ibid., 152. Ibid., 153–154. Ibid., 46.

introduction

35

In addition to this group, and following an extensive investigation, Barthélemy also ascribes to the Kaige group the Greek scroll from Naḥal Ḥever.184 To support his hypothesis, Barthélemy adduces eight additional examples that presumably evidence the unique features of the Kaige group: the replacement of ἕκαστος “each (person)” for the distributive use of ‫ אישׁ‬with the more literal rendition ἀνήρ “man”;185 the use of the equivalent ἐπάνωθεν instead of either ἀπό or ἐπάνω for the composite preposition ‫;מעל‬186 the translation of ‫יצב‬ “to stand” with στηλόω “to set up a pillar,” that reflects etymological derivation from ‫;נצב‬187 the exclusive use of κερατίνη “horn” for ‫ שׁופר‬in order to distinguish it from σάλπιγξ “trumpet,” which appears in lxx (cf. Ps 98:6) as the rendering of both ‫ חצצרה‬and ‫;שׁופר‬188 the elimination of the historical present in favor of the aorist tense;189 the utilization of the atemporal equivalent οὐκ ἔστιν to render the adverb of non-existence ‫;אין‬190 the systematic translation of ‫ אנכי‬with ἐγώ εἰμι;191 and the replacement of εἰς ἀπάντησιν with εἰς συνάντησιν for ‫לקראת‬.192 1.3.6 Character Barthélemy’s theory emphasizes the character of the Kaige group as a revision. Not only that, but, as the name of his monograph implies, Kaige(-Th) could be considered the predecessor of Aquila’s revision. Expressed differently, it displays intermediary revising techniques that turn the group into a link between Old Greek and the acute literalism of Aquila’s revision. Besides the rendering of ‫וגם‬, Barthélemy adduces twelve other examples which purportedly demonstrate Aquila’s tendency to further refine Kaige(-Th) equivalents.

184

185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192

Barthélemy’s analysis of the Greek fragments from Naḥal Ḥever scroll constitutes the subject of the third part of his monograph (ibid., 163–270). After a short presentation on the state of the scroll (pp. 163–168) and its transcription (pp. 169–178), the scroll is thoroughly discussed in the context of its transmission history. Consequently, the scroll is compared with the lxx (pp. 179–198) and Barthélemy’s alleged Kaige(-Th) group (pp. 198– 202), Justin’s quotations (pp. 203–212), Quinta (pp. 213–227), Coptic versions (pp. 228–238), Washington Codex (pp. 239–244), and the versions of the Minor Prophets attributed to Aquila (pp. 246–252), Theodotion (pp. 253–260), and Symmachus (pp. 261–265). Ibid., 48–54. Ibid., 54–59. Ibid., 59–60. Ibid., 60–63. Ibid., 63–65. Ibid., 65–68. Ibid., 69–78. Ibid., 78–80.

36

chapter 1

1.3.7 Evaluation In assessing Barthélemy’s theory, we will proceed to underscore both its novelties and challenges in comparison with the Proto-Th hypothesis. At variance with the previous generations of scholars who upheld the integrity of the patristic records as witnessing to the existence of a historical figure in the second part of the second century, Barthélemy hardly gives any credence to the church fathers’ statements. Noting the fact that the patristic records offer unreliable information, Barthélemy turns to rabbinical literature to determine the real identity of the person behind the Christian assertions regarding Theodotion. After he critically examines some Talmudic traditions regarding Joanathan ben ʿUzziel of the middle of the first century, Barthélemy arrives at the conclusion that he is one and the same person with Theodotion. In moving the date of the document back one century and assigning it to “JonathanTheodotion,” Barthélemy leaves no room for a work or figure related to Theodotion in the second century. A further novelty of the Kaige(-Th) theory is related to its content. With a few exceptions, important constituents of Proto-Th hypothesis have been scantly discussed, some of them only in passing, lacking substantiation. The opposite is true regarding Barthélemy’s proposal, which represents a well-developed theory, covering all necessary elements to make it convincing. Consequently, Barthélemy excels in presenting a coherent theory, whose primary goal of determining a specific group of witnesses is easy to follow. Barthélemy links this group to the historical figure “Jonathan-Theodotion,” and assigns it a date and a setting, and defines its extent and character. However tempting it may be to attribute the influence of the Kaige(-Th) theory primarily to the publication of the Greek scroll,193 its revolutionary impact rather resides in the manner how Barthélemy has integrated the scroll within his broader argument regarding the existence of this group of texts, which typologically anticipates the formal translational style of Aquila.194

193

194

Both the monograph’s title and structure argue that Barthélemy’s study represents more than what had purported to be the official publication of the Greek scroll. Whereas the title is meant to introduce the readers to a group of texts sharing the common feature of being precursors of Aquila, its outline reveals that its concern is not strictly the scroll’s official publication. For instance, Barthélemy affords more space in discussing the Kaige group (160 pp.) than the Greek scroll (110 pp.). Consequently, this situation created the need for a new edition. For the editio princeps of Naḥal Ḥever scroll, see n. 166. Consequently, Barthélemy’s theory represents basically a diachronic characterization of a specific form of translation technique tradition, evolving from a free approach style towards literalism. The culmination of this developmental scheme resulted in the hyperliteralism of Aquila’s version.

introduction

37

Although the correlation of Kaige theory with Theodotion’s name seemingly represented a step towards simplifying the Theodotionic problem, it has complicated the approximation of the scope of his literary version to a certain extent. According to Barthélemy, not all translational units of the sixth column of Hexapla represent genuine Theodotionic materials.195 Accounting for the reasonable grounds for his doubt, Barthélemy expresses uncertainty regarding the consistency exhibited in Origen’s Hexapla,196 and the possibilities that “Jonathan-Theodotion” may have made “several successive editions of the same book,” or that he was part of a school or had predecessors.197 Accordingly, Barthélemy’s study called into question the common opinion about the sixth column as comprising the monolithic work of Theodotion.198 Now it had to be determined which Theodotionic translational units truly belong to Kaige(-Th).199 Of particular interest for our analysis are two assertions made by Barthélemy regarding Th-Dan. The first of them is the claim that Th-Dan represents a mem195

196

197 198

199

For instance, note Barthélemy’s assessment of the situation regarding the translational unit of βγ (2Sam 11:2–1 Kgs 2:11). In this section, he asserts that the text attributed to Theodotion “has nothing to do with the translator of that name.” Les devanciers d’Aquila, 128–136, 157 [xi]. A similar judgment is expressed regarding the Minor Prophets version attributed to Theodotion which, according to Barthélemy, it most likely represents “a late, eclectic and pseudepigraphic recension,” depending on Aquila and Symmachus and distinguished by its idiosyncrasy of “systematically transliterating the divine names.” Ibid., 270. Since the Hexapla was composed almost two centuries later than the Kaige recension, Barthélemy raises the possibility that not all translational units attributed to Theodotion were in fact genuine. Equally, the reverse could be true: authentic Theodotionic materials have circulated without the author’s name. Furthermore, he contends that Origen did not strictly reserve his sixth column only for Theodotion; sometimes he might have reserved it for “a special form of the Septuagint which he had reasons to preserve,” while Theodotion was placed in the seventh column. Ibid., 156–157. Ibid., 157. Barthélemy calls for a critical inquiry of the “three myths” extant in Septuagint research, which consist of assuming by default that the sigla θ′, ο′, and b o c2 e2 always denote genuine material from “Theodotion,” the “Septuagint,” and the “Lucianic recension,” respectively. Ibid., 140. For the sake of avoiding confusion and in view of Barthélemy’s explanation, an important clarification is in order: by using Theodotion’s name in the appellation adopted in this study to describe Barthélemy’s theory, i.e., Kaige(-Th), we mainly refer by it to the “author” behind the Kaige group (“Jonathan-Theodotion”) rather than to the version assigned to Theodotion’s figure of the second century ce. This note accords well with Barthélemy’s conclusion while commenting on the extent of Theodotion’s work: “All that can be concluded is that he is the only author for whom the following generations have preserved the name for the Palestinian translations or recensions of the first century of our era.” Ibid., 157 (personal translation).

38

chapter 1

ber of the Kaige group. The second is implicit in the characterization of the entire corpus of Kaige as a revision. Consequently, subsequent scholarly investigations of the Theodotionic problem in Daniel have examined both assertions, attempting to determine their veracity. The contribution of these investigations to settling the Theodotionic problem will be appraised in the following section, within a broader overview of the varied responses to Barthélemy’s Kaige theory. 1.4 From the Kaige Theory toward Midway Solutions Scholarly syntheses of the Theodotionic problem after Barthélemy generally reflect three reactions to Kaige theory. The most positive reception of Barthélemy’s theory applied it to clarify the Theodotionic problem in general. However, the second reaction was to test and critique certain of Barthélemy’s claims that have bearings on the understanding of the character of Th-Dan, resulting in a broad surge of criticism of almost every aspect of his theory. Third, alongside these opposing reactions, midway models became increasingly widespread as an attempt to combine the best elements of the Proto-Th and Kaige theories. 1.4.1 Positive Reception of Barthélemy’s Theory Barthélemy’s theory was highly acclaimed by Septuagint scholars: their eulogistic statements200 along with the high number of overall positive reviews201 and the special scientific meetings202 convened to further assess some of the 200

201

202

For instance, ten years later after Les devanciers d’Aquila, Jellicoe states that “[I]t cannot be denied that this is an important and even an epoch-making, work which had had a highly stimulating impact upon the current climate of lxx studies.” Sidney T. Jellicoe, “Some Reflections on the καιγε Recension,” vt 23 (1973): 15–24 (15). Furthermore, Bogaert compares the impact of Barthélemy’s theory with “une sorte de révolution copernicienne dans l’histoire du texte biblique.” Pierre-Maurice Bogaert “Les études sur la Septante. Bilan et perspectives,” rtl 16.2 (1985): 174–200 (176). Similarly, Tov praises Barthélemy’s monograph (see above n. 167). Among other assessments, see Frank Moore Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” htr 57.4 (1964): 281–299; Sidney Jellicoe, review of Les Devanciers d’Aquila, by Dominique Barthélemy, jaos 84 (1964): 189–192, and by the same author “Some Reflections on the καιγε Recension,” 15–24; John W. Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies,” bioscs 21 (1988): 23–34; Robert A. Kraft, “Reassessing the Impact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers, Forty Years Later,” bioscs 37 (2004): 1–28, containing an extensive bibliography on Kaige theory until 2004 (at pp. 23–28); and Peter J. Gentry, “1.3.1.2 Pre-Hexaplaric Translations, Hexapla, Post-Hexaplaric Translations” in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible: Overview Articles, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, vol. 1A (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 211–235. In his survey on the reception of Barthélemy’s theory after forty years form its announce-

introduction

39

claims provides convincing confirmation of its warm reception. In relation to the Theodotionic problem, its positive reception pervades the syntheses of Grélot, Delcor, Munnich, and Gentry. Distinctive of this group of scholars is their acceptance of one of the major innovations of Barthélemy’s theory: the predating of the floruit of the historical Theodotion before the first Christian literary works (ca. 30–50ce). An attentive perusal of Barthélemy’s monograph reveals an intriguing fact: he does not discuss the alleged Proto-Th in relationship with Kaige textual tradition.203 Writing immediately after the publication of Barthélemy’s theory, Grélot204 was the first to apply Kaige theory to Septuagint Daniel, with the result of proposing a simplified solution to the problem of the readings antedating the putative Theodotion. He not only discounts the necessity of postulating the existence of a Proto-Th version, he also discounts the Theodotion’s version purported to belong to the second century. For Grélot, Proto-Th, historical Theodotion and the version linked to his name represent the same entity in the larger Kaige group (Kaige = Proto-Th = Theodotion’s Version [Th-Dan included]). Grélot embraces much of Barthélemy’s characterization in terms of the group’s date, appurtenance, provenance and setting. Apparently, the only exception is his position concerning its alleged character as a revision attributed to Th-Dan. In this respect, Grélot emphatically writes: “On dit bien: nouvelle version. Car, pour le livre de Daniel, on ne saurait parler d’une simple recension de la Septante ancienne visant à rapprocher celle-ci de l’hébreu.”205

203

204 205

ment, Kraft, “Reassessing the Impact,” 1–3, mentions three significant meetings: ioscs Symposium (Los Angeles, 1972) which focused on Samuel–Kings; the joint sections of ioscs-sbl (Chicago, 1988), which centered on the Greek Minor Prophets; and further the joint sections of ioscs-sbl (New Orleans, 1996), having as its theme “Reassessing the Barthélemy’s Heritage.” In his evaluation of Barthélemy’s monograph, Jellicoe wonders “whether the entire absence of reference to the work of others [who discussed the issue of Proto-Th, i.e., Credner, Salmon, Gwynn and Schürer] is to be construed in terms of unacquaintance, assimilation, or irrelevance.” Jellicoe, review of Les Devanciers d’Aquila (by Barthélemy), 179. Though Kraft points to a subsequent publication of Barthélemy as proof that he “shows much greater acquaintance with and use of such previous scholarship” (compare Kraft’s “Reassessing the Impact,” 6 (n. 14) with Barthélemy’s “A Reexamination of the Textual Problems in 2 Sam 11:2–1 Kings 2:11 in the Light of Certain Criticisms of Les devanciers d’Aquila,” in 1972 Proceedings: Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha Seminars, ed. Robert A. Kraft, scs 2 [sbl: 1972], 16–89), the intriguing silence of Barthélemy’s on the Proto-Th discussion still remains. Pierre Grélot, “Les versions grecques de Daniel,” Bib 47 (1966): 381–402. Ibid., 394. In a different publication Grélot refers to the second Danielic Greek version as “Pseudo-Theodotion” and retains the claim of its anteriority to the New Testament. See

40

chapter 1

Like Grélot, Delcor favorably applied Barthélemy’s theory to Th-Dan.206 However, he follows Barthélemy in characterizing Th-Dan as a revision rather than a translation.207 Similarly, Munnich accepts the general description of Kaige theory,208 the equation of Proto-Th with Theodotion, and further, with Jonathan ben ʿUzziel. Firmly assuming Theodotion’s affiliation to the Kaige group, Munnich contends that “[W]ith Theodotion, we are dealing with the oldest non-anonymous revision, anterior by almost a century to that of Aquila.”209 Gentry posits the floruit of Theodotion at the beginning of the first century ce and further asserts that “[T]here is no basis or need to speak of a proto-Theodotion or Ur-Theodotion.”210 However, in contradistinction to Barthélemy, and in view of recent analyses, he redifines the understanding regarding Kaige, claiming that it merely reflects a specific approach to translation.211 1.4.2

Testing Barthélemy’s Claims: The Characterizations of Th-Dan as a Revision and as a Member of the Kaige Group The fact that many of Barthélemy’s revolutionary contentions were based only on limited discussion212 gave rise to criticism and further scrutiny. In contradistinction to the previous scholars, who have applied the proposal of the

206 207 208

209 210 211

212

“Daniel vi dans la Septante,” in Κατὰ τοὺς ό: Selon les Septante, ed. Gilles Dorival and Olivier Munnich (Paris: Cerf, 1995), 111. Mathias Delcor, Le livre de Daniel, sb (Paris: Gabalda, 1971), 21–22. Ibid., 22. Olivier Munnich, “Le text de la Septante,” in Marguerite Harl, Gilles Dorival, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante du judaïsme hellénistique à la patristique grecque, 2nd ed. (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 129–200 (especially at pp. 150–157). Ibid., 152. Gentry, “Pre-Hexaplaric Translations,” 226. Gentry states: “Kaige is not a monolithic recension, nor even a group of revisers. Rather kaige is a tradition in which a certain approach to the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was considered to be the faithful way of performing this task, and in which certain equivalents and traits of translation, perhaps original to earlier members of the tradition or translators prior to it, became hallmarks of this tradition. Both original translations and recensions of original translations belong to this tradition.” Ibid., 222. The comments of both Jellicoe and Dines are indicative of the limitations of Barthélemy’s work. Whereas the former asks about the work in question whether “is too much based on too little” (review of Les Devanciers d’Aquila [by Barthélemy], 181) and further is of the opinion that “Barthélemy’s work in some respects raises as many problems as it purports to elucidate” (Sidney T. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989], 92), the latter briefly states that “[I]n fact, the main criticism of Barthélemy’s innovative work is that it ties up too many loose threads in one go” (Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint, Understanding the Bible and its World [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 83).

introduction

41

Kaige theory to the Theodotionic problem, others have tested many aspects of Barthélemy’s theory, arriving at diverging and, sometimes, even confused213 opinions regarding its appellation, appurtenance, date, provenance, setting, extent, and character.214 The disagreement regarding its appellation concerns the importance of using proper terminology. Some scholars have drawn attention to the need of using more appropriate designations for the sake of avoiding confusion and misrepresentations of Barthélemy’s position. Accordingly, rather than “Kaige recension”215 or “Kaige-Theodotion,”216 the appellations “Kaige group” or “Kaige 213

214

215

216

For a confused summary of one aspect of Barthélemy’s theory, see the following statement of Di Lella regarding the chronological precedence of Theodotion over Aquila: “Barthélemy calls attention to the fact that ‘Theodotion’ must be prior to Aquila for the simple reason that Aquila as well as Symmachus […] did not revise or correct the lxx translation, as had been previously supposed by scholars, but rather revised ProtoTheodotion (kaige) or “Theodotion.”” Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, ab 23 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 80. Not only has Barthélemy never equated the previous discussion about Proto-Th with Kaige, but also he regards what Di Lella calls “kaige” and “Theodotion” to be one and the same textual tradition. Eissfeldt also misrepresents Barthélemy’s position when he asserts that the version of Theodotion—likewise those of Aquila and Symmachus—reworks the version reflected by the Greek scroll: “This revised text was, he [Barthélemy] thinks, then taken over by Aquila, Symmachus, and probably also Theodotion […], for their new translations of the Hebrew text, so that they are to be regarded not as innovators but as continuers of a process already begun.” Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 708; trans. of Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3rd rev. ed. (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1964). Since the discussions regarding the extent and the character of the Kaige group are directly related with the research questions of this study, we will devote more space below for their assessment in view of the Theodotionic problem in Daniel. Noting the fact that Barthélemy’s Kaige group included both translations and revisions, Wevers “strongly urge[d] that we ban from academic usage the term καίγε recension.” “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies,” 33–34. Whereas we agree with Wevers in discouraging the use of Kaige revision to avoid confusion, his decision to include the Theodotion text of Daniel among the texts about whom, in his opinion, would be “bizarre and misleading to speak […] as representing καίγε recension,” is bizarre. Ibid., 33. See, for instance, Barthélemy’s explicit terminology in referring to this text as a revision: “la recension Théodotion de Daniel.” Les devanciers d’Aquila, 47. The critical opinions of McLay and Gentry of using “Kaige-Theodotion” appellation follow Wevers’s directive of the necessity to use precise language. Whereas the former refers to Tov (“Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament,” Text 8 [1973]: 78–92) as being the first to use “kaige-Theodotion” language (Timothy R. McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003], 9 [n. 16]), Gentry asserts that such terminology “confuses issues rather than brings clarification.” “Pre-Hexaplaric Translations,” 213. The inadequacy of having Theodotion associated with Kaige stems mainly from the

42

chapter 1

tradition” would serve better the cause. The assigned date of Kaige group to ca. 50 ce was received with skepticism by many, scholars rather agreeing on a much earlier time, ca. 50 bce.217 The new date implicitly called for a rejection of Barthélemy’s identification of the purported Theodotion with Jonathan ben ʿUzziel as well as his association with Kaige group.218 Furthermore, the Palestinian provenance of Kaige group has been challenged too; Ephesus219 and Syria-Mesopotamia220 were suggested as probable geographical alternatives. As was to be expected, Barthélemy’s proposal, which favored both the interference of rabbinical exegesis and Jewish-Christian polemics as fermenting the emergence of Kaige group, gave precedence to the new pre-Christian setting characterized by alleged Jewish recensional activity.221 In view of our goal of investigating the Theodotionic problem in Daniel, two aspects of Kaige theory with implications for its extent222 and character warrant special attention. Barthélemy identified Th-Dan as a constituent of Kaige group and further characterized it as a revision. As our ensuing discussion will show, both claims have received vigorous criticism over the past decades.

217

218

219

220

221

222

fact that not all the texts assigned by Barthélemy to this group have any connection with Theodotion. This association further evokes the sixth column of Hexapla about which Barthélemy has opined that it does not in its entirety belong to Theodotion. On the matter in question, Gentry rightly states that “[T]he relation of Theodotion to this group of texts is what must be determined.” Ibid., 213. The following authors tentatively suggest a middle first bce date for Kaige: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. ed (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress), 145 (n. 97); Jellicoe, “Some Reflections on the καiγε Recension,” 24. Perhaps the least convincing aspect of Barthélemy’s theory was the identification of Theodotion with Jonathan. After the publication of Les Devanciers d’Aquila, Cross immediately reacted against Barthélemy’s proposal. He asserted that the identification of Kaige group with Theodotion “must remain sub judice,” while the identification of the two historical characters is assessed by him as “highly hypothetical.” See Cross, “History of the Biblical Text,” 283 (n. 11). The “Western Asia Minor” origins for the entire Kaige group is proposed by Jellicoe (see further below), who thus revives Thackeray’s theory regarding a “Western Asiatic” translator for the incomplete parts in Samuel-Kings. Jellicoe, “Some Reflections on the καiγε Recension,” 23–24. For Thackeray’s position, see further the discussion above. Koch’s position is grounded on a brief study of the Greek officers list of Dan 3:2. Klaus Koch, “Die Herkunft der Proto-Theodotion-übersetzung des Danielbuches,” vt 23 (1973): 362–365. Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Theodotion, Theodotion’s Version,” abd 6:447–448 (448); Olivier Munnich, “Contribution à l’étude de la première révision de la Septante,” anrw 20.1 (1986): 190–220; Lester L. Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,” jss 33 (1982): 527– 536. For the other biblical books investigated for their affiliation to Kaige, see ch. 2 §1.

introduction

43

Schmitt’s study represents an immediate response to Barthélemy’s theory, searching for a verdict as to whether Th-Dan belongs to Kaige.223 To achieve his purpose, Schmitt first collated fragments ascribed to Theodotion from five biblical books (Proverbs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel).224 In view of methodological considerations, he excluded the section from 2 Kgdms 11:2 to 3Kgdms 2:11 and the Minor Prophets Scroll since they were classified by Barthélemy as part of the Kaige group. Subsequently, Schmitt engaged in a detailed comparison of translation techniques at the level of lexical choices225 and syntactical features (agreement in number, the use of cases, syntax of prepositions, adjectives, verbs, the use of particles, the composition of words, and idiomatic Hebrew phrases)226 between Th-Dan and the collated passages attributed to the historical Theodotion. In the last chapter of his study, after comparing the lexical and the syntactical features of the deuterocanonical sections extant only in the Greek witnesses (Susanna, Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, and Bel and the Dragon),227 Schmitt concluded that the Greek version of Daniel attributed to Theodotion has nothing to do with the texts attributed by Barthélemy to the historical Theodotion.228 Since the implicit claim of Schmitt’s study calls into question the affiliation of Th-Dan to the Kaige group, it drew Barthélemy’s critique,229 which

223 224 225 226 227 228

229

Armin Schmitt, Stammt der sogenannte “θ”–Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion? msu 9 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966). For the complete list of the scriptural verses used by Schmitt, see ibid., 112. Ibid., 26–61. Ibid., 61–100. Ibid., 100–112. In this regard, Schmitt’s conclusions read as follows: “Das Thema dieser Arbeit hat gelautet: “Stammt der sogenannte “θ”–Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion?” Auf Grund der durchgeführten Untersuchungen kann man diese Frage mit einem klaren Nein beantworten. Das Plus und Minus des “θ”-Textes gegenüber mt (i S. 17–26), die Wortübersetzung (ii S. 26–62), die Syntax (iii S. 62–100) und schließlich die deuterokanonischen Stücke des “θ”-Text hat nichts mit dem Übersetzer zu tun, der uns durch seine griechische Übersetzung anderer alttestamentlicher Bücher unter der Sigel θ’ bekannt ist.—Theodotion lehnt sich in seiner Übersetzung sehr stark an den hebräischen Text an (hebraisierende Übersetzung), so daß er viel näher bei Aquila als bei Szymmachus steht.” Ibid., 112. Dominique Barthélemy, “Notes critiques sur quelques points d’histoire du texte,” in Übersetzung und Deutung: Studien zu dem Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt Alexander Reinard Hulst gewidmet von Freunden und Kollegen (Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach b.v., 1977), 9–23; repr. in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, obo 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 289–303.

44

chapter 1

in turn prompted a response from Schmitt.230 Schmitt’s conclusion, however, was recently substantiated by McLay’s study, in which, after comparing ninetyseven features supposedly pertaining to the Kaige group, with Th-Dan, he concluded: “This examination of the kaige characteristics in Th vindicates the conclusion of A. Schmitt. The most that we can say that Th has in common with kaige-Theodotion is that they share a similar approach to translation, i.e., formal equivalence.”231 The question of the relationship between Th-Dan and historical Theodotion as well as its affiliation to the Kaige group is under investigation anew by Jason T. Parry in his PhD dissertation (in progress).232 Barthélemy’s contention that Th-Dan should be classified as a revision of og-Dan has been the main focus of McLay, Obiajunwa, and Olariu’s research and, secondarily, that of Amara and Braasch. Before McLay, Schmitt had referred to Th-Dan version as a revision, though he disputed Barthélemy’s claim regarding its affiliation to Kaige group.233 Wenthe and Pace Jeansonne have opined the same view.234 Nevertheless, credit is due exclusively to McLay’s challenge to common opinion, taking advantage of the absence of any systematic study that demonstrably substantiated the theory of Th-Dan as a revision. McLay’s study, conceived originally as a contribution to translation technique,235 has proven to be of benefit in the discussion of the relationship

230 231 232

233 234

235

Schmitt reiterates the same conclusions after twenty-five years in his article, “Die griechischen Danieltexte (“θ′” und o′) und das Theodotionproblem,” bz 36 (1992): 1–29. Timothy R. McLay, The og and Th Versions of Daniel, scs 43 (Atlanta, ge: Scholars Press, 1996), 239–240; see also “Kaige and the Septuagint Research,” Text 19 (1998): 127–139. Jason T. Parry, “The Character of the Greek Version of Daniel Attributed to Theodotion” (PhD diss. in progress, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013–). Contrasting the scope of the dissertation of his doctoral student with McLay’s, Gentry states that whereas “his [McLay’s] study is based only on five segments of ten verses and does not represent an exhaustive description of translation technique, Jason Parry is analyzing the problem from the perspective of an exhaustive study (2014) in a dissertation in progress at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.” Gentry, “Pre-Hexaplaric Translations,” 222. See the discussion above. Schmitt, Stammt der sogenannte “θ”–Text, 112, and “Die griechischen Danieltexte (“θ” und o′),” 1–29. Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12, cbqms 19 (Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988); 56–57; Dean Orrin Wenthe, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 1–6” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 1991), 251–257. I agree, however, with the criticism of McLay against Pace Jeansonne’s use of statistics without discussing the adequacy of the sample. Timothy R. Mclay, “Translation Technique and Textual Studies in the Old Greek and Theodotion Versions of Daniel” (PhD diss., University of Durham, 1994), 33–34. Equally, I concur with McLay in his criticism of Wenthe that he “does not evidence any careful analysis of the question [that Th-Dan is a revision].” Ibid., 35–36 (see also n. 92). McLay plainly states the objective of his dissertation from the outset: “The primary pur-

introduction

45

between og-Dan and Th-Dan. To my knowledge, it was the first systematic study that was carried out in order to answer this question.236 Consequently, his assessment of Th-Dan as a new translation which contrasted with the common view must no longer be ignored; it demands a fresh examination.237 Obiajunwa addressed the question of the relationship between the two Greek versions by investigating first the “[S]emitic interference in θ-Dan by determining how it has rendered Semitic vocabulary, grammar, and syntax into Greek.”238 He then applied his results to test the claim that “θ-Dan came from a careful and generally consistent revision of the og to correspond to the mt or a text similar to mt.”239 Evaluating the data, Obiajunwa backs up McLay’s verdict and concludes that “θ-Dan is the work of a translator who worked for the most part independently of lxx-Dan.”240 A similar opinion was advanced by Braasch.241 Approaching the quality of the og-Dan translation as a historical document embedding actualized ideological interpretation, she conceives her analysis as a full-scale investigation of the reception history of Dan 1–7 in the Ptolemaic diaspora. How-

236

237

238 239 240 241

pose of this thesis is to provide a descriptive analysis of the tt employed in the Old Greek (og) and Theodotion (Th) versions of the Book of Daniel, which will also serve as a paradigm for others wishing to engage in similar research.” Timothy R. Mclay, “Translation Technique,” 1. A comparison of his dissertation with its published form reveals that significant portions of his original thesis were left out (for the complete reference, see n. 231). McLay has two chapters that are not present in its published form. The chapters left out are the ones that tried to suggest a new model of translation techniques, i.e., ch. 3: “Translation Techniques and the Focus on Literalism” (at pp. 101–122); and ch. 4 (at pp. 123–173). These chapters, however, appears in McLay, Use of Septuagint, 44–99. Only Pace Jeansonne has briefly discussed the issue but, as McLay has rightly demonstrated, the discussion lacks methodological rigour. Timothy R. McLay, “It’s a Question of Influence: The Theodotion and the Old Greek Texts of Daniel” in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments: Papers presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla, ed. Alison Salvesen, tsaj 58 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 232–233. Admitting that after ten years of writing his dissertation it appears that “not much has changed regarding the evaluation of Th as a revision,” McLay has further substantiated his claim by producing other studies. Timothy R. McLay, “The Relationship between Greek Translations of Daniel 1–3,” bioscs 37 (2004): 29–53; “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel iv–vi and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” vt 55/3 (2005): 304–323. Chukwudi J. Obiajunwa, “Semitic Interference in Theodotion-Daniel” (PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 1999), iv. Ibid. Ibid., 237. Birte Braasch, “Die lxx-Übersetzung des Danielbuches—eine Orientierungshilfe für das religiöse und politisch-gesellschaftliche Leben in der ptolemäischen Diaspora: Eine rezeptionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Dan 1–7” (PhD diss., Hamburg University, 2003). The dissertation was carried out under the supervision of Klaus Koch.

46

chapter 1

ever, in addition to her primarily research goal, Braasch secondarily addresses other problems, such as the relationship between og-Dan and Th-Dan.242 Consequently, after examining each chapter, she discusses the question of whether Th-Dan represents an independent translation.243 Notwithstanding the concession that “occasionally Th used lxx-Dan for his own translation,”244 Braasch’s final verdict is that Th-Dan constitutes an independent translation.245 In her recent study on og-Dan, Amara has allocated a subsection to ponder the relation between the Greek versions of Daniel.246 After each possible alternative has been exemplified, she concludes that Th-Dan “is not really a revision but another translation which is dependent and influenced by the translation prior to it.”247 Acknowledging the importance of the common basis criterion in demonstrating a translation-revision theory of two texts, Olariu’s study248 has tested the previous claims regarding the low number of significant equivalents shared between the Greek versions of Daniel.249 Significantly, Olariu’s results contrast sharply with the minimalist view, contesting the very base of the twotranslational model. Not only did he identify a high number of significant

242 243 244

245

246

247 248

249

Ibid., 18. Ibid., 56–57, 99–100, 145–146, 191–192, 225, 257, 284. Ibid., 291. Though noting the greatest literal correspondence between the two Greek versions in the supplemental poetical passages of og/Th-Dan 3:24–90 (the Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Young Men), Braasch evades even in this unit recognizing a translation-revision relationship between both texts; she rather problematically posits a common source as the base for both the og and Th-Dan. Ibid., 145–146, 291. Two major complementary observations were adduced by Braasch to substantiate her conclusion: “Th chose his own standard equivalents, and this was also the case where lxxDan did not deviate from mt.” Ibid., 290 (translation mine). Unfortunately, she has devoted only twelve pages to discussing the nature of the relationship between Th-Dan and og-Dan. Dalia Amara, “The Old Greek Version of Daniel: The Translation, the Vorlage and the Redaction/‫ המצע‬,‫ התרגום‬:‫תרגום השבעים לספר דניאל‬ ‫( ”והעריכה‬PhD diss., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2006), 13–25. Ibid., 25. Daniel Olariu, “The Quest for the Common Basis in the Greek Versions of the Book of Daniel” (m.a. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2015). This thesis was carried out under the supervision of Emanuel Tov and Michael Segal. For instance, McLay’s analysis allowed for only five significant agreements between ogDan and Th-Dan. According to his statistics they are: Ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας (2:8); ἐπλήσθη (3:19); τὰ κέρατα ἔχοντα (8:6); ὥραν θυσίας ἑσπερινῆς (9:21); and συντελείας (12:4). McLay even disputes the third agreement listed in his statistics, noting that “[I]t is unlikely that Th is dependent upon og for this reading.” McLay, og and Th Versions, 247. The minimalist view is also inherent to the studies of Obiajunwa, Braasch, and Amara which were reviewed above.

introduction

47

equivalents in both canonical and deuterocanonical sections of the book,250 but he also detects traces of recensional techniques.251 1.4.3 Toward Intermediate Solutions Barthélemy’s denial of the existence of a historical Theodotion in the second century ce has generated a third type of reaction: some scholars have endeavored to extricate the Theodotionic problem by merging both hypotheses of Proto-Th and Kaige into a new model. The positions presented below share two distinctive hallmarks: the common opinion that the patristic evidence on the figure of Theodotion cannot be entirely discounted252 and the understanding that the alleged Proto-Th and Kaige group represent one and the same textual tradition. However, two nuanced opinions within the group itself are noticeable as far as the alleged point of contact between historical Theodotion and Kaige textual tradition is concerned. Whereas the first subgroup below endorses the existence of a Theodotionic revision in the second century having as its base text the Kaige text type, the second demonstrably allows for the existence of a historical figure Theodotion but denies his reworking of the earlier text. 1.4.3.1 Recensional Continuity: Proto-Th = Kaige > Theodotion’s Version Besides other scholars such as Daniel,253 Jobes and Silva,254 and McLay,255 who maintain a midway solution, the elaborate reflections of Jellicoe and Green250

251 252

253

254

255

Olariu’s study has singled out eighty-eight significant agreements in Daniel 1–12, distributed in 103 verses. Ten are hapax legomena, twenty-five are rare words, thirty are unique equivalents, and twenty-three are rare equivalents. There is virtually no chapter that lacks significant agreements. Even in the more complex section Dan 4–6 there were detected eleven important agreements distributed over fourteen locations. The search for significant agreements in the Additions to Daniel has produced similar results. Statistically, there were identified five hapax legomena and thirty-three rare words, distributed across forty-two verses. “Quest for the Common Basis,” 120, 125. Ibid., 126. For instance, though Epiphanius’s account regarding Theodotion is regarded as doubtful, the opposite is true about Irenaeus’s that generally is considered a reliable historical source. Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, 83. According to Daniel, “Recent research suggests that Theodotion may have used an earlier version (Ur-Theodotion).” Suzanne Daniel, “Greek: The Septuagint,” EncJud 4:851–856 (855). Jobes and Silva allow for the existence of Proto-Th as an explanation for the pre-Theodotionic quotations. They also note the tendency of some scholars to refer to it as Kaige-Th in light of Barthélemy’s theory. This text represents a “pre-Christian revision of the Old Greek” (first century b.c.e.), which was further employed as the base text for Aquila and Symmachus. The version attributed to the historical Theodotion “may then be viewed as a later updating of the revision.” Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 41–42 (42), 56 (see Illustration 3). McLay, Use of the Septuagint, 9–14, 127–129, cautiously discusses the available data regard-

48

chapter 1

spoon on the problem in question deserve special attention.256 Jellicoe maintains the existence of “Ur-Theodotion,” a text produced by an anonymous translator in the “earlier part of the first century b.c.,” having as backdrop the “Palestinian revolt against the Alexandrian version.”257 It was this text that was subsequently revised by the historical Theodotion known from patristic tradition. Regarding the profile of Theodotion, Jellicoe conjectures that he most likely was an Ephesian Jew who became Christian for a while and then reclaimed his initial religious heritage.258 Examining Origen’s Epistles to Africanus, he arrives at the conclusion that both lxx and Theodotion versions were circulating side by side in the Churches,259 the replacement of og-Dan with Th-Dan occurring most likely in the second half of the third century under the influence of Origen.260 Furthermore, dealing with the issue of the early attestation of Theodotionic readings of Daniel, Jellicoe explains that they originate from “UrTheodotion,” whose textual history is related to a form of “Asiatic Canon,” consisting of independent translations that stemmed from the need to compensate the lacunas or the inadequate translations of the Alexandrian version.261 In order to accommodate both Thackeray’s and Gwynn’s hypotheses, Jellicoe further posits a stage of “an unconscious exercise in reciprocity,” in which the “Asiatic version” has influenced in its turn the Alexandrian translators once it purportedly arrived on Egyptian soil in the Pergamene library.262 Noticing the superior translational work in Daniel of “Ur-Theodotion,” the Alexandrian

256 257 258

259 260 261

262

ing Theodotion and the version associated with his name. While he concedes to the existence of historical Theodotion “who did some work translating and updating existing works,” he points to the difficulty of both “determining the exact nature and extent of the work associated with him” and “clarifying the extent of Theodotion’s participation in the recension that bears his name.” Ibid., 128–129. For a complete overview of Jellicoe’s position, the following literature was consulted: Septuagint and Modern Study, 83–94, and “Some Reflections on the καιγε Recension,” 15–24. Septuagint and Modern Study, 83. Ibid., 83–84. This conjecture regarding the religious journey of Theodotion is demonstrably embraced by Daniel, who writes that Theodotion, “whose name likewise recalls that of the targumist, Jonathan, […] was a Diaspora Jew who may have been a Christian for some time before returning to his original faith.” See Daniel “Greek: The Septuagint,” 4:855. Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, 84–86. Ibid., 86–87. According to Jellicoe, this “Asiatic Canon” included the partial translation of Samuel– Kings, the new translation of Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah (since the Alexandrian Ezra was found deficient), and “Ur-Theodotion.” In the case of the latter, he assumes “either that the Alexandrian translation had not yet been made, or that it was considered so poor that the Asiatic Theodotion, rather than attempt revision, was impelled to replace it with his own rendering.” Ibid., 87–90 [90]. Ibid., 90.

introduction

49

translators placed it “alongside the indifferent Alexandrian version, replacing it entirely in the course of time.”263 Finally, reflecting on the merits of Barthélemy’s theory, Jellicoe contends that “the καίγε recension presents itself as not other than a synonym for Ur-Theodotion.”264 Greenspoon’s opinion about the Theodotionic problem allows for the existence of a second century Theodotion, “whose existence and activity are too widely witnessed by tradition to be dismissed altogether.”265 Similarly, the pre-Theodotionic quotations compel him to concede to the solution of “UrTheodotion.” The purported text was produced by an “anonymous individual (or group of individuals)” whose floruit was in the first century bce and represented a “thoughtful revision of the Old Greek of some (all?) of the ot toward a Hebrew that closely resembled the text preserved by the Masoretes (the mt).”266 Furthermore, in view of Barthélemy’s theory, “Ur-Theodotion” is understood as part of the “kaige recension,”267 influencing to a large extent Aquila,268 and emerging “to make the sacred text comprehensible to those who no longer understood the Hebrew language.”269 However, though implying continuity, he expresses less certainty regarding “how extensive are the further developments that can be attributed to 2d-century Theodotion.”270 O’Connell suggests that Kaige(-Th) consists of two textual layers.271 Furthermore, he opines that the version attributed to the second century historical Theodotion represents an “adoption and apparently limited further revision” of Kaige(-Th) toward the mt.272

263

264 265 266 267 268

269 270 271 272

The same exceptional treatment has been also received by the Ezra–Nehemiah Asiatic translation, which took its place alongside the Alexandrian First Esdras. Similarly, contends Jellicoe, the complete Asiatic Samuel–Kings translation has assisted in filling in the lacunas of the Alexandrian version of these books. Ibid., 91. “Some Reflections on the καιγε Recension,” 24. Greenspoon, “Theodotion,” abd 6:448. Ibid. Ibid. In a different article Greenspoon uses the following language: “This first “layer” of Theodotion’s work appears to be part of a larger burst of recessional activity from the 1st century b.c.e., known as “kaige.” It is this “Ur-Theodotion” who heavily influenced the work of Aquila.” Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Versions, Ancient: Greek Versions,” abd 6:793–794. “Theodotion,” abd 6:448. Ibid. O’Connell arrives at this conclusion taking into consideration Schmitt’s study. Kevin G. O’Connell, “Greek Versions (Minor),” IDBSup, 377–381 (379). Ibid., 380.

50

chapter 1

1.4.3.2 Recensional Discontinuity Proto-Th = Kaige ≠ Historical Theodotion. Tov concedes the existence of a historical Theodotion at the end of the second century.273 The updated knowledge on the subject matter leads him to regard the alleged proto-Theodotionic translation as identical to the Kaige(-Th) textual tradition.274 However, he apparently does not allow for subsequent reworking of the Kaige group by Theodotion. The association of Theodotion with the anonymous Kaige revision most likely reflects a historiographical error like many other such errors in late antiquity.275 The appurtenance of Th-Dan to Kaige is not clear.276 1.4.3.3 Double Discontinuity Proto-Th = Th-Dan ≠ Kaige ≠ Theodotion’s Version. Questioning the reliability of Proto-Th and Kaige theories, Di Lella277 suggests a mixed alternative, mainly based on the studies of Gwynn and Schmitt.278 With the former he assigns to Th-Dan pre-Christian origins. From the latter, he infers that Th-Dan does not belong to the same textual tradition attributed to the second century historical Theodotion. Consequently, Th-Dan reflects “another translation enterprise” from ancient times,279 circulating next to the “proto-Lucian” and Kaige recensions.280 Its date goes back to the first century bce and its origin is with a Jewish translator in either Palestine or Asia Minor. The translation emerged from the need to correct og-Dan’s deviations from the Hebrew-Aramaic original and it “never was reworked by the recensionist Theodotion.”281

273

274

275 276 277

278

279 280 281

See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd rev. and enl. ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012), 142–143; and “Septuagint and other Ancient Greek Translations,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 305–317 (312–313). Tov’s synthesis of this knowledge reads: “We now know that the assumed proto-Theodotion is none other than kaige-Th tentatively ascribed to the middle of the 1st century bce.” Textual Criticism, 3rd rev. and enl. ed., 143 (n. 241). Ibid. According to Tov, the Kaige tradition is clearly attested in the segments of 2Sam 11:1 [10:1?]– 1 Kgs 2:11 and 1 Kgs 22:1–2 Kings, and 8ḤevXIIgr. Ibid. Di Lella’s opinion on the Theodotionic problem was first expressed in Alexander A. Di Lella, “Daniel,” IDBSup, 205–207; subsequently, in a more developed and refined versions in Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 79–83; and Di Lella, “Textual History,” 586–607. Di Lella, “Daniel,” 206; “Textual History,” 596; and Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 82. In all these publications, Di Lella explicitly asserts that his position is derived from the studies of both Gwynn and Schmitt. “Textual History,” 596. Ibid., 595. Ibid., 596.

introduction

51

Proto-Th = Kaige ≠ Th-Dan ≠ Theodotion’s Version. Taylor believes that Th-Dan is a “pre-Christian translation” and the association of its name with “Theodotion” represents a “misnomer.”282 He also admits the existence of a historical figure Theodotion in the second century ce. However, he intimates that Th-Dan should be distinguished from Proto-Th (= Kaige) recension and, apparently, further freed from any connection with Theodotion’s translational work in the second century. Proto-Th = Kaige ≠ Th-Dan > Theodotion’s Version. Marcos Fernández’s analysis of Theodotion judiciously addresses first the issue of the authenticity of translational units ascribed to Theodotion. Whereas the larger fragments extant in lxx manuscripts of the books of Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the sixth Hexaplaric column of the book of Judges pass the test, he discounts Th-Dan in view of the results of Schmitt’s analysis.283 He also expresses firm opinion about a certainty in the current state of research: “One thing seems clear today: the proto-Theodotion problem cannot be understood separately from the καίγε revision.”284 He further rallies to the suggestions of Jellicoe and Greenspoon contending that in spite of many uncertainties about the alleged extent and traits of the version attributed to the historical Theodotion of the second century ce, he is too well documented to entirely disappear from history.285 However, as far as Th-Dan is concerned, Marcos Fernández reasons that in the absence of any definitive argument of its appurtenance to Theodotion, it represents a distinct ancient revision from Proto-Th (= Kaige) whose circulation alongside og-Dan is certainly attested as early as the first century ce. Regarding the likelihood that Th-Dan was revised by the historical Theodotion, he states, “that revision was not very thorough, since he did not complete, as he did in Job and Jeremiah, the sections missing from the lxx but found in the Hebrew textus receptus, and it is difficult to assume that these sections were missing from the Hebrew Vorlage in his time.”286 Th-Dan ≠ Kaige > Theodotion’s Version. Dines’s summary of the multiple entities covered by “Theodotion” is pervaded with doubt about the identification of Th-Dan with either Kaige or Theodotion’s second century version.287

282 283 284 285 286 287

Richard A. Taylor, The Peshiṭta of Daniel, The Peshiṭta of Daniel, mpi 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 19. Natalio Marcos Fernández, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible, trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 145–146, 153. Ibid., 149. Ibid., 150. Ibid., 151. Dines, Septuagint, 84–87.

52

chapter 1

Regarding Th-Dan, she conjectures that it may be “another originally independent reviser who later became identified as ‘Theodotion’.”288 Theodotion’s version presumably builds on early roots (Kaige tradition), which in the course of transmission history “attracted and absorbed further similar material.”289 1.4.4 Evaluation The scholarly literature discloses significant diversity of opinion in the aftermath of the Kaige theory. We distinguished three types of reactions to Barthélemy’s proposal: overall acceptance, disputation, and partial admission of his claims. The theory’s acceptance was championed by Grélot, three years after its appearance. Attempting to solve the problem of the pre-Theodotionic readings, Grélot was the first to apply the Kaige theory to Daniel. Through his analysis, Grélot has opened the possibility for a simplified solution, rejecting the necessity for both the alleged Proto-Th and the purported second century version of Theodotion. Simply put, the two were reinterpreted as forming a single member of the larger Kaige group. However, in the very year when Grélot approvingly linked Kaige to Theodotionic problem, Schmitt’s study followed an opposite course, evidencing the need to fully examine Barthélemy’s claims. Testing Barthélemy’s contention regarding Th-Dan’s affiliation to Kaige, Schmitt disputed not only the veracity of this claim but also its appurtenance to Theodotion. Schmitt’s conclusion has been recently vindicated by McLay, who has further investigated the claim that Th-Dan is a revision. McLay, whose results have greatly influenced subsequent investigations on the same subject, concludes that Th-Dan represents an independent translation. The last reaction proposes various compromises between the Kaige and Proto-Th theories. In their attempts to reconstruct the history of the textual tradition ascribed to Theodotion, scholars had acknowledged the need to first distinguish and then determine the relationship among at least four entities associated with his name: Proto-Th, Kaige(-Th), Theodotion’s version, and the reputed historical Theodotion. Therefore, the positions mainly consist of variegated types of relationships between these entities such as continuity, discontinuity, and/or equivalence. In contrast with the standard view which regarded Theodotion as a monolithic textual tradition, the emerging view argued for the necessity of distinguishing between authentic Theodotionic readings and others which were

288 289

Ibid., 86. Ibid., 87.

introduction

53

transmitted under the same name. Therefore, Th-Dan may or may not be equated with Theodotion’s version or tied to his name. The relocation of the historical Theodotion from the second to the first century has further divided opinions. Notwithstanding that most of the scholars reject Theodotion’s relocation and accept his floruit in the second century, they debate whether he was at all involved in revising older texts. As such, if Th-Dan is identified with Kaige, it may or may not have been reworked by the historical Theodotion. To further complicate the issues, those who argue for reworking differ regarding both the identity of Theodotion’s base text (e.g., Proto-Th, Kaige[-Th], Proto-Th = Kaige[-Th]) and the extent of his intervention in producing a new version.290 Considering this plurality of opinions and other nuanced positions, one might well find Jellicoe’s old comment relevant today: “[P]aradoxical though it may seem, less is known today of Theodotion than ever before.”291 1.5 Summary This survey of scholarly literature has endeavored to trace the development of the Theodotionic problem from late antiquity until today. The knowledge is remarkable, but still frail and incomplete. The survey connects the inception of the problem with the first patristic comments on the life of Theodotion. These sources reveal scanty and contradictory information regarding Theodotion’s provenance, religious affiliation, and time of floruit. However, the church fathers agree in one significant aspect: the translational legacy of Theodotion. Not only do they agree that the version ascribed to him secured a place in the Hexapla—the sixth column—they also agree that it was largely employed to fill in the minuses in the lxx of Origen’s time—the fifth column. A new challenge to the reconstruction of the textual history of Theodotion’s version arose from the increasing attestation of readings predating the time of the historical Theodotion. The quotations from Th-Dan in early Christian literature have dominated the discussion. Growing awareness of these quotations led scholars to posit ex hypothesi the existence of another textual layer as the base text for Th-Dan, namely, Proto-Th. However, scholars lacked consensus concerning two significant aspects of this hypothesis. First, opinions were divided regarding the characterization of Proto-Th in relation to og-Dan: Proto-Th was variuosly assessed as an independent translation, revision, or oral

290

291

In our view, the task of determining the extent of Theodotion’s reworking of older texts represents a matter of conjecture. Lacking definite criteria, the guesses could vary within the range from thorough to slight interventions. Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, 94.

54

chapter 1

Targum. Second, lacking sound control criteria, scholars merely conjectured regarding the probability of different types of relationships between Th-Dan and Proto-Th. Whereas some favored the view of a complete adoption of ProtoTh by Theodotion in Daniel, others speculated about the extent of Theodotion’s revisions to Proto-Th, suggesting possibilities on a scale from thorough to slight interventions. The Kaige theory marks the end of many accepted views and the starting point for further developments of the Theodotionic problem. At variance with his predecessors, Barthélemy has questioned the reliability of the traditional second century date for the historical Theodotion. By dating his floruit more than one century earlier, he also mitigated the demand for the Proto-Th hypothesis. Furthermore, he had significant input towards abandoning the monolithic understanding of the sixth column of Hexapla. Barthélemy has highlighted that fact that, though linked to Theodotion, not all readings and translational units of this column represent authentic Theodotionic materials. Lastly, he described Th-Dan as a revision and further identified it with the newly proposed layer of Kaige textual tradition. The resulting abandonment of many standard opinions has opened new research avenues, as scholars were invited to investigate old problems in light of the new findings. The results of these analyses have added further intriguing developments to the Theodotionic problem.292

2

The Purpose and Importance of the Present Study

This analysis aims to advance the ongoing discussion regarding the Theodotionic problem within textual studies of the Book of Daniel. The analysis seeks to contribute in two ways. First, its main contribution derives from investigating the character of Th-Dan in relationship to the og. Simply stated, the main research question is, Does Th-Dan stand in a translation-revision relationship with og-Dan or are they better assessed as two independent translations? Specifically, this study seeks to substantiate the former alternative, affirming that Th-Dan displays the idiosyncrasies of a revision rather than of a de novo translation. Closely connected to our research goal is the analysis of the revising techniques visible in Th-Dan. Thus, this study reflects an investigation into ThDan’s recensional features, paying particular attention to their identification

292

For further details on the developments since Barthélemy’s theory hitherto, see the discussion above at ch. 1 §§ 1.4.1–3 and the evaluation of these developments at ch. 1 §1.4.4.

introduction

55

and classification. They include recensional idiosyncrasies that demonstrate the character of Th-Dan as a revision and describe the modus operandi of the reviser. The need for our analysis is grounded on several important observations: 1. There is no systematic study undertaken hitherto to confirm the quality of Th-Dan as a revision. In this respect, our survey of the literature on the relationship between og-Dan and Th-Dan within the framework of Theodotionic problem reveals an intriguing recent development regarding the relationship between og-Dan and Th-Dan: For decades scholars have repeatedly referred to Th-Dan as a revision, although without substantiating that claim. This deficiency was noted in the first studies carried out to tackle the issue, in which McLay, Obiajunwa, Braasch, and Amara concluded that Th-Dan is in fact an independent translation.293 Furthermore, throughout time, previous scholars have repeatedly expressed opinions regarding the challenging nature of the version attributed to Theodotion and its relationship to the Old Greek, calling for further research. Consequently, at the turn of the twentieth century, Swete asserted that “[T]he relation of the two extant Greek versions of Daniel is a perplexing problem which calls for further consideration.”294 Twenty years later, Ottley likewise opined, “[T]he matter needs further consideration.”295 Assessing the state of research on the Theodotionic problem in his days, Jellicoe reflects that “[P]aradoxically though it may seem, less is known today of Theodotion than ever before.”296 In addition, recent opinions have indicated the need for further study to resolve the predicament in the current research regarding the relationship between the Greek versions. For instance, Dines recognizes that “[T]he relationship of the two versions to each other and to the mt is much debated”297 and that ‘Theodotion’ is “among the most complicated areas of lxx study today.”298 Similarly, Jobes and Silva intimate that “[T]hese [the relationship of Th-Dan with the Theodotionic passages and the question of whether Th-Dan represents a translation or a revision] and other questions will continue to occupy scholars for years to

293 294 295 296 297 298

The relevant literature on the topic of the relationship between the og and Th-Dan was surveyed above at ch. 1 § 1.4.2. Swete, Introduction, 46. Ottley, Handbook to the Septuagint, 40. Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, 94. Dines, Septuagint, 24. Ibid., 84.

56

2.

3.

299 300

301

302

303

chapter 1

come.”299 Lastly, reflecting on the issues posed by Th-Dan in relation to Kaige(-Th), Fernández Marcos writes: “However, all that this tells us is that we are still far from finding a solution for the two parallel texts of Daniel.”300 This project attempts to fill this void, representing the first thorough, methodical study to substantiate the view that Th-Dan is a revision.301 There is no investigation hitherto into Th-Dan’s recensional techniques. This observation becomes the more surprising as we realize that Septuagint Daniel provides the ideal context for such an inquiry. By the “ideal context” we especially refer to the fortunate situation of having at our disposal of two complete, parallel texts, a state of affairs much longed for by those undertaking recensional studies. Not only does this textual framework warrant the inquiry, but it also heralds promising results.302 Furthermore, the studies that integrated in their scope the nature of the relationship between og-Dan and Th-Dan have completely neglected to search for revising techniques in Th-Dan. This deficiency signals a problematic methodology.303 The assessment of Th-Dan as a revision adds an important caveat in tracing textual affiliation. For instance, any investigation on the appurtenance of Th-Dan to Kaige(-Th) must first analyze the former’s idiosyncracies over against og-Dan, and only then to compare these idiosyncrasies with Kaige(-Th). Otherwise, the investigation may end up comparing og-Dan with Kaige(-Th). The same caveat holds true with regard to tracing affilia-

Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 42. Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 91. He further anticipates that “[…] the whole problem of the history of the text in the book of Daniel is still far from being satisfactorily resolved.” Ibid., p. 92. The aforementioned dissertation in progress by Jason T. Parry differs from our study in several fundamental aspects. For instance, while Parry’s study is inner-Theodotionic, our analysis is set forth as a comparison between og-Dan and Th-Dan. Next, as far as methodology is concerned, Parry analyzes translation techniques of nouns, pronouns, verbs, transliterations, particles in Th-Dan, replicating Gentry’s approach to Th-Job (see ch. 2 § 1), while the working method employed in our study focuses on lexical choices. Furthermore, whereas the aim of Parry’s study is to ultimately compare Th-Dan with Th-Job, our goal is to identify and describe the revising tendencies in Th-Dan. In addition, Parry’s study will contribute to clarifying Th-Dan’s affiliation to the Kaige(-Th) textual tradition; the contribution of our study stems from its case for Th-Dan as a revision. Compare with the textual framework of other recensional studies that have compared dispersed readings with lxx, and different sections of the same books. See further ch. 2 §1, which discusses the recensional studies and recensional techniques hitherto. See below ch. 1 § 3 “Methodology.”

introduction

57

tion between Th-Dan and other translational units which were associated with Thedotion’s name in the history of transmission, e.g., Th-Job, Th-Jer, Th-Isa, etc. 4. The comparison between og-Dan and Th-Dan may shed light on other aspects of the complex textual history of Th-Dan. We have indicated previously that there are at least four entities linked to Theodotion: ProtoTh, Kaige(-Th), Theodotion’s version, and the historical Theodotion. The identification of Th-Dan with any of these entities would primarily illuminate the textual character of the latter. Consequently, the equation of Th-Dan with Kaige could shed light on Kaige’s translation technique. Of more impact would be the assessment of Th-Dan as either a genuine translation unit belonging to the putative Theodotion or as a specimen of Proto-Th. In either case, Th-Dan would represent the only complete specimen, and its features would likely expand our knowledge regarding that text. In the event that no affiliation of Th-Dan with these entities can be proven, Th-Dan would reflect a new, independent revision, circulating along with lxx, Kaige, and probably other texts in ancient times. Second, this study seeks to break new ground on another topic in the textual study of the book of Daniel: the Vorlage of Th-Dan. The complete neglect of this topic can be demonstrably explained as being due to preoccupation with the more striking differences between og-Dan and mt-Dan. Indeed, the first extensive investigations of Septuagint Daniel were designed to exploit these differences in various ways.304 As McLay has rightly put it, “In the book of Daniel, Th has often been neglected in the research like a younger sibling following in the footsteps of the successful older brother.”305 We contend that inquiry into the underlying Semitic text of Th-Dan leads to important results. Not only can it account for many of the divergences between mt-Dan and Th-Dan, but it will also afford significant insights regarding the relationship between Th-Dan’s Vorlage and mt-Dan in the transmission history.

304

305

Chronologically, these studies include: Bludau, Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel; Timothy R. Ashley, “The Book of Daniel Chapters i–vi: Text, Versions and Problems of Exegesis” (PhD diss., University of St. Andrews, 1975); Andrew McCrystall, “Studies in the Old Greek Translation of Daniel” (PhD diss., Oxford University, 1980); Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel; Wenthe, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 1–6;” Amara, “Old Greek Versions of Daniel.” McLay, og and Th Versions, 243.

58 3

chapter 1

Methodology

This study applies the standard methodology that tests the quality of a text as a revision. The methodology applies two sine qua non criteria. In the event that one of the criteria is not met, we naturally have to turn to a different explanation. According to Tov: (1) lxx and the revision share a common textual basis. This assumption is based on the recognition of distinctive agreements in vocabulary between the two texts that set them apart from the remainder of the lxx. If such a common basis cannot be recognized, the two sources comprise separate translations rather than a source and its revision. (2) The revision corrects lxx in a certain direction, generally towards a more precise reflection of its Hebrew source.306 The employment of this methodology informs the nature of our analysis in two ways. First, the analysis is set out as a comparative study between three textual “sources.” Describing these “sources” from the vantage point of a “reviser,” we will hereafter refer to them as the “base text,” the “source text,” and the “generated text.” In the present study, the translation-revision hypothesis that is to be demonstrated postulates that the putative “Theodotion” reviser embarked on the reworking of og-Dan (the “base text”) to faithfully represent the mtDan-like Vorlage of his day (the “source text”). The outcome of his activity is the revision Th-Dan (the “generated text”). Consequently, the “generated text” reflects the reviser’s attitudes towards his base text and his Vorlage. Some observations regarding the praxis of the contrastive analysis are in place. For the comparison of the “base text” and “generated text,” i.e., the og and Th-Dan, we employed the second Göttingen edition.307 The reconstructed Old Greek text has been updated by Munnich in light of the newly published pap 967, which was not available for the first edition prepared by Ziegler in 1954.308 Similarly, Fraenkel has updated the Theodotion text with readings from 306 307

308

Tov, Textual Criticism, 3rd rev. and enl. ed., 141. Joseph Ziegler, Olivier Munnich and Detlef Fraenkel, eds., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum xvi/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999), rev. 2nd ed. of Joseph Ziegler, ed., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum xvi/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1954). Ziegler mainly based his reconstruction of the og on its only two Hexaplaric manuscripts which were preserved through centuries: Codex Chisianus (ms. 88) and Syro-Hexapla (Syh). The former was published by Simon de Magistris, Daniel secundum Septuaginta ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus a singulari Chrisiano codice (Rome: Typis Propagan-

introduction

59

fragments not included in the previous edition. As such, the merits of these eclectic editions as the most up-to-date versions of their kind, together with their rich, exhaustive apparatuses of variant readings made them the most natural choice for our contrastive undertaking. When weighing differing readings, our reconstructed originals of the Greek versions do not always coincide with those suggested in the Göttingen edition. This explains the decision to often compare it with the earlier editions of Ziegler and Rahlfs to ascertain the putative original og and Th-Dan readings.309 However, we also singled out cases wherein the decisions made by Ziegler, Rahlfs, or Munnich are problematic. To such individual readings, we offered careful criticism and proposed our textual solution. The “source text” consulted was the Hebrew-Aramaic text of Codex Leningrad B19a as reproduced in bhs (mt-Dan). bhs represents the first revised edition of the Biblia Hebraica series. There is no other scholarly edition available hitherto for the Hebrew-Aramaic text of Daniel. mt-Dan was also compared with the biblical fragments from Qumran.310 Considering the positive evidence stemming from their agreements, the scrolls evidence the same text-type as mtDan. However, when they differ in details, the comparison between the scrolls and mt-Dan is of much value, assisting in the process of establishing more original readings. Second, the analysis sets out to address both the commonalities and the dissimilarities between og-Dan and Th-Dan as compared with mt-Dan. The evaluation of the commonalities was dealt with in a preliminary study311 which addressed the important question of whether points of contact between ThDan and its “base text” can be recognized. The best way to demonstrate traces

309 310

311

dae Fidei, 1772). The latter was published by Antonio Maria Ceriani, Codex syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice editus, Monumenta sacra et profana 7 (Milan: Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 1874). Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta lxx interpretes, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). The biblical scrolls include: 1QDana–b (published by Dominique Barthélemy, “Daniel (i). Daniel (ii),” in D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1, djd 1 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1955], 150–152); 4QDana-e (published by Eugene Ulrich, “112–116: 4QDana–c,” in Eugene Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4 xi Psalms to Chronicles, djd 16 [Oxford: Clarendon, 2000], 239–289 + plates xxix–xxxviii); 6QpapDan (published by Maurice Baillet, “Daniel,” in M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran. Exploration de la falaise. Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre, djd 3/1–2 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1962], 1:114–116 + plates 2:xxiii). All biblical scrolls—among them also those belonging to Daniel—have been collected and published in Eugene Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Ch. 1 § 1.4.2.

60

chapter 1

of significant og idiosyncrasies retained by the reviser is by identifying shared peculiar renditions. These are tantamount to “distinctive equivalents” and affirm the first criterion of the common basis. The evaluation of the dissimilarities constitutes the focus of this study and addresses the question whether they are the result of coherent revising techniques. These strategies stem from the reviser’s conscious attitude to correct perceived deviations from the “source text” in his “base text.” The logical way to demonstrate the presence of such corrections is by contrasting the recurring differences between og-Dan and mt-Dan with the recurring agreements between Th-Dan and mt-Dan in rendering the same lexemes. Subsequently, recensional tendencies can be deduced approaching the differences phenomenologically. The identification of such tendencies affirms the second criterion of our working hypothesis. This study adopts the analytical tool of lexical choices as the guiding principle to identify recensional tendencies. The lexical choices represent, hitherto, the finest tool in translational studies to infer conclusions regarding the affiliation between texts and the character of a translation unit (e.g., literal or free, formal or dynamic, etc.).312 Consequently, the study shows how lexical choices during the generation of Th-Dan’s text were simultaneously influenced by ogDan and mt-Dan. The nature of the topic in question necessitates a priori decisions related to several areas of research, such as the Semitic Vorlagen of the Greek versions, the unity of the og-Dan, the bilingual character of the book, and the Additions. The nature of the Semitic Vorlagen presupposed by the Greek versions of Daniel differs from one version to another. As compared to mt-Dan 1–12, Th-Dan reflects a similar consonantal source text but not one identical to it. A special chapter is subsequently devoted in this monograph to evaluating cases wherein Th-Dan’s readings diverge from mt. The analysis of the differing readings discussed suggests that most of them reflect more original readings.313 A more complex discussion relates to the og’s Vorlage. Whereas og-Dan 1– 3 and 7–12 reflect an mt-like Vorlage, the substantial differences in length and content between the og and mt in chs. 4–6 point to a much more intricate textual situation. The scholarly opinions tended at first to hold the translator accountable for these variations and then to dispute the superiority of mt

312

313

For the textual criticism of the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible in biblical research, we follow the general methodological guidelines presented by Tov in his textual handbooks: Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015); and Textual Criticism, 3rd rev. and enl. ed. (see above n. 273). See ch. 4 § 1–3.

introduction

61

or the og in these chapters. The view adopted in this study reflects the latest research in Danielic studies which, for og-Dan 4–6, postulates an independent, parallel textual tradition.314 Closely related to previous discussions is the analysis of the unity of ogDan. Starting with Albertz,315 this unity was challenged, since he advanced the theory that Daniel 4–6 reflects the work of a distinct translator, his style differing from the reminder of the book (i.e., Daniel 1–3; 7–12). McLay has reached a similar decision, maintaining that “The analysis of og supported the thesis of Albertz that chaps. 4–6 originate from a translator different from the person(s) who translated 1–3; 7–12.”316 However, our view regarding the unity of the og’s translation is informed by the most recent research on this issue which was conducted by Amara. After systematically comparing the translation technique of Daniel 4–6 with the reminder of the book, she unequivocally concluded that og-Dan is the product of a single hand.317 The bilingual character of the book raises the question of either an Aramaic or Hebrew original. However, the earliest witnesses to the book, i.e., the Danielic scrolls from Qumran, document the shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic in Dan 2:4 (cf. 1QDana) and back to Hebrew in Dan 8:1 (cf. 1QDana and 4QDanb), which argue that “the bilingual text as found in mt-Dan reflects the original version of the book.”318 Thus, the evidence from Qumran findings is of much value, reminding us that they reflect the earliest stage in the transmission history of the book that can be referred to with certainty. 314

315

316

317

318

Methodologically, the argument for double parallel editions transmitted side by side, i.e., mt and the og’s Vorlage, is based on the observation that in Daniel 4–6 both textual traditions display simultaneously secondary and more original readings. Rainer Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4–6 in der Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches, sbs 131 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988). McLay, The og and Th Versions, 242. From the same author, see also “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel iv–vi and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” 304–323; “The Greek Translations of Daniel 4–6,” in The Temple in Text and Tradition: A Festschrift in Honour of Robert Hayward, ed. Timothy R. McLay (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark: 2015), 187–214. In Amara’s words, “our findings show that there are no distinctive disagreements between Chapters 4–6 and the other chapters of og-Daniel. Consequently, we can attribute the translation of these chapters to the translator of the rest of the book.” Amara, “The Old Greek Version of Daniel,” iii (abstract). See also Dalia Amara, “Bel and the Dragon: The Relationship Between Theodotion and the Old Greek,” in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir, ed. Cana Werman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 125–147 (126, n. 5). Michael Segal, “18.2.2 Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to mt,” in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, vol. 1C (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 33.

62

chapter 1

The issue of bilingualism further raises the question of whether it influenced the translational process. That is, whether both the og and Th-Dan translators were equally familiar with literary Aramaic, and with rendering Aramaic into Greek as they were with Hebrew. In contrast to the situation with the Hebrew sections, where there were ample examples from many other books from the lxx Pentateuch onwards for rendering locutions and lexemes, with the Aramaic section there could only have been few precedents to guide them. Past studies on the Greek versions of Daniel do not point in this direction. They rather support the view that the translators were skilled in both the Aramaic and Hebrew languages. Our study corroborates such conclusions. While working with the data, we found no significant pattern to indicate that the bisectional character of the book affected the quality of the og’s translation or Th-Dan’s revising technique. Conversely, the same revisional patterns are reflected across both Aramaic and Hebrew sections and were noted while probing consistency, e.g., searches for “cognate words” (ch. 3 A § 1.1.2.1), searching for “restricting equivalents” (ch. 3 A §1.2.1), “semantic equivalent roots” (ch. 3 A § 1.2.2.1), etc.319 The last area of research relates to the Additions to Daniel. The og and ThDan share supplementary material vis-à-vis mt-Dan and Qumran scrolls. These include the Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Young Men (og/ThDan 3:24–90), Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. The Additions give rise to complex questions regarding the language of their composition. Furthermore, they likely reflect secondary, editorial insertions.320 Taking into consideration the complex issues raised by the Additions together with the difficulty of tracing recensional tendencies in the absence of a Semitic Vorlage, this analysis

319

320

In fact, all categories that are discussed in ch. 3 A § 1–5 confirmed that the same patterns run across both Hebrew and Aramaic sections. The same can be maintained about the mechanical techniques presented in sections B § 6–10 and C §12–13 of the same chapter. The secondary, editorial insertion of the additions in og-Dan 3 is argued by McLay, og and Th Versions, 144–146; Amara, “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 293–303; and Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Daniel 3 lxx et son Supplément Grec,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. Adam Simon van der Woude, betl 106 (Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 13–37. Moore has noted the secondary character of all of the lxx additions. Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah, 24–25. Analyzing the ways in which nomina sacra have been rendered in the Additions in og-Dan and Th-Dan, Munnich has put forward an innovative argument, showing that originally Th-Dan did not have any of the Additions. Olivier Munnich, “Les Nomina Sacra dans les versions grecques de Daniel et leurs suppléments deutérocanoniques,” in Κατὰ τοὺς ό: Selon les Septante: trente études sur la Bible grecque des Septante: en hommage à Marguerite Harl, ed. Gilles Dorival and Olivier Munnich (Paris: Cerf, 1995), 145–167. Segal has also pointed out the secondary status of Susanna. Cf. Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 180–182.

introduction

63

confines to only those sections where the Greek texts can be contrasted with a Semitic text, i.e., mt-Dan 1–12.

4

Tools

The comparison of og-Dan, Th-Dan, and mt-Dan is a philological task. Consequently, it greatly benefits from the refined texts, lexica, and electronic tools produced by successive generations of assiduous scholars. Their works warrant our full acknowledgment. The Hebrew text consulted was bhs in its printed and electronic forms. The biblical fragments from Qumran related to Daniel were referred to in their published editiones principes in the djd series and in their electronic forms.321 For the Greek versions of Daniel, we employed the second Göttingen edition, updated by Munnich and Fraenkel; the first Göttingen edition, edited by Ziegler; and Rahlfs’s edition.322 The Hebrew-Aramaic lexica referenced included the standard halot and bdb, as well as the more recent dch. The Greek lexica referenced consisted of the most comprehensive modern lexicon, lsj, as well as other recent Septuagint dictionaries.323 In specific cases, the search for definitions was complemented by theological dictionaries and lexicons such as tdot, twot, tlot, and tdnt. One can hardly imagine performing a textual study today without the use of electronic resources. The present analysis is no exception. The biblical studies software employed in this analysis was Accordance. This program integrates a wide range of databases of original texts and other resources, which are boosted by powerful and precise search capabilities. Among these resources, the catss module deserves a special comment. Developed by Tov and Kraft, the module was designed to replace, in the “virtual” world, the hrcs concordance. Both tools serve the same purpose of identifying Greek equivalents for Semitic lexemes, and both of them were utilized in our analysis. As a rule, the searches were carried out using catss. In special cases in which the alignment was dubious, hrcs was checked for comparison. In addition, the two-way index prepared by Muraoka324 was used as a supplement to hrcs and catss in identifying equivalents between Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek.

321 322 323 324

See ch. 1 § 3. See ch. 1 § 3. E.g., gels; leh; Bernard A. Taylor, Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint, enl. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009). Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek—Hebrew/Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint (Lou-

64 5

chapter 1

Trajectory of the Study

This analysis is designed to demonstrate the character of Th-Dan as a revision. Consequently, each of its subsequent sections is informed and shaped by the standard methodology for determining the quality of a text as a revision. Ch. 2 surveys previous recensional studies. The overview is especially aimed to identify recensional practices visible in other parts of the Septuagint corpus. These practices constitute the background for our discussion about the revisional process in Th-Dan. Ch. 3 confirms in various ways the presence of recensional techniques in Th-Dan. It addresses the differences between og-Dan and Th-Dan and constitutes the main section of our study. The chapter comprises three sections: recensional consistency, recensional techniques, and recensional inconsistencies. Section 3 A demonstrates that Th-Dan displays tendencies of reworking ogDan toward a consistent representation of mt-Dan. The reviser’s techniques are corrective in nature and reveal his high regard for mt. The corrections reflect his tendencies regarding stereotyping, quantitative representation, sequence of words, and linguistic accuracy in rendering the source text. The reviser is sometimes prone to transliteration as an ultimate effort to avoid approximation. Most of the differences between og-Dan and Th-Dan were generated while enacting corrections. Section 3 B brings together recensional techniques which describe the reviser’s attitudes toward the base text. These attitudes are manifest in the ways he treated the first-found og equivalents, partly retained and partly revised og equivalents, and used the og immediate and wider contexts, including exegesis based on remote contexts. These techniques simultaneously show Th-Dan’s tendency to revise for consistency and his dependence on og-Dan. Section 3 C deals with cases of recensional inconsistencies in Th-Dan. Many are likely the result of the influences of the base and source texts on the reviser. Ch. 4 considers differences between Th-Dan and mt-Dan. Th-Dan may or may not agree with og-Dan in these cases. The analysis deals with disparities in phonemes, lexemes, words, and phrases which demonstrably emerged from the reviser’s underlying text. Considering that these incongruences are not the result of recensional techniques, they are analyzed separately. Ch. 5 presents our conclusions. It summarizes the data that affirms the recensional techniques which best describe the modus operandi of the reviser. vain: Peeters, 2010). Part ii of this work contains in a revised form the Appendix 4 (“Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint”) from hrcs.

introduction

65

It then tentatively suggests a resolution to the historical conundrum regarding the Septuagint of Daniel: the replacement of the og with Th-Dan in the history of their mss’ transmission. The analysis ends with the Bibliography and Appendices. The former is grouped under headings such as texts, tools, primary sources, and secondary sources. The latter supplements certain sections of the analysis, enhancing its readability.

chapter 2

The Character of a Revision This chapter establishes the framework of our analysis of the revisional process in Th-Dan. It will briefly discuss previous recensional studies which were produced in modern times. This discussion serves a greater goal: the identification of revising techniques. These recensional idiosyncrasies which have already been noted in the literature function as safeguards to our analysis. In addition, their comparison with our suggested techniques put the contribution of the present analysis in perspective.

1

Previous Recensional Studies

The recensional studies of the twentieth century received a significant boost thanks to Barthélemy’s groundbreaking analysis of the Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets from Naḥal Ḥever.1 As intimated earlier, his monograph, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, especially garnered praise for its case for a new thread of textual witnesses, namely, the Kaige(-Th) tradition. The newly discovered recensional layer attracted the attention of scholars who tested its postulated affiliation with different textual segments per Barthélemy’s theory.2 The studies of the extent and the character of Kaige are numerous. Beside the studies of Schmitt (1966), Grélot (1966), and McLay (1996), which were previously discussed in connection with the Theodotionic problem,3 other names include (chronologically): Shenkel (1968), O’Connell (1972), Bodine (1980), Munnich (1982), Greenspoon (1983), Tov (1990), Gentry (1994), Olofsson (1995), Assan-Dhote (1995), Youngblood (2004), Yi (2005), and Crom (2009). Recensional studies have not been limited to the Kaige recension alone. Though differing in subject matter from the studies above, the contribution of Tov (1976) has further applied the recensional framework to solve intriguing differences in the translational style of sections of Jeremiah.

1 For the complete bibliographical reference of the scroll, see ch. 1 §1.3 (n. 166). Its successive publication by Barthélemy (1963) and Tov (1990) affirms the recensional character of the Greek scroll. 2 See “State of Research,” ch. 1 §§ 1.4.1–4. 3 Ibid., ch. 1 §§ 1.4.1–2.

© Daniel Olariu, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004527881_003

the character of a revision

67

However, not all these studies fit the framework of the chapter in question. On the one hand, scholars like Shenkel,4 Schmitt,5 and Bodine6 have focused on investigating the affiliation of some texts to Kaige. On the other hand, the analyses of Gentry,7 McLay,8 Munnich,9 Assan-Dhote,10 Youngblood,11 Yi,12 and

4

5 6

7

8 9

10

11

12

James Donald Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings, hsm 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968). Shenkel integrates in his investigation on the chronology of the Books of Kings the chronological data from the Greek texts. These are ascribed as containing variants of a more ancient Hebrew tradition. Shenkel positively accepted and argued for the existence of a Kaige layer in the recensional development of the Greek texts, in the following sequential order: the og, Proto-Lucian, the Kaige recension, Origen’s Hexaplaric recension. He lists eight new “recensional characteristics” as pertaining to the type of Kaige in Appendix A. Ibid., 113–116. He further argues in Appendix B that the starting point of the second textual strata in 1Samuel commences at 10:1 and not at 11:1 as Thackeray and Barthélemy previously argued. Ch. 1 § 1.4.2. Walter Ray Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges: Recessional Developments, hsm 23 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980). Among the merits of this study we mention the confirmation of Barthélemy’s intuition that the Vaticanus family of Judges constitutes a member of Kaige tradition; the suggestion of new Kaige idiosyncrasies in Judges Vaticanus; the underscoring of peculiar characteristics of Vaticanus which affirm much variety in style within the Kaige corpus and, implicitly, the theory that a group of individuals rather than a single one was working on Kaige; and the novel suggestion that the sixth Hexaplaric column of Judges includes the revision of the putative Theodotion from the second century. Peter J. Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job, scs 39 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). Gentry has argued that the asterisked materials in Job attributed to Theodotion are in the nature of a de novo translation and suggested that if Kaige would be broadly defined as “a tradition involving an approach or attitude to translation” then Th-Job would belong to it. Ibid., 496. McLay describes Th-Dan as a new translation and rejects any textual affiliation between Th-Dan and Kaige. Cf. ch. 1 § 1.4.2. Olivier Munnich, “Étude Lexicographique du Psautier des Septante” (PhD diss., Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1982). This study argues for the nature of lxx-Ps as an important source for Kaige in determining his lexical equivalencies. Isabelle Assan-Dhote, “La version grecque des Lamentations de Jérémie” (PhD diss., Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1996). The author concludes that lxx-Lam constitutes a member of the Kaige(-Th) group and was translated soon after 70ce. Kevin Joe Youngblood, “Translation Technique in the Greek Lamentations” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004). Youngblood confirms in many respects previous conclusions expressed by Barthélemy, Munnich, and Assan-Dhote: lxx-Lam represents an original translation that fits in the Kaige group, and which often turned to lxx-Ps in searching for equivalents. However, he expresses several caveats in establishing its relationship with other congeners. Yun Yeong Yi, “Translation Technique of the Greek Ecclesiastes” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005). The study underscores the character of lxx-Eccl as a

68

chapter 2

Crom13 underscored the character of certain alleged Kaige texts as de novo translations, either denying or affirming their appurtenance to the Kaige group. Consequently, considering the aim of this chapter, these studies were only briefly mentioned. Precedence is given to those investigations that integrated in their scope reflections either on the general principles at work in the revisional processes or on specific recensional techniques. 1.1 Kevin G. O’Connell14 The analysis undertaken by O’Connell of the readings ascribed to Theodotion in Exodus led him to expand the boundaries of the Kaige corpus. The first two chapters deal with nine selected passages which typify the character of Theodotionic readings in this book. His comments on the textual relationships between lxx, Th, and Aquila in these passages announce the trajectory of his overall argument: the demonstration of an intermediary position held by ThExod as compared with og and Aquila’s texts. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of Exod 28:22–30 (22–26 lxx) led O’Connell to advance the possibility that ThDan “took over an earlier revision of the og and adapted it further toward the present mt.”15 The relationship between Th-Exod and mt is tackled in his next chapter, wherein he evaluates all Th-Exod readings that appear to indicate a different Hebrew text. The conclusion reached affirms the quality of Th-Exod’s Vorlage as being “virtually identical with the present mt.”16 His conclusion contrasts with Barthélemy’s postulate that Kaige reflects a Proto-mt Vorlage. According to Barthélemy, notwithstanding its many similarities, this text differs in many aspects from mt. The dependence of Th-Exod on the og and of Aquila on Th-Exod is affirmed in chs. 4 to 6.17 This judgment is inferred from the commonalities that these texts share with each other, especially some important agreements.

13 14 15 16 17

literal, independent translation. The translator of lxx-Eccl “knew Aquilan, Theodotionic, and Kaige approaches and applied only some of them in his translation.” Ibid., 418. Dries De Crom, “The lxx Text of Canticles: A Descriptive Study in Hebrew-Greek Translation” (PhD diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2009). Kevin G. O’Connell, The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus, hsm 3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). Ibid., 56–109 [56]. Ibid., 110. Ch. 4 is shaped to analyze Theodotionic (partial) agreements with the og, with the shortened or rearranged og, or with one strand of lxx witnesses. Ibid., 164–200. Ch. 5 explores complete and partial Theodotionic agreements with Aquila. Ibid., 201–251. Ch. 6 evidences Aquila’s use of Th-Exod in some selective passages. Ibid., 252–273.

the character of a revision

69

The analysis comes to a close with a probe into the relationship between ThExod and Kaige material elsewhere.18 Toward this end, O’Connell applies the idiosyncrasies suggested by both Barthélemy and Shenkel, and which purportedly constitute the hallmarks of Kaige. The test returns positive. Lastly, O’Connell proposes another thirty-six idiosyncrasies as characterizing Th-Exod, and implicitly, the Kaige recension to which it belongs.19 The study applies Barthélemy’s approach to the readings ascribed to Theodotion.20 In addition to this feature, which is shared by Th-Dan, O’Connell’s analysis is valuable for the purpose of our chapter since it seldom describes how the reviser carried out his work. These reflections concern Theodotion and Aquila equally and inform our knowledge about their degree of consistency. 1.2 Leonard J. Greenspoon21 Greenspoon takes over O’Connell’s postulate about the identification of Kaige materials and applies it to the Theodotionic readings in Joshua.22 His work addresses the character of Th-Josh as a revision,23 its intermediate position between og-Josh and Aquila,24 and the presence of Kaige idiosyncrasies in ThJosh.25 His results indicate that Th-Josh constitutes a revision whose reviser held the og in high regard. This attitude, contends Greenspoon, led the reviser “on occasion to take up non-mt elements into his revision; this respect also provided him with a key to many of the corrections to the mt that he did make, for he often corrected or modified the Greek translation in one passage on the basis 18 19 20

21

22

23 24 25

Ch. 7. Ibid., 274–285. Ch. 8. Ibid., 286–291. O’Connell employs throughout the book Theodotion and Theodotionic as referring “to the man (or men) mainly responsible for the unified version taken up into Origen’s sixth column and labeled θ´ in Hexaplaric witnesses.” He further explains “[S]ince this study confirms Barthélemy’s suggestion […] Theodotion of Ephesus cannot have been its author, although he may well have adopted it for his own use later.” Ibid., 5. Leonard J. Greenspoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua, hsm 28 (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1983). See further the summary of his work by Leonard Greenspoon, “Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus, and the Old Greek Translation of Joshua,” ErIsr 16 (1982): 82–91. Greenspoon, Textual Studies, 2. The postulate reads: “The best way to identify καιγε material is to show its intermediary position between the og and the Aquila, its tendency to revise the og toward the Hebrew text (whether mt or proto-mt) and its sharing of known καιγε stylistic or translational characteristics.” O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, 291. Greenspoon, Textual Studies, 7–205 (ch. 1). Ibid., 219–267 (ch. 2). In addition, Greenspoon integrates in the scope of this chapter the relationship between Th-Josh and Symmachus. Ibid., 269–377 (ch. 3).

70

chapter 2

of similar wording, which he considered more apt, in another.”26 The Hebrew Vorlage to which the reviser corrected the og was virtually identical to the mt. The study affirms Th-Josh’s intermediary position between both og and Aquila and og and Symmachus. However, Greenspoon notes a subtle difference: whereas Aquila used Th-Josh as “the basis” of his revision, Symmachus employed Th-Josh as “a basis” together with a “direct use of the og.”27 Lastly, the analysis positively confirms the affiliation of Th-Josh to the Kaige group. The conclusion is reached despite the fact that “Th.’s application of καιγε translation equivalents was not consistent.”28 The relevance of Greenspoon’s analysis for the goal of this chapter derives from his comments interspersed in Categories 2, 3, and 4, which are discussed in the first chapter of his work. The comments relate to the recensional practices exhibited by Th-Josh as contrasted with mt and the og. These are the categories where Greenspoon demonstrates Th-Josh’s dependence on the og as well as its revision toward mt.29 1.3 Emanuel Tov Tov’s analysis on the lxx-Jer (1976)30 represents a shift from the studies mainly concerned with identifying Kaige materials to an investigation of the relationship between two different translational sections. The book selected was Jeremiah which features pronounced dissimilarities in lexical equivalents between the chs. 1–28 (Jer a′) and 29–52 (Jer b′). Since Tov hypothesized that Jer b′ is in the nature of a revision as compared to Jer a′, he conceived his analysis as a demonstration of a translation-revision as opposed to a two-translation model.31 The demonstration is based on the assessment of both the agreements and the disagreements between Jer a′ and Jer b′. The importance of investigating the former stems from the observation that they feature distinctive agreements. Such examples were identified by Tov and listed in the second chapter

26 27 28 29

30 31

Ibid., 379. Ibid., 219 (see also pp. 279–280). Ibid., 353 (see also p. 380). The conclusion is reached after the examination of ninety-six alleged Kaige characteristics which Greenspoon has culled from previous studies. The study is also informative regarding Aquila’s recensional practices. They can be deduced from the readings culled from Aquila and discussed in first section of ch. 2. Ibid., 235–253. Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8, hsm 8 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). Ibid., 4–11.

the character of a revision

71

of his study.32 In the next two chapters he turned to evaluate the disagreements between Jer a′ and Jer b′. Tov explains these as a result of the recensional reworking that Jer b′ went through.33 Lastly, the analysis traces possible congeners for Jer a′ and Jer b′. The inquiry reveals that the hand of the reviser of Jer b′ is also visible in Bar 1:1–3:8.34 As far as Jer a′ is concerned, the hand of the same translator is distinguished in Ezek a′ and Minor Prophets.35 The identification of the congeners was based on distinctive agreements. In contrast with O’Connell’s and Greenspoon’s, Tov’s study presents the most clearly defined categories of recensional tendencies. Consequently, they are relevant for the framework of this chapter. In addition to the study on lxx-Jer, the preliminary publication of 8ḤevXIIgr by Barthélemy was followed by its official publication by Tov (1990), with the collaboration of Kraft and a contribution by Parsons.36 This study features Tov’s extensive discussion of the scroll’s “Translation Technique, Orthographic Peculiarities and Textual and Textual Relations.”37 The discussion is shaped to systematically demonstrate the character of 8ḤevXIIgr as a revision of the lxx. The tendencies adduced inform our discussion below.

2

Recensional Techniques38

The aforementioned investigations along with other shorter studies have advanced and refined scholarly understanding regarding recensional practices in late antiquity. Excepting Tov’s study (1976), these practices mainly regarded

32 33 34

35 36

37 38

Ibid., 19–40. Ibid., 41–91. Ch. 5. Ibid., 93–109. There were two types of agreements explored between Bar and Jer b′: (1) from quotations from Jer b′, and (2) from outside the quotations from Jer b′. The number of agreements of the latter group outnumbers the former, mitigating the possibility of Bar’s borrowing from the lxx of Jer b′. Ibid., 113–114, 125. Ch. 6. Ibid., 135–155. Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, Greek Minor Prophets Scroll (see ch. 1 §1.2.3.1 [n. 166]). The study is appended by a Greek Index (pp. 159–169) and Plates. For a Hebrew-Greek index, see Dries De Crom, “A Hebrew-Greek Index of 8ḤevXIIgr,” RevQ 95 (2010): 331–349. Greek Minor Prophets Scroll, 99–158 (Part F). The recensional techniques reviewed below pertain to the pre-Hexaplaric revisions. In addition to these, there were other recensions circulating in late antiquity, generally referred to as post-Hexaplaric or Christian revisions. For literature, see Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 46–56; 281–283; Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 223– 257; and Munnich, “Le text de la Septante,” 162–173.

72

chapter 2

Kaige materials, which were characterized as recensions. The connection of Kaige with the version attributed to Theodotion created such an impression that scholars described his habits as a reviser who, together with Aquila and Symmachus, was among the first Jewish revisers. Our discussion regarding recensional techniques is not affected, however, by the incomplete knowledge regarding the extent and the nature of Theodotion’s legacy as a translator/reviser.39 Neither is it affected by the acceptance or rejection of the texts of the aforementioned investigations as forming part from the Kaige tradition. Regardless of whether it is independent or text-affiliated, the assumption is that a revision would attest similar tendencies. These tendencies constitute the framework within which the nature of Th-Dan as a recension will be demonstrated. 2.1 Kaige(-Th)’s Recensional Techniques In order to prove the character of 8ḤevXIIgr as a revision, Barthélemy has analyzed in a detailed fashion nine of the scroll’s verses: Mic 5:3; Nah 2:6, 7; Hab 1:16; 2:6–7, 18, 20; 3:14. The analysis entailed a comparison of these verses with lxx and mt, which confirmed a common basis shared by 8ḤevXIIgr with lxx. In addition, Barthélemy has noted several tendencies by which the 8ḤevXIIgr’s reviser aimed to bring lxx closer to mt. His reflections not only typified the practices of the Kaige reviser, but they also informed the subsequent expectations of what a revision entails. According to Barthélemy, the Kaige recensional process consists of an effort to delete unattested additions in the putative Vorlage of 8ḤevXIIgr; to delete “foreign” elements in the double readings; to delete superfluous articles, conjunctions, and possessive pronouns; to add the omitted conjunctions; to render more precisely the conjunctions, the particles, the verb’s tenses and moods; to correct the number of verbs, nouns, and possessive pronouns; to correct the person of the possessives; and to more precisely represent the meaning of the Hebrew words.40 The profile of 8ḤevXIIgr’s reviser, contends Barthélemy, is further visible in the way he used specialized equivalents. Because of this tendency, the reviser reserved some equivalents for certain roots in accordance with lxx usage.41 In other cases, he aimed to maintain derivates from the same Greek root for 39

40 41

McLay writes that “there are difficulties in determining the exact nature and extent of his [Theodotion’s] work. […] However, it has been shown that books such as Daniel and Job cannot be connected with kaige. Thus, the nature and extent of kaige-Theodotion remain in question.” Timothy R. McLay, “Theodotion,” edb, 1297. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 196–197. At this point Barthélemy suggests that lxx-Ps influenced the equivalents preferred by 8ḤevXIIgr’s reviser. Munnich embraced this idea and developed it further. See above n. 9.

the character of a revision

73

derivates from the same Semitic root.42 These tendencies generated Hebraistic readings, importing the Semitic flavor into the target language. Wevers supports Barthélemy’s principles for identifying revisions, applying them to the first two columns of Jonah from 8ḤevXIIgr.43 In this regard, he concedes that “What is abundantly clear from Barthélemy is just what a recension looks like.” Wevers suggests three norms to identify a revision.44 The first refers to the possibility of identifying the revised text as “shining through” the alleged recension. The second proposes the mt as the “standard used for determining what needs revision and what can be left unrevised.”45 The recensional tendencies which are noted by Wevers in the two columns regard changes in number, articulation, word order, filling in minuses, changing of idiomatic translations with literal ones, and at times the recognitions in the reviser’s work of “reverence for the Jewish sensibilities of his time.”46 The third norm highlights the need for consistency in the use of equivalents in the perceived recension.47 The discussions of Barthélemy and Wevers regarding the recensional features of the 8ḤevXIIgr scroll receive further support from the systematic analysis of Tov (1990). These features emerge from the contrastive study of lxx and 8ḤevXIIgr as regards the Hebrew article, lamed with the infinitive construct, construct words, pronominal suffixes, direct object marker, tenses of the verbs, and simplex and composite verbs.48 In addition, Tov’s treatment of the synonymous parts of speech and the approximations to the Hebrew text and language (e.g. lexical meaning of Hebrew words, exact representation of Hebrew constituent elements, formal approximation of number, cases, and persons, addition and omission of elements, and transpositions) evidences the character of 8ḤevXIIgr as a recension.49 These recensional tendencies also characterize the Theodotionic materials of Exodus and Joshua dealt with by O’Connell and Greenspoon, respectively. In both translational units the reviser(s) display(s) similar traits of standardizing the equivalents for certain Hebrew words, adding material lacking in

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Ibid., 197. “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies,” 23–34. Compare with Barthélemy’s three criteria for a revision mentioned in “A Reexamination of the Textual Problems in 2 Sam 11:2–1 Kings 2:11,” 17–19. Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies,” 31. Ibid., 31–32. Ibid., 32. Tov, Greek Minor Prophets Scroll, 106–128. Ibid., 103, 128–140. The brief discussion on consistency at pp. 140–141 as well as the list of readings in which 8ḤevXIIgr agrees with mt against lxx at pp. 148–151 add to the argument that the Greek scroll represents a consistent revision.

74

chapter 2

the og, eliminating elements which are not reflected in mt, and representing more faithfully such as number, pronominal suffixes, etc. These recensional techniques correspond to those noted by Barthélemy, Wevers, and Tov about 8ḤevXIIgr revision. The studies above have led to overarching generalizations regarding the character of Kaige(-Th) recensions as systematic. However, the quotes adduced below underscore a significant aspect inherent to recensional activity, namely the presence of inconsistencies in these works: L’ouvre [8ḤevXIIgr] de notre recenseur apparaît comme une première ébauche imparfaite d’abord préoccupée de littéralisme superficiel. Le recenseur relâche souvent sa vigilance lorsqu’une correction le préoccupe déjà. Il lui arrive d’oublier des mots lorsqu’il reprend sa copie de lxx après une correction.50 As Th. revised the og, on occasion he retained non-mt elements he found there, even as he changed and corrected its wording in other respects. There is no doubt that Th. was a careful revisor, but also a human one, whose high regard for the Greek text with which he worked is evident in his attempts to incorporate its wording and style in the examples presented in this section and elsewhere. […] Our understanding of Th. as a careful, but human revisor is.51 Th.’s revising in these cases shows an attempt to arrive at more precise, more literal reflections of the mt. In many cases his concern is to standardize Greek equivalents for certain Hebrew words or phrases. […] This effort to standardize often shows Th.’s affinity to the og even as he revises it. In some cases we are unable to determine what led Th. to reject the og; however, there if little to suggest whim or caprice. The pattern that we trace leads unmistakably to the conclusion that there was method, although not pursued with the utmost rigor (cf. Aq[uila]), in Th.’s practice.52 Theodotion does not always restrict himself to a single Greek equivalent for a given Hebrew word, but in general these variations cannot be used to prove the existence of variant readings in Theodotion’s Hebrew

50

51 52

“The work of our reviser appears a first imperfect draft, initially concerned with superficial literalism. The reviser often loosens up his vigilance when a correction already preoccupies him. He sometimes forgets words when he resumes copying the lxx after a correction.” Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 197–198 (my translation). Greenspoon, Textual Studies, 57. Ibid., 83.

the character of a revision

75

text. Since all investigations along these lines have been inconclusive, no attempt is made to list the various instances of lexical inconsistency.53 This revision, while complete and thorough, occasionally left discrepancies between the og and the mt uncorrected. These are attributable to inadvertence on Theodotion’s part rather than to deliberate intent.54 Notwithstanding that all of these reflections underscore the systematic character of recensional procedures, they concurrently add the caveat that inconsistencies are to be expected. Inquiry into recensional practices scrutinizes a “human reviser,” as Greenspoon has phrased it. This caveat advises against the problematic reasoning of negating the recensional character of a text because of the presence of inconsistencies. The human aspect which gave rise to many recensional inconsistencies is presumably inadvertence.55 Whether we refer to the reviser’s failure to maintain lexical consistency, to fill in minuses, to eliminate pluses, or to precisely reproduce the source text, these inconsistencies underscore his inherent limitations. In addition, there are other factors which may have obstructed a reviser’s ability to perfectly apply his principles. The recensional effort for a certain book or a translation unit was likely a long process. When a reviser resumed his work after a lapse of time, there is a high probability that lexical inconsistencies found their way into the new text, while the reviser refreshed his (virtual) “list” of equivalents.56 By the same token, the longer the translational unit and the larger the lexical stock, the more difficult the task of maintaining consistency.

53 54 55

56

O’Connell, Theodotionic Revision, 160. Ibid., 199. Many of the inconsistencies noted by Barthélemy in 8ḤevXIIgr may be attributed to inadvertence, e.g., inconsistency in eliminating the connective particle “and” and the article in conformity to the mt. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 184[j], 182[o], etc. He also has first advanced the observation that Kaige(-Th) reviser has not aimed stereotyping but was rather influenced by Psalms in his equivalent’s selection. Ibid., 182[n], 184[i]. O’Connell overtly underscores “inadvertence” while discussing the differences between Th-Exod and the mt. Theodotionic Revision, 140–141. Furthermore, the presence of occasional inconsistencies does not impede him to characterize Th-Josh as a systematic revision: “This revision, while complete and thorough, occasionally left discrepancies between the og and the mt uncorrected. These are attributable to inadvertence on Theodotion’s part rather than to deliberate intent.” Ibid., 199. A similar mechanical argument is presented by Greenspoon to defend the lack of consistency in the use of Kaige equivalents by the Th-Josh reviser when he writes that “[W]e must also allow for certain lapses during the long process of preparing his recension.” Greenspoon, Textual Studies, 353.

76

chapter 2

Additional factors to be considered as a source for inconsistencies relate to the reviser’s times, community, ideology, and personal concerns. These constraints can find expression in certain exegetical elements introduced in his revision. As a rule, they are expected to show up in lesser extent in a revision than in an independent translation. However, when they appear, they are of much value to recover just a bit from the reviser’s background, otherwise clouded by his propensity to literalism. Barthélemy has championed ideological interference in the case of the Kaige(-Th) reviser, construing his profile as markedly indebted to the Jewish rabbinical forces of the first century ce. Lastly, the recensional enterprise does not presuppose a reviser’s superior qualification as a linguist in comparison to the translator of the base text. Both have their limitations in knowledge. For the reviser, however, this limitation represents another source of inconsistencies in his goal of approximating the source text in the target language quantitatively and qualitatively. The studies of the Kaige tradition have integrated in their scope comparison with materials ascribed to Aquila. We turn now to highlight some of the latter’s recensional techniques, which have secured him a place in the history of Septuagint studies on account of his propensity towards acute literalism. 2.2 Aquila’s Recensional Techniques Consensus regards Aquila as a Jewish proselyte and places him in the Pontus region.57 It is further contended that his translational approach was influenced by his mentor Rabbi Akiba, who deemed every letter and word of Scripture as meaningful. This hermeneutic principle seemingly informed his recensional effort, which aimed to implement a sophisticated set of equivalents. Aquila demonstrably worked toward assigning a certain Greek root and its derivates to each Semitic root and its derivates. A few samples will suffice to document his approach.58 Expectedly, Aquila regularly renders the particle ‫ ְו‬with καί. However, when he encounters the

57

58

The similarity between the names Aquila (‫ )עקילס‬and Onqelos (‫ )אונקולוס‬has led to the conjecture that they might represent one and the same person. Meir Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas (Vienna: Israelitische-theologische Lehranstalt, 1896); Alec Eli Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos (Manchester: Manchaster University Press, 1931). For a recent evaluation of the ancient sources regarding Aquila, see Labendz, “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity,” 353–388. For further discussion on Aquila’s techniques, see Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 115–117; Munnich, “Le text de la Septante,” 145–147; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 38–40; Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, 76–83; Swete, Introduction, 31– 42.

the character of a revision

77

additive particle ‫ ַגּם‬he employs καίγε (e.g., Exod 4:10; 7:11), and for the composite ‫ ְו ַגם‬he sometimes translates it with the peculiar καί καίγε (e.g., 2 Kgs 23:15, 19, 24).59 Demonstrably, his style prioritizes quantitative representation. This feature seemingly arises from Aquila’s effort to render even the direct object marker ‫—את‬nota accusativi—with either a corresponding definite Greek article or with σύν “with.” The latter equivalency was probably inspired by the analogy with the preposition ‫“ את‬with.”60 Aquila’s ingenuity is markedly reflected in the way he differentiated between the synonymous derivates of the same Hebrew root. Rahlfs exemplifies in a study61 how Aquila rendered (1) ‫אֶמר‬ ֹ or ‫ ֵאֶמר‬with λόγος, but ‫ ִאְמ ָרה‬with λόγιον; ֹ with ἀκριβασμός, but (2) ‫ ַחָטּאת‬with ἁμαρτία, but ‫ ֵחְטא‬with ἁμάρτημα; (3) ‫חק‬ ‫ ֻחָקּה‬with ἀκρίβεια; (4) ‫ ַיַחד‬with ἅμα, but ‫ ַיְח ָדּו‬with ὁμοῦ; (5) ‫ ְישׁוָּﬠה‬or ‫ ְתּשׁוָּﬠה‬with σοτηρία, but ‫ ֵיַשׁע‬with σοτήριον; (6) ‫ ְכּ‬with ὡς, but ‫ ְכּמוֹ‬with ὁμοίως or ὁμοίος; (7) ‫ ִמְכשׁוֹל‬with σκάνδαλον, but ‫ ַמְכֵשָׁלה‬with σκανδαλισμός; (8) ‫ ְצ ָדָקה‬with δικαιοσύνη, but ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬with δίκαιον; (9) ‫ ֵקץ‬with τέλος, but ‫ֵקֶצה‬, ‫ָקֶצה‬, ‫ ָקָצה‬with τέλεσμα or τελευταῖον; (10) ‫ ַרע‬with κακόν, but ‫ ָרָﬠה‬with κακία. Rahlfs contends there were two criteria which apparently determined the selection of Aquila’s Greek equivalents in such cases: (1) the maintenance of the gender of the Hebrew words in Greek;62 (2) the approximate maintenance of the length of the word in translation.63 Aquila’s style is impressive in terms of its propensity toward acute literalism. However, like Kaige’s reviser(s), the data indicate he was a “human reviser” too. This aspect is visible through the inconsistences in his style which permeates the readings attributed to him. Aquila has systematically applied his principles but not in an absolute fashion. Though one does find the use of καί καίγε for

59

60 61

62

63

Francis Crawford Burkitt, “Aquila,” jqr 10 (1898): 207–216. See also by the same author Fragments of the Book of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897). Burkitt, “Aquila,” 209–210. Leonhard Lütkemann and Alfred Rahlfs, “Hexaplarischen Randnoten zu Isaias 1–16, aus einer Sinai-Handschrift,” msu 1 (1915): 231–386 (240–241, n. 2). The summary of his previous remarks on the translation style of Aquila is presented in Rahlfs, “History of the Septuagint Text,” xxxvii–xl. Rahlfs asserts that the tendency shown by Aquila was to the Greek masculine and neuter genders to be both represented by the Hebrew masculine. Rahlfs, “History of the Septuagint Text,” lx. The suggested rule states that “a lengthier Hebrew word was rendered by a correspondingly long Greek word.” He points that “the crowning-point of the translation ingenuity” is accomplished when he singles out equivalents with the same number of letters as of the Hebrew words. For instance, ἅμα and ὁμοῦ perfectly match with ‫ יחד‬and ‫יחדו‬, respectively, the latter even reproducing the same ending letter (υ for ‫)ו‬. Ibid.

78

chapter 2

‫וגם‬, this equivalency is rather exceptional than the norm. Not only is καίγε frequently employed for ‫וגם‬,64 but it also renders ‫גם‬.65 Inconsistencies further arise in his lexical choices. Aquila did not always succeed in coining and/or maintaining the same set of equivalents for the same Semitic roots everywhere. At times he had to show contextual sensitivity and to be alert to the different meaning of a lexeme. In other cases, we can argue for inadvertence on his part. For instance, the root ‫“ קרא‬to call” was rendered variously by Aquila: βοάω “to cry out”;66 καλέω “to call,” “to summon,” “to invite”;67 ἀναγινώσκω “to read”;68 ἀπαντάω “to come before,” “to meet,” “to encounter”;69 and ἐπικαλέω “to call on.”70 By the same token, Aquila uses βοάω to render not only ‫ קרא‬but two synonymous roots as well: ‫“ צעק‬to cry out”71 and ‫“ זעק‬to cry out.”72 Furthermore, Aquila occasionally deviates from his style. O’Connell documents his peculiar lexical selection of δέ to replace the og’s καί in Exod 32:25.73 Similarly he observes Aquila’s lack of consistency in rendering the nota accusative with σύν,74 and twice his disagreement in representing the number of mt suffixes.75

64 65 66

67 68

69 70 71 72 73

74 75

Exod 3:9; Joel 4[3]:4; Zech 9:2; 11:8; Jer 34[43]:25; Ezek 9:10. Exod 4:10; 7:11; Ruth 1:12; 1 Sam 19:20, 24; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2Kgs 23:15; Ps 19[18]:14; 25[24]:3; 51[50]:10; Isa 7:13; etc. Gen 41:43; 1 Sam 26:14. Aquila has demonstrably employed βοάω because of his context sensitivity. Indeed, ‫ קרא‬denotes in each case the action of “crying out,” “shouting.” In Genesis there are people assigned to shout “Make way!” before Joseph’s chariot, while in 1 Samuel, David addresses Abner and his soldiers from afar by “crying out.” Gen 1:52X, 8, 102X; 4:26; 1 Sam 9:24; 2 Sam 12:25; Ps 3:5; 28[27]:1; etc. Καλέω also renders once the root ‫“ לקח‬to take” in Jer 43[50]:10. Isa 34:16; 37:14; Jer 51[28]:61; 36[43]:15. ‫ קרא‬denotes in these instances the action “to read loud,” suggesting that Aquila was sensitive to the context when has selected his equivalents. Jer 44[51]:23. Ἀπαντάω has been mainly used to rendered ‫ פגע‬in qal and hiphil (Isa 47:3; Jer 7:16; 15:11; 36[43]:25). Pss 61[60]:3; 86[85]:7; 130[129]:1; Isa 12:4; Jer 4:20; 29:12[36:11]. Ἐπικαλέω further renders ‫“ סגר‬to shut” in Gen 2:21. Job 19:7; Isa 33:7. Jer 11:11; 30[37]:15. The reading in question concerns ‫וירא‬, which was rendered in og-Exod with και ιδων. Th-Exod seemingly corrected it with και ειδεν but Aquila and Symmachus attest ειδεν δε. O’Connell comments that “[T]he substitution of δε for og και by Aquila and Symmachus is unusual, especially in Aquila’s version (where og δε is regularly replaced by και to reflect the Hebrew conjunction w-).” Theodotionic Revision, 13 (no. 1). Ibid., 13 (nos. 3–4). Ibid., 141 (nos. 78–79). O’Connell suggests that “[T]his is probably due to inadvertence, rather than to variants in Theodotion’s or Aquila’s Hebrew text.”

the character of a revision

79

These examples, together with many others that can be culled from Aquilan readings, indicate limitations even to Aquila’s purportedly acute revision. They inform our thinking about revisions—the scholar has constantly to be reminded that revisers are not infallible. 2.3 Symmachus’s Recensional Techniques The religious affiliation of Symmachus is disputed due to the conflicting accounts of Eusebius and Jerome on the one hand, and Epiphanius, on the other. The former contend that Symmachus was a proselyte of Samaritan origin, while the latter affiliate him with the Jewish-Christian sect of Ebionites.76 The version attributed to him is generally referred to as the latest preHexaplaric revision and was produced by the beginning of the third century ce. Demonstrably, Symmachus has employed both Theodotion and lxx as base texts for his revision.77 His style departs from some literalistic tendencies displayed by the Kaige(-Th) or Aquila recensions, having as his main objective to produce a revision more sensitive to the target language.78 Consequently, research on Symmachus’s style and techniques79 indicates his propensity to eliminate Hebraistic constructions presumed to be in his base text,80 to employ

76 77

78

79

80

Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, 16; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.17 (npnf2 1:276); Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (npnf2 3:373–374). This conclusion at least applies to the textual relationships in Joshua, as demonstrated by Greenspoon’s study. Textual Studies, 262. Other agreements between Symmachus and Theodotion were singled out in deuterocanonical materials of Daniel by Schmitt. Their interpretation as an indication that the Additions are tantamount to Symmachus’s revision has attracted the criticism of Barthélemy. Schmitt, Stammt der Sogenannte “θ′”-Text, 110–111; Armin Schmitt, “Die griechischen Danieltexte (“θ′” und ο′),” 1–29; Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament Tome 3: Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes, obo 50/3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1992), 178. This characterization goes as back as Jerome’s notes which contrast Symmachus’s style with Aquila’s. The former style was described as attempting “word for word” representation while latter the “the general meaning.” Preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (npnf2 6:483–484); Jerome of Stridon, Preface to Job (npnf2 6:491–492). Alison Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph 15 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1991); José Ramón Busto Sáiz, La traducción de Símaco en el libro de los Salmos, Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros 22 (Madrid: csic, 1985); José Gonzalez Luis, “La versión de Simaco a los Profetas Mayores” (PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1981). E.g., Symmachus prefers (1) a participle plus a finite verb instead of two finite verbs coordinated by the conjunction καί which render in lxx the Hebrew paratactic constructions; (2) the genitive absolute for infinitive constructs with inseparable preposition -‫ ;ב‬etc. See further the examples culled by Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 130–131 and Gentry, “Pre-Hexaplaric Translations,” 227–228.

80

chapter 2

greater variety of equivalents than Aquila, and to modify the literal sense because of improper language related to the deity or other exegetical interests.81 2.4 Recensional Techniques in Jer b′ Tov has argued that Jer b′ represents the style of an anonymous reviser who independently worked to bring his base text, which was partly preserved in Jer a′, toward a closer representation of the mt. His recensional technique displays tendencies to replace unfit og-Jer equivalents. Consequently, the reviser sought to replace imprecise with more precise renditions,82 to correct those renditions which were perceived as translating incorrectly the source text,83 to replace non-stereotyped (free) with stereotyped (literal) renditions,84 and to employ in a more consistent way renditions which he had found in og-Jer.85 In addition, Tov lists in a separate chapter synonymous readings, i.e. two different equivalents for a Hebrew lexeme “which are not more literal or consistent than the renditions they replaced,”86 and posits that these are to be expected in a revision. The translation-revision theory regarding Septuagint Jeremiah is still debated. While Soderlund has raised questions regarding the effectiveness of the distinct similarities between Jer a′and Jer b′,87 Pietersma has taken issue with the samples adduced to demonstrate recensional tendencies in Jer b′.88 Conversely, the fresh analysis of the issues involved by Tucker corroborated Tov’s

81 82 83 84

85

86 87

88

E.g., Symmachus corrects “other gods” with “false gods” in Deut 31:20 and “the sons of God” with the “powerful ones,” etc. Cf. Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 131. Tov, Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch, 46–52 (examples nos. 1–11). Ibid., 52–17 (nos. 12–17). Ibid., 55–68. The samples are grouped into two subcategories: (a) Greek 1 (non-stereotyped) in Jer a′ versus Greek 2 (stereotyped) in Jer b′ (nos. 18–33); (b) Greek 1 (stereotyped) and Greek 2 in Jer a′ versus Greek 2 (stereotyped) only in Jer b′ (nos. 34–41). Ibid., 69–74. The samples are grouped into three subcategories: (a) Greek 1 and Greek 2 in Jer a′ versus Greek 1 only in Jer b′ (no. 42); (b) Greek 1 (= Hebrew 1 and Hebrew 2) in Jer a′ versus Greek 1 (= Hebrew 1) and Greek 2 (= Hebrew 2) in Jer b′ (no. 43); and (c) exegetical consistency (nos. 44–48). Ibid., 93. Sven K. Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis, JSOTSupp 47 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1985), 153–192. He also discusses the differences which Tov attributes to recensional processes. However, Soderlund gives more weight to the validation of the criterion of distinct similarities in the overall argument for a translation-revision theory. Albert Pietersma, “Of Translation and Revision: From Greek Isaiah to Greek Jeremiah” in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Michaël N. van der Meer et al., VTSup 138 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 359–387.

the character of a revision

81

conclusion.89 However, for the purpose of this chapter, Tov’s reflections are useful: they spell by means of clear-cut categories the core tendency of a putative reviser to rework his base text in order to consistently represent his underlying Semitic text. 2.5 Evaluation The aforementioned studies have greatly contributed to the understanding of the recensional phenomenon in late antiquity. A main contribution concerns the methods for testing the quality of a text as a revision.90 The present analysis is informed by the previous reflections, which described the character of alleged revisions. Foremost, the scholarly literature emphasizes the necessity that a revision embeds readings from its base text. That is to say, the base text has to “shine through” in the perceived revision.91 It has been recently underscored that common strings of words cannot always be taken as proof for a common basis; it is rather argued that significant agreements represent the best testing principle to demonstrate a shared basis between the base text and the alleged revision. As already stated,92 this analysis accepts and builds on this criterion. Having demonstrated the influence of og-Dan on Th-Dan by means of distinctive agreements, it is now methodologically valid to investigate the revisional process in Th-Dan.93 Another methodological contribution regards the emphasis on identifying recensional techniques as a sine qua non condition for a text as a revision. The aforementioned studies may differ in spelling out the overall revising principle (e.g., Hebraizing tendency, literal tendency, etc.), but, at its core, they hold the expectation for more pronounced consistency in the alleged revised text than in the base text. Pietersma has indicated the need for both “external” and “internal” standards to prove consistency. “Internal consistency,” clarifies Pietersma, “will refer to the consistency with which a specific Hebrew item (e.g., a word,

89

90

91 92 93

Miika Tucker, “The Septuagint of Jeremiah: A Study in Translation Technique and Recensions” (PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2020). See further idem, “Using Recurring Hebrew Phrases to Evaluate a Septuagint Translation: Jeremiah 11:1–14 as a Case Study,” in xv Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Munich, 2013, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Michaël N. van der Meer, and Martin Meiser, scs 64 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 497–508. Kraft, “Reassessing the Impact,” 1–28. Kraft at p. 3 (n. 10) credits Barthélemy for shaping our understanding of what a revision is, and to the difference between a revision and an edition. Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies,” 31. Ch. 1 § 3 “Methodology.” Ch. 1 § 1.4.2.

82

chapter 2

phrase or construction) is rendered within a given block of text.”94 As far as the standard of “external consistency” is concerned, he further explains that it “will indicate the degree to which a given rendering of the Hebrew item conforms to some demonstrable norm,” i.e. “point of reference.”95 This “point of reference” concerns in the case of a revision its base text. That is to say Pietersma argues for adequate standards to test consistency in a text which is alleged to be a revision. We accept the caveats suggested by Pietersma, though we reject its problematic application to Jer b′. Whereas they make sense in assessing stereotyping, they are inappropriate in evaluating recensional corrections of imprecise, erroneous, or exegetical renditions.96 The same criticism holds true in assessing “internal consistency” where, in addition to its stereotyped equivalent, a reviser can use on rare occasions a second (or third) equivalent for a Semitic lexeme.97 The recensional studies discussed above have furthered our knowledge about two types of revisions, namely, Hebraizing and non-Hebraizing. The status quo in scholarship assigns to the former type the Kaige(-Th) and Aquila revisions. In the case of the Kaige revision(s) it is assumed that they form part of a broader scribal tradition which shares the same view on translation technique, namely, a literal approach. This tradition may include both independent and revised texts. Measured by their literalism, these texts suggest a sort of typology “of a non-homogeneous tradition of increasing formal correspondence in translation.”98 At the very end of this spectrum of literalness stands Aquila’s revision. It is claimed that independent translations such as Ecclesiastes and Canticles should be placed close by. Importantly, neither Aquila’s revision nor its closest literally-translated texts are free of inconsistencies.99 Literal revisers and 94

95

96 97

98 99

Pietersma, “Translation and Revision,” 368. In addition, he uses the following notation to measure “internal consistency”: +1 for those cases where the same rendition translates the source item in each of its occurrences; –1 for those cases where the source idem is translated with more than one equivalent; and with zero for the cases where there is not enough information to determine consistency. Ibid., 368–369. The same notation is applied by Pietersma to measure “external consistency,” +1 and –1 denoting a higher degree of consistency and a lower degree of consistency, respectively, in the revised text than the base text. Zero is used to describe the cases where no conclusion about consistency can be made. Ibid., 369–375. E.g., Pietersma goes against his rule in analyzing Item 38 (‫)ידע‬. Though Jer a′ displays four renditions (γινώσκω, οἶδα, ἐπίσταμαι, ἐπιγινώσκω) and Jer b′ two (γινώσκω, οἶδα), he marks both internal and external consistency with +1, for each section. Gentry, “Pre-Hexaplaric Translations,” 225. For samples of inconsistencies in Aquila’s work, see our discussion above. Because of its

the character of a revision

83

translators at times deviated from their own principles unconsciously because of inadvertence. Equally, conscious decisions may have generated inconsistencies too, because of grammatical, exegetical, and linguistic constraints. The best specimen of non-Hebraizing revisions is probably the version produced by Symmachus. Expectedly, its concern for representing the meaning of the source text in the target language gave rise to lexical inconsistencies as well. This analysis integrates in its scope the test of recensional consistency. In light of the various recensional techniques noted above, we suggest four broader categories which demonstrably cover all major aspects of consistency: (1) stereotyping; (2) quantitative representation; (3) linguistic accuracy; and (4) word-order. It will be shown in ch. 3 A that Th-Dan meets all the traits of a revision. In addition, the analysis will also highlight other recensional techniques which are informative regarding the modus operandi of the reviser. high literalism, the attribution of Ecclesiastes to Aquila was debated. It also attained its place at the end of a process of the evolving literal method, probably just preceding Aquila in terms of the perfected literal translation method. However, Aitken notes that even in the slavishly literal approach of Ecclesiastes we find variation presumably due to poetical equivalents, e.g., the use of νέφος and νεφέλη in 11:3–4. James K. Aitken, “Ecclesiastes,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. James K. Aitken, Bloomsbury Companions (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 359.

chapter 3

The Characterization of the Revisional Process in Th-Daniel 1–12 This chapter seeks to affirm the character of Th-Dan as a literal revision. Methodologically, it builds on the preceding chapter which create the framework for this chapter’s analysis. Chapter 2 presented the state of knowledge regarding recensional studies and recensional techniques. This prior research informs us and provides some guidelines regarding what a recension should look like. In addition, considering that our investigation on the criterion of the common basis between og-Dan and Th-Dan returned positive results,1 it methodologically warrants inquiry into the modus operandi of the reviser. Ch. 3 comprises three sections: A. Recensional Consistency, B. Recensional Techniques, and C. Recensional Inconsistencies. The first section aims to demonstrate the reviser’s adherence to the norm of faithfully representing his parent text. Section B describes recensional tendencies which are visible in the way the reviser has utilized og-Dan and the wider lxx context for determining lexical equivalents. Section C covers special examples which indicate the reviser’s exegesis as a source for inconsistencies. Each of these sections explains aspects of the relationships between mtDan, og-Dan, and Th-Dan. The first type of relationship is discernible when mt-Dan and Th-Dan agree with each other against og-Dan (i.e., mt=Th≠og). These discrepancies are explained in section A as the result of various recensional strategies seeking to bring the base text closer in content and layout to the source text—the reviser’s mt-like text. The recensional techniques discussed in section B describe the relationship between Th-Dan and og-Dan or Th-Dan and the remainder of the lxx. It will be argued that both the immediate and larger contexts of the og and lxx were the reviser’s source of inspiration for determining his equivalents. Section C assesses the nature of certain cases which diverge from the reviser’s style. It thus takes on the issue of inconsistencies in a recension, a subject which has received little attention in recensional studies.2 It will be argued that both the og’s influence on Th-Dan and the special nature of mt caused such inconsistencies.3 1 Ch. 1 § 1.4.2 (and § 2). 2 Chs. 2 §§ 1–2; 3 C §§ 12–13. 3 There are other types of relationships among the three textual witnesses. The situation when

© Daniel Olariu, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004527881_004

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12

85

Two observations are in order for a proper appreciation of the data collated in this chapter. First, the analysis is intuitive in its approach. Accordingly, it does not aim to statistically describe the translation character of either og-Dan or Th-Dan in relationship with mt-Dan; its goal is rather to present tendencies which were phenomenologically singled out through a detailed comparison of these texts. Each tendency will be affirmed below by a select number of examples, and these supply information about the inner forces at work in the recensional process. A detailed substantiation of each tendency would go far beyond the space limits of this study, and furthermore, the complete description and statistics of the data constitute the desideratum of two other larger projects.4 Second, the cases adduced to exemplify the reviser’s recensional technique mainly regard lexemes and words.5 They omit cases pertaining to certain grammatical features such as connective ‫ ְו‬/καί, singular and plural forms of nouns and verbs, active and passive forms of verbs, the article, tenses, and conjugations of verbs. The rationale for the exclusion of these features regards subtle methodological considerations related to the question of whether such differences are variants or non-variants. Drawing his insights on the general evidence from both the translation and the Hebrew manuscripts, Tov considers that “it is almost impossible to evaluate deviations in the lxx in many grammatical categories.”6 We therefore strengthen the accuracy of our analysis by the they all agree (Th-Dan=og-Dan=mt) presuppose a shared textual basis. Though such agreements can theoretically point to a common basis, we substantiated our argument based on distinctive equivalents. See ch. 1 § 1.4.2. In addition, we will address situations when ThDan differs from mt-Dan. These differences are discussed in ch. 4 §§1–3, and the examples selected support the claim that they are signs of a differing underlying text based on which the reviser undertook his revision. 4 The two research projects that I refer to here are my own. The first consists of a commentary on Septuagint Daniel within the series of the Society of Biblical Literature Commentary on the Septuagint edited by Robert Hiebert and Cameron Boyd-Taylor. The second relates to the production of a concordance of Septuagint Daniel, namely, A Two-Way Hebrew/Aramaic— Greek Concordance to Theodotion and Old Greek Texts of Daniel. 5 Our definitions for “lexeme” and “word” follow that of Long: “Lex(eme) is the typically foundational element of a word or lexical item . … The consonantal root underlying a word may be considered the lexeme; for example, the root √mlk is the lexeme underlying ‫ ֶמֶלְך‬king or ‫ ַמְלָכּה‬queen.” Furthermore, a word “is a language building block composed of a lexeme and all morphemes,” where a “morpheme is the smallest or minimal block of language that is meaningful and recurrent for word-building in a language.” Gary A. Long, Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Hebrew (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 4–5. 6 Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 169–173 (170). Many of these elements pertain—to use Long’s terminology (see n. above)—to types of morphemes, indicating tense, conjugation, mood, and number.

86

chapter 3

employment of this caveat, since in the case of Septuagint Daniel we can base our investigation on two parallel texts, and the focus on the lexemes is more than enough to arrive at meaningful results.7

A

Recensional Consistency

The appropriate criteria for determining the character of a text as a revision include the investigation whether it prioritizes consistency. This criterion, along with the common basis, is one of the two sine qua non criteria that have to be met by a revision. Given the fact that we established elsewhere8 the common basis between og-Dan and Th-Dan, we turn now to test consistency. This is an intrinsic aspect of our working hypothesis, which postulates that the reviser corrected og-Dan toward a literal representation of his mt-like Vorlage. Recensional consistency is visible in the way the reviser has adhered to stereotyping, quantitative representation of the source text, linguistic accuracy, word order, and transliterations.9 Consequently, we will turn to test all these features, evidencing in many ways that Th-Dan is highly consistent.10 7

8 9

10

As noted earlier, past recensional studies in Theodotion were based on fragmentary data collated from different sources. Consequently, due to the meager information, the deviations from such equivocal elements were considered and influenced conclusions. For further discussion, see ch. 2 § 1, which deals with the review of literature on recensional studies. Ch. 1 § 1.4.2. This study builds on current knowledge and methods, which determine the character of a translation unit as either “free” or “literal.” For a synthesis on the criteria for the analysis of literalism, see Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 22–26. Generally speaking, four out of the five criteria mentioned by Tov correspond the first four of ours. In addition, Tov suggests the criterion of “the representation of the constituents of Hebrew words by separate Greek equivalents.” However, the cases under the incidence of this category can also be classified in the category of “Quantitative Representation,” since the omissions of elements in phrases like ‫ בשמך‬can be described as minuses. Other notable studies which have shaped the thinking on the categories “literal” and “free” include: James Barr, “The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations,” msu 15/nawg i, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 1979 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 279– 325; Staffan Olofsson, The lxx Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint, ConBOT 30 (Lund, 1990); ibid., Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays on the Septuagint Version, ConBOT 57 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009); Anneli Aejmelaeus and Raija Sollamo, eds., Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen—Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax, aasf B 237 (Helsinki: Suomelainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987). The importance of having an overall opinion on the degree of consistency is that it will inform our assessment to decide between original and secondarily corrupted readings. This issue is further brought up in ch. 4 §§ 1–3.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12

1

87

Stereotyping

Stereotyping describes the practice of maintaining, as much as possible, the same equivalent for a Semitic word. The literature on the topic predominately discusses stereotyping as an investigation into Hebrew–Greek equivalencies. This study suggests that an informed analysis should address Greek–Hebrew equivalencies as well. In Septuagint Daniel, the investigation has to equally include both Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary. These factors inform the content of this section, which is designed to demonstrate the stereotyping tendencies of Th-Dan’s reviser through an investigation of both Hebrew/Aramaic— Greek equivalents and Greek—Hebrew/Aramaic equivalents, respectively. Not only that, the study suggests further criteria which evidence recensional stereotyping. As far as the Hebrew/Aramaic—Greek equivalents are concerned, the examples affirm the tendency of the reviser to substitute ogDan’s free equivalents with stereotyped ones, as well as his attempt to maintain root consistency. The investigation of Greek—Hebrew/Aramaic equivalents documents the reviser’s tendency to restrict certain Greek equivalents for individual Semitic words as well as to maintain root consistency. 1.1 Hebrew/Aramaic—Greek Equivalents This section investigates the way in which all occurrences of specific lexemes in mt-Dan were translated in og-Dan and Th-Dan. Specifically, the investigation highlights Th-Dan’s tendency to replace og-Dan’s free equivalents with a stereotyped rendition which consistently renders the Semitic lexeme under discussion. 1.1.1 Substitution of Free with Stereotyped Renditions Stereotyping can be measured by the degree to which the reviser achieved consistency. We characterize as “absolute” any stereotyped equivalent which constitutes Th-Dan’s only rendering of a given Semitic lexeme. By “general,” we describe a stereotyped equivalent which constitutes Th-Dan’s main rendering of a Semitic lexeme, but for which another one (or two) were sometimes employed. In the following categories, the format of the examples is designed to present the textual data with clarity, as well as to afford a quick comparative snapshot among the three textual witnesses, namely, mt-Dan, og-Dan, and Th-Dan. The format first provides the Semitic lexeme from mt-Dan as a title, followed by a two-column chart that presents the equivalents employed for its rendering in og-Dan and Th-Dan. The equivalents are followed by a short definition in English (in italics) and then by the verse references where the equivalents

88

chapter 3

occur. In certain cases, some information in superscript text is offered either after the verse references or the equivalents. In the latter case, the information alerts the reader to differences in the reconstructed texts which exist in different editions or about the differing readings in the og mss (i.e., ms 88, Syh, and pap 967). In the former case, the superscript indicates how many times a word occurs in a verse. In addition, the minuses in the og and Th-Dan of a Semitic word are indicated after the list of equivalents with the notation og=0/Th=0. 1.1.1.1 Absolute Stereotyping The listing principle of the items below is hierarchical: the more substantial the contrast between the variety of the og equivalents and the stereotyped ones in Th-Dan, the higher an item’s listing priority. As general rule, the first example of each of the subsequent categories in this study will be fully explained, facilitating the reader’s understanding of our notation so as to follow the logic of the argument. 0‫( ענה־‬to answer) og

Th

[1] ἀποκρίνομαι to answer, reply (Dan 2:5, 7, 10, 26; 3:16; 4:16[19]2º, 27[30]; 5:13; 6:13[12]) [2] ἀποκρίνομαι + λέγω to say (Dan 2:8) [3] πυνθάνομαι to inquire (Dan 2:15) [4] φωνέω to cry out (Dan 2:20) [5] ἐκφωνέω to cry out (Dan 2:27, 47) [6] ὑπολαμβάνω to reply (Dan 3:9, 28[95]) [7] συνοράω to see, consider (Dan 3:14) [8] ἐκτίθημι to make public + πρόσταγμα command (Dan 5:7) [9] + 0‫—אמר־‬ἀποκρίνομαι (Dan 5:17) [10] ἀναβοάω to cry (Dan 6:17[16]) og=0: Dan 3:19, 24[91]2X–26[93]; 4:16[19]1º; 5:10; 6:14[13], 21[20]; 7:2

[1] ἀποκρίνομαι to answer, reply (Dan 2:5, 7–8, 10, 26–27, 47; 3:14, 16, 28[95]; 4:16[19]2X, 27[30]; 6:14[13]) Th=0: Dan 2:15, 20; 3:9, 19, 24[91]2X– 26[93]; 5:7, 10, 13, 17; 6:13[12], 17[16], 21[20]; 7:2 (ἐγώ), always before a second verb of saying

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12

89

0‫ ענה־‬appears thirty times in mt-Dan. og-Dan employs nine different renderings, its approach being contextually oriented. To put it differently, in selecting his equivalents, the translator shows sensitivity to the semantic nuances that they may carry within the narrative scenes where they are found.11 By contrast, an opposite approach is taken by Th-Dan’s reviser, who is demonstrably concerned with stereotyping.12 ‫( אלהים‬God)

og

Th

[1] θεός god, God (Dan 9:3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 [+κύριος], 202X; 11:8, 37) [2] κύριος Lord (Dan 1:21º, 9, 17; 9:18; 10:12) [3] εἰδώλιον idol’s temple (Dan 1:23º) [4] δεσπότης master, lord, slave-owner (Dan 9:17, 19 [+ κύριος cf. Mu]) [5] οὗτος this, this one, he (Dan 11:32) og=0: Dan 1:22º; 9:9

[1] θεός god, God (Dan 1:23X, 9, 17; 9:3– 4, 9–11, 13–15, 17, 18, 19, 201º, 2º [cf. Ra ≠ Zi]; 10:12; 11:8, 32, 37)

The full spectrum of translation technique in rendering ‫ אלהים‬in og-Dan includes variation in equivalence selection,13 exegesis,14 and expansions.15 ThDan has revised all renditions diverging from the conventional θεός.16

11

12

13

If the contention that the primary meaning of the root ‫ ענה‬is “to react” is affirmed (F.J. Stendebach, “‫ָﬠ ָנה‬,” tdot 11:215–230), then the og’s equivalents could be assessed as attempts to distinguish between types of reactions from context to context, i.e., “to answer,” “to cry out,” “to see,” etc. For the analysis of the intriguing recurring minuses in Th-Dan and the different reading in 7:2, see ch. 4 §§ 1.1.1.1–3 (‫)ענה … ואמר‬, where the problem relates to a differing underlying text. The way in which the og’s translator has dealt with ‫ אלהים‬further confirms his free and paraphrastic approach. He freely has exchanged κύριος with θεός from one translational unit to another (Daniel 1 and 9), while in the same translation unit, i.e., Daniel 9, he was at ease to employ the peculiar δεσπότης and the infrequent combination of κύριος with θεός. Whereas δεσπότης renders only once ‫ אלהים‬in Job 5:8, κύριος was employed for ‫ אלהים‬in Gen 19:291º; 21:2; Exod 3:4; 18:1; 20:1; Lev 2:13; Judg 6:20; 7:14; 8:3; 20:27; 1Sam 2:25(Q: ‫;)יהוה‬ 4:22; 5:2; 6:5; 10:26(Q: ‫ ;)יהוה‬11:6; 14:15; 16:15; 23:14(Q: ‫)יהוה‬, 16 (Q: ‫ ;)יהוה‬26:8; 2Sam 2:27; 6:3, 12; 7:25; 15:24; 1 Kgs 3:5, 11; 5:9; 10:24; 12:22; Isa 7:13; 24:15; 61:10[?]; 62:5; Pss 53[52]:7; 56[55]:2; 77[76]:2; Prov 3:4; Job 2:9, 10; 20:29; 32:2; 34:9; Ezra 9:6; 1Chr 17:25; 24:5; 26:20, 32; 28:2, 12;

90

chapter 3 ‫( נגע‬to touch)

og

Th

Qal [1] ἅπτω to touch, hold, grasp (Dan 8:5, 18; 10:16, 18) [2] προσεγγίζω to draw near to (Dan 9:21) [3] προσάγω to bring to (Dan 10:10) Hiphil [4] προσάγω to bring to (Dan 8:7) [5] συνάγω to gather (Dan 12:12)

Qal [1] ἅπτω to touch, hold, grasp (Dan 8:5, 18; 9:21; 10:10, 16, 18)

Hiphil [2] φθάνω to come before, to overtake, to reach (Dan 8:7; Dan 12:12)

The reviser consistently distinguished between the stems qal and hiphil: for the former he has employed the standard ἅπτω, whereas for the latter he opted for φθάνω.17 By contrast, there is no such stem distinction in og-Dan, and the translator made use of several unique equivalents.18

14 15

16 17

18

29:1, 7, 13, 17; 2 Chr 4:19; 5:1; 6:40; 13:12, 15, 16; 15:1, 18; 19:3; 20:7, 29, 33; 24:5, 13, 20; 25:82X, 20, 24; 26:53X, 7; 28:24; 30:12; 31:13, 21; 32:29, 31; 34:32; 36:19. See ch. 3 A § 3.2.3 (εἰδώλιον). In Dan 9:15, the addition of κύριος in the phrase δέσποτα κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν that renders ‫אדני‬ ‫ אלהינו‬constitutes most likely an exegetical expansion. Not only that the Greek phrase is unparalleled in lxx, but also an alleged Vorlage that it entails (i.e., ‫ )אדני יהוה אלהינו‬is only once singled out in Exod 34:23 in the phrase ‫האדן יהוה אלהי ישׂראל‬. However, in this case the translator has condensed the phrase to κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ Ισραηλ. Θεός represents one of the undisputed stereotyped renderings for ‫ אלהים‬in lxx as in Gen 1:1–12, 14, 16–18, 20–22, 24–29, 31; etc. Tov, Text Critical Use of the Septuagint, 22–23. The way in which ‫ נגע‬hiphil was translated reveals that there is no consistent equivalent utilized in lxx. Unique and rare renderings predominate. Beginning with the largest number of occurrences, these renderings are: ἅπτω (Isa 6:7; Jer 1:9; Job 20:6; 2Chr 3:112X, 12); φθάνω “to come before” (Song 2:12; Eccl 8:142X; 12:1; 2Chr 28:9); ἐγγίζω “to bring near” (Pss 32[31]:6; 88[87]:4; 107[106]:18); ἐκτίθημι “to make public” (Esth 4:3; 8:17); ἀφικνέομαι “to arrive at” (Gen 28:12); προσπίπτω “to fall upon” (Exod 4:25); καθικνέομαι “to touch” (Exod 12:22); ἰσχύω “to be able” (Lev 5:7); ἀπαγγέλλω “to tell” (1Sam 14:9); συνάπτω “to join together” (Isa 5:8); συντελέω “to finish” (Isa 8:8); καταβαίνω “to come down” (Isa 25:12); ἰδού “look!” (Ezek 7:12); τίθημι “to put” (Ezek 13:14); ἐγκολλάομαι “to be joined to” (Zech 14:5); κολλάω “join to” (Lam 2:2); εἰμί “to be” (Esth 2:12); ἀναπληρόω “to fulfill” (Esth 2:15); παραγίνομαι “to come” (Esth 6:14); πάρειμι “to be present” (Esth 9:1); γίνομαι “to become” (Esth 9:26); lxx=0: Isa 26:5; 30:4; Esth 4:14. Besides ἅπτω, all others are hapax equivalents. See ch. 3 B §9.1.1 (προσεγγίζω; προσάγω).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12

91

0‫( רעיון־‬thought) og

Th

[1] κατακλίνω to sit down, cause to sit down (Dan 2:29) [2] ὑπολαμβάνω to suppose; to lift up; to reply (Dan 2:30) [3] ὑπόνοια suspicion; conjecture; suggestion; foreboding (Dan 4:16[19]) [4] φόβος fear, terror; reverence (Dan 5:6) [5] ἔκστασις trance, vision; amazement (Dan 7:28) og=0: Dan 5:10

[1] διαλογισμός thought, opinion, discussion (Dan 2:29–30; 4:16[19]; 5:6, 10; 7:28)

0‫ רעיון־‬was probably not understood at all by the og translator, being rendered contextually.19 In contrast, the reviser has coined an accurate equivalent and employed it stereotypically.20 0‫( אבד־‬to perish, destroy) og

Th

[1] ἐξάγω to lead away, bring out (Dan 2:12) [2] ἐκδίδωμι to hand over + ἀπώλεια destruction (Dan 2:18)

[1] ἀπόλλυμι to destroy, ruin; to lose (Dan 2:12, 18, 242X; 7:11, 26)

19

20

See ch. 3 A §§ 3.2.1 (Dan 2:29); 3.2.2.2 (Dan 2:30). Munnich’s reconstruction of the og in Dan 5:6 as καὶ ὑπόνοιαι is problematic. The reading καὶ φόβοι καὶ ὑπόνοιαι αὐτὸν for ‫ ורעינהי‬reflects a doublet. Whereas καὶ φόβοι [αὐτὸν] represents the original translation (cf. mss 88-Syh), καὶ ὑπόνοιαι has the traits of a secondary harmonization in light of Dan 4:16[19], the closest guess of the translator. Consequently, the use of φόβοι matches the overall conjectured work of the translator and cannot be a contamination from Th-Dan. Finally, Dan 7:28 also reflects a contextual approximation. Διαλογισμός appears nineteen times and translates ‫“ מחשׁבה‬thought” (Ps 40[39]:6; 56[55]: 6; 92[91]:6; 94[93]:11; Isa 59:72X; Jer 4:14; Lam 3:60–61; Sir 13:26; 33:5); 3‫“ רע־‬thought” (Ps 139[138]:2); ‫“ מזמה‬purpose” (Ps 139[138]:20); ‫“ עשׁתון‬thought” (Ps 146[145]:4); ‫חשׁבון‬ (Sir 9:15; 27:5). lxx=0: 1 Macc 2:63; Wis 7:20; Sir 40:2.

92

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[3] ἀποκτείνω to kill (Dan 2:241º) [4] ἀπόλλυμι to destroy, ruin; to lose (Dan 2:242º; 7:11, 26)

og-Dan demonstrates freedom by using four distinct equivalents for the common word 0‫אבד־‬.21 In contrast, Th-Dan stereotypically employs the standard lxx equivalent ἀπόλλυμι.22

21

22

Additional aspects clearly indicate the og’s translational freedom. In Dan 2:18, the phrase ‫“ די לא יהבדון‬so that [they] would not be destroyed,” was rendered in lxx idiomatically with ὅπως μὴ ἐκδοθῶσι (…) εἰς ἀπώλειαν “so that they would not be handed over to destruction.” Th-Dan has revised it towards a word-for-word representation of the mt: ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἀπόλωνται “so that not be destroyed.” Furthermore, in 2:24, 0‫ אבד־‬occurs twice and the og utilizes two distinct equivalents, whereas Th utilizes both times its standard equivalent ἀπόλλυμι. For the peculiar rendering of 0‫ אבד־‬with ἐξάγω, see ch. 3 A §3.2.1 (Dan 2:12). ‫ אבד‬occurs 184 times in mt and was mainly rendered in lxx with ἀπόλλυμι: Exod 10:7; Lev 23:30; 26:38; Num 16:33; 17:271º; 21:29–30; 24:19; 33:522º; Deut 4:26; 7:24; 8:19–20; 9:3; 11:4, 17; 12:2–3; 22:3; 28:20, 22, 51; 30:18; 32:28; Josh 7:7; 23:13; Judg 5:31; 1Sam 9:3, 20; 2Sam 1:27; 2Kgs 10:19; 11:1; 13:7; 19:18; Isa 26:14; 27:13; 29:14; 37:19; 41:11; 57:1; 60:12; Jer 1:10; 4:9; 6:21; 9:11[12]; 10:15; 15:7; 18:7, 18; 23:1; 25[32]:10, 35; 27[34]:15; 40[47]:15; 46[26]:8; 48[31]:8, 36; 49:7[30:1]; 50[27]:6; 51[28]:18, 55; Ezek 7:26; 12:22; 19:5; 25:7, 16; 30:13; 32:13; 34:4, 16; 37:11; Joel 1:11; Amos 1:8; 2:14; 3:15; Obad 1:8; Jonah 1:6, 14; 3:9; 4:10; Mic 4:9; 5:9; 7:2; Zeph 2:5, 13; Zech 9:5; Pss 1:6; 2:12; 5:7; 9:4, 6–7, 19; 10:16[19:37]; 21[20]:11; 31[30]:13; 37[36]:20; 41[40]:6; 49[48]:11; 68[67]:3; 73[72]:27; 80[79]:17; 83[82]:18; 92[91]:10; 102[101]:27; 112[111]:10; 119[118]:92, 95, 176; 142[141]:5; 143[142]:12; 146[145]:4; Job 3:3; 4:7, 9, 20; 6:18; 8:13; 12:23; 14:19; 18:17; 20:7; 29:13; 30:2; 31:19; Prov 19:9; 21:28; 29:3; Eccl 3:6; 5:13; 7:7, 15; 9:6, 18; Lam 2:9; 3:18; Esth 3:9; 4:7, 14, 161º; 8:5; 9:12. It has also been translated occasionally with παραναλίσκω “to be lost” (Num 17:272); ἐξαίρω “to lift up” (Num 33:521º); ἐξολεθρεύω “to destroy completely” (Deut 7:10; Ezek 6:3); ἐκτρίβω “to destroy” (Deut 7:20); ἀποβάλλω “to cast away” (Deut 26:5); κατασπάω “to pull down” (2 Kgs 21:3); ἀποβάλλω “to hand” (2 Kgs 9:8); κατασπάω “to overcome” (2Kgs 24:2); ἀπώλεια “destruction” (Jer 12:17; Obad 1:12; Prov 28:28); ἐξαποστέλλω “to destroy” (Jer 49:38[25:18]); ἄγω “to bring” (Ezek 28:16); ὄλλυμι “to destroy” (Job 4:11; Prov 1:32; 10:28; 11:7); αὐτός “they” (Job 11:20); λύπη “grief,” “pain” (Prov 31:6 [cf. ‫ ;)]אבל‬δουλεία “slavery” (Esth 7:4 [cf. ‫ ;)]עבד‬βοηθέω “to help” (Esth 8:11); and ἀφανίζω “to destroy” (Esth 9:242º). lxx=0: Deut 28:63; Josh 23:16; Jer 27[34]:10; 31[38]:28; 48[31]:46; Ezek 22:27; 26:17; Prov 11:10; Esth 3:13; 9:6, 241º.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12

93

‫אשׁף‬/0‫( אשׁף־‬conjurer)

og

Th

[1] φῐλόλογος scholar (Dan 1:20 cf. Mu: pap 967 ≠ Ra: 88-Syh [φιλοσόφους]) [2] μάγος wise man, magician (Dan 2:2, 10) [3] φάρμακος poisoner; magician, sorcerer (Dan 2:27) [4] ἐπαοιδός enchanter (Dan 5:7) og=0: Dan 4:4; 5:11, 15

[1] μάγος wise man, magician (Dan 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4[7]; 5:7, 11, 15)

Both ‫ אשׁף‬and its Greek equivalent μάγος are found exclusively in Daniel. ThDan demonstrably adopted og-Dan’s main equivalent and, motivated by consistency, applied it stereotypically to the other instances of ‫אשׁף‬. The reviser’s innovative solution was to set apart the hapax μάγος for the hapax 0‫ אשׁף־‬in Aramaic or ‫ אשׁף‬in Hebrew.23 ‫( חזון‬vision)

og

Th

[1] ὅραμα “vision,” “sight” (Dan 1:17; 8:21º, 13, 15, 17, 26; 9:24) [2] ὅρασις sight, vision (Dan 8:1; 10:14;) [3] ὕπνος sleep (Dan 9:21) [4] προφητεία prophecy (Dan 11:14) og=0: Dan 8:22º

[1] ὅρασις sight, vision (Dan 1:17; 8:1, 13, 15, 17, 26; 9:21, 24; 10:14; 11:14) Th=0: Dan 8:22X

0‫( אחרן־‬another)24 og

Th

[1] ἄλλος other, another (Dan 2:392º, 44; 7:5, 6, 24)

[1] ἕτερος other, another (Dan 2:11, 391º, 44; Dan 3:29[96]; 5:17; 7:6, 8, 20, 24)

23

Ch. 3 B § 8.2 (μάγος).

94

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[2] + ‫—לא‬οὐδείς no one, nothing (Dan 2:11) [3] ἕτερος other, another (Dan 3:29[96]) [4] εἷς one (Dan 7:8 cf. Mu ≠ Ra, 20 cf. Mu ≠ Ra) og=0: Dan 2:391º; 5:17

Th=0: Dan 2:392º; 7:5

Ἕτερος consistently replaces og-Dan’s main equivalent ἄλλος25 and its other free renditions,26 excepting Dan 2:392º and 7:5.27 0‫( חכים־‬wise man) og

Th

[1] σοφός wise; skilled (Dan 2:21, 27) [2] πᾶς all, every; the whole (Dan 2:13) [3] σοφιστής wise man; sophist (Dan 2:12, 14, 18, 242X, 48) og=0: Dan 4:3[6], 15[18]; 5:7, 8, 15

[1] σοφός wise; skilled (Dan 2:12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 242X, 27; Dan 4:3[6], 15[18]); 5:7, 8, 15

24

25

26

27

halot records both 0‫( אחרי־‬fem. adjective) and 0‫( אחרן־‬masc. adjective) as separate lexemes. halot, s.v. “‫ָאֳח ִרי‬,” “‫ָאֳח ָרן‬.” However, for practical purposes, we treat both adjectives under the same lexeme (cf. bdb, s.v. “‫)”ָאֳח ָרן‬. Statistically, ἄλλος occurs less frequently than the stereotyped ἕτερος in translating 1‫אחר־‬ “other”: Gen 41:3; Exod 21:10; Lev 6:4; Num 23:13, 27; 1Sam 10:6, 9; 2Sam 18:20; 1Kgs 13:10; 1 Kgs 20[21]:37; 2 Kgs 1:11; 7:8; Isa 65:222X; Job 8:19; 31:8; Prov 5:9; 2Chr 30:23; 32:5. The equivalency 1‫—אחר־‬ἕτερος is to be found in most of the places throughout lxx. hrcs, s.v. “ἕτερος.” The translation of ‫ ואחרן לא‬with καὶ οὐδείς in Dan 2:11 may shed further light on the free use of εἷς in 7:8, 20 instead of supposing textual corruption (‫)אחד » אחרי‬. The intriguing appearance of ἕτερος in og-Dan 3:29[96] could account as another trace of the later hand that inserted the additions in this chapter (as pointed out by McLay, og and Th Versions, 146–147) or, simply, as further featuring translational freedom. For an evaluation of the minuses in Th-Dan 2:392º and 7:5, see ch. 3 A §2.2.1.6 (Dan 2:39) and Appendix 3 (Dan 7:5).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12

95

og-Dan’s tendency to freely render 0‫ חכים־‬is still visible, notwithstanding its many minuses. Both the rare σοφιστής—whose use in lxx corpus points most likely to translational exegesis28—and the hapax equivalent πᾶς were corrected with the standard σοφός.29 ‫( חיל‬strength)30

og

Th

[1] δύναμις power, strength; (military) force (Dan 11:7 cf. Ra: 88-Syh) [2] ὄχλος crowd (Dan 11:10, 13, 252X) [3] παρέρχομαι to pass by, pass away (Dan 11:26)

[1] δύναμις power; (military) force (Dan 11:7, 10, 13, 252X, 26)

‫( כשׁל‬to stumble)31

og

Th

[1] προσκόπτω to strike against; to stumble (Dan 11:14, 19, 33) [2] συντρίβω to crush, to break (Dan 11:34)

[1] ἀσθενέω to be weak (Dan 11:14, 19, 33, 34 35, 41)

28

29

30 31

Σοφιστής appears mostly in og-Dan, both in aligned text and in long pluses over against mt (Dan 1:20; 2:14, 18, 24, 48; 4:18, 37). The fact that outside the og σοφιστής is attested only in Exod 7:11 suggests a sort of influence of the latter over the former. Indeed, a similar exegetical translation technique seems to operate in both units, aiming to distinguish, by means of different equivalents, between Egyptian/Babylonian and Israelite wise men. Compare the use of σοφιστής in Exod 7:11 and Dan 1:20; 2:14, 18, 24, 48; 4:18, 37 for the former group, while for the latter, see the use of σοφός “wise,” “skilled” for ‫“ חכם‬wise” in Exod 28:3; 35:10, 25; 36:4 and σοφός for 0‫ חכים־‬in Dan 2:21, 27. When designating a group of wise people, ‫( חכם‬pl.) was consistently rendered with σοφός: Deut 1:13, 15; 16:19; Jer 4:22; 8:8, 9; Obad 8; Pss 49:11[48:10]; Job 5:13; 15:18; 34:2; Prov 1:6; 3:35; 10:14; 12:8; 13:20; 14:3, 24; 15:2, 7, 12; 18:15; 22:17; 24:23; 29:8; 30:24; Eccl 7:4; 9:1, 11, 17; 12:11; 2Chr 2:6. The only exceptions are συνετός “intelligent” (Isa 5:21; 19:11); φρόνιμος “wise” (Isa 44:25); and φίλος “friend” (Esth 1:13). See ch. 3 B § 9.2.2 (σοφιστής). The rare ὄχλος and the contextual παρέρχομαι are revised in Th-Dan toward the standard equivalent δύναμις. Ch. 3 A §§ 1.2.1.2 (συντρίβω); 3.2.2.2 (Dan 11:35).

96

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[3] διανοέομαι to intend, plan, understand (Dan 11:35) og=0: Dan 11:41

0‫( חלם־‬dream) og

Th

[1] ἐνύπνιον dream (Dan 2:4, 5, 62X, 91º, 28; 4:2[5], 6[9], 15[18], 16[19]2º) [2] ὅραμα vision; sight (Dan 2:7, 92º cf. Mu: pap 967 ≠ Ra: 88-Syh [ῥῆμα], 26, 36, 45; 7:12X) og=0: Dan 5:12; 4:3[6], 4[7], 5[8], 16[19]1º

[1] ἐνύπνιον dream (Dan 2:4, 5, 62X, 7, 92X, 26, 28, 36, 45; 4:2[5], 3[6], 4[7], 6[9], 15[18], 16[19]2X; 5:12; 7:12X) Th=0: Dan 4:5[8]

0‫ חלם־‬occurs twenty-two times in mt. The translational freedom of og-Dan is clearly indicated by the employment of ἐνύπνιον and ὅραμα,32 which were used interchangeably.33 Th-Dan corrects the latter towards the standard lxx equivalent ἐνύπνιον.34

32

33

34

In og-Dan 2:92º, we follow the reconstructed reading by Ziegler (1954) and Munnich (1999), which contrasts with Rahlfs’s reconstruction by rejecting ῥῆμα as the original reading. Several aspects bolster this decision: (1) og employs ἐνύπνιον and ὅραμα ten and seven times, respectively, mitigating the possibility of ῥῆμα as an intended equivalent; (2) the pre-Hexaplaric pap 967 attests ὅραμα in contrast to the post-Hexaplaric mss 88-Syh which endorse ῥῆμα; (3) the close phonological and graphical correspondence between the words ὅραμα and ῥῆμα may suggest that a scribal error occurred during the transmission of lxx mss. The interchangeable use of ἐνύπνιον and ὅραμα is clearly shown in og-Daniel 2: across this chapter the terms were used to refer to the same dream with no exegetical motivation, the variation occuring even within the range of a single verse, e.g., v. 9. ‫ חלום‬occurs sixty-five times in mt and has ἐνύπνιον as its stereotyped equivalent: Gen 37:5– 6, 8–10, 20; 40:5, 8–9, 16; 41:7–8, 11, 15, 25–26, 32; 42:9; Deut 13:2, 4, 6; Judg 7:13, 15; 1Sam 28:6, 15; 1 Kgs 3:15; Jer 23:27–28, 32; 27:9; 29:8; Joel 3:1; Zech 10:2; Ps 73[72]:20; Job 7:14; 20:8; Eccl

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12

97

‫( יהוה‬Lord, God)

og

Th

[1] κύριος Lord (Dan 9:2 cf. Mu: pap 967 ≠ Ra: 88-Syh [τῇ γῇ], 4, 10, 13, 142X, 20) [2] δεσπότης master, lord, slaveowner (Dan 9:8)

[1] κύριος Lord (Dan 9:2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 142X, 20)

In rendering the tetragrammaton, which occurs eight times and only in Daniel 9, the tendencies of both the og and Th-Dan are visible: the former is at ease in deviating from its standard equivalent while the latter implicitly informs us of its agenda by correcting the “negligent” rendition(s).35 The same recensional tendency in Th-Dan is visible in rendering other names of God such as ‫אדון‬ “Lord,” “lord” (see below) and ‫“ אלהים‬God,” “god” (see above). ‫( אדון‬Lord, lord)36

og

Th

[1] κύριος Lord (Dan 1:2, 10; 9:3–4, 7, 9, 192º[182º], 193º[191º]; 10:16, 172º, 19; 12:8) [2] δεσπότης master, lord, slaveowner (Dan 9:15, 16, 17, 191º[182º]) og=0: Dan 10:171º

[1] κύριος Lord (Dan 1:2, 10; 9:3–4, 7, 9, 15–17, 191º[18], 192º, 3º[191º, 2º]; 10:16, 172X, 19; 12:8)

35

36

5:2, 6; Dan 1:17; 2:1–3. It was also rendered with ὕπνος “dream” (Gen 20:3, 6; 31:10–11, 24; 41:17, 22; Num 12:6; 1 Kgs 3:5; Job 33:15); ἐνυπνιαστής “dreamer” (Gen 37:19 [+ ‫ ;)]בעל‬and ἐνυπνιάζομαι “to dream” (Isa 29:7). lxx=0: Gen 41:12. Δεσπότης renders ‫ יהוה‬only once elsewhere in Jer 15:11. If the earliest og-Dan’s equivalent in 9:2 to be accepted would be τῇ γῇ then it is further reasoned that the same correction is applied by Th-Dan to this peculiar rendition too. For a text-critical evaluation of the odd og reading for the name of God, see ch. 3 A § 3.3 (Dan 9:2a). Δεσπότης renders ‫ אדון‬other nine times: Gen 15:2, 8; Josh 5:14; Isa 1:24; 3:1; 10:33; Jer 1:6; 4:10; Prov 30:10.

98

chapter 3

0‫( לבשׁ־‬to wear)37 og

Th

[1] στολίζω to clothe (Dan 5:7, 16) [2] ἐνδύω to wear, put on (Dan 5:29)

[1] ἐνδύω to wear, put on (Dan 5:7, 16, 29)

1.1.1.2 General Stereotyping On certain occasions the reviser used a second or a third equivalent in addition to his main stereotyped rendering. Some of the subsequent examples represent cases in which the new equivalent arguably constitutes a borrowing from og-Dan. In other cases, the reviser has slightly diverged from absolute stereotyping for whatever reason. As with the previous category, the examples are classified so as to highlight the contrast between the differing approaches of og-Dan and Th-Dan. Consequently, precedence is given to those cases wherein og-Dan displays a large number of equivalents while Th-Dan uses only two, i.e., its stereotyped equivalent and a new one that was exceptionally employed.38 0‫( דקק־‬to crush) og

Th

[1] καταλέω to grind (Dan 2:34) [2] γίνομαι to become + λεπτός small (Dan 2:35) [3] ἐκκόπτω to cut off, cut down, destroy (Dan 2:402º) [4] πατάσσω to strike (Dan 2:44) [5] συναλοάω to grind into powder (Dan 2:45)

[1] λεπτύνω to crush, grind to powder (Dan 2:34, 35, 402X, 44, 45; 6:25[24]; 7:7, 19) [2] κατακόπτω to cut, cut down, cut in pieces (Dan 7:23)

37

38

‫ לבשׁ‬was consistently rendered in lxx with ἐνδύω. Furthermore, it was also rendered with περιβάλλω “to clothe” (Gen 28:20; 1Sam 28:8; Isa 4:1; Jer 4:30; Ezek 34:3; Hag 1:6; Zech 3:5; Esth 5:1; 6:8); ἐνδιδύσκω “to wear” (2 Sam 1:24; 13:18); περιτίθημι “to put on” (Gen 27:16); ἔνοπλος “armed” (1 Kgs 22:10); ἐξίστημι “to amaze” (Ezek 26:16); φύρω “to soak” (Job 7:5); and ἀμφιέννυμι “to clothe” (Job 40:10). See further ch. 3 A 1.1.2.2 (√‫ ;)לבשׁ‬B §9.2.2 (στολίζω). In most of the subsequent examples, the new exceptional equivalents represent borrowing from og-Dan, being tantamount to significant agreements.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12

99

(cont.)

og

Th

[6] θλάω to crush, bruise (Dan 6:25[24]) [7] κοπανίζω to grind (Dan 7:7) [8] καταλεαίνω to grind down (Dan 7:23) og=0: Dan 2:401º; 7:19

0‫ דקק־‬occurs ten times in mt. The large number of equivalents employed by og-Dan invites speculation as to whether the term was properly understood. However, considering the semantic similarity of each equivalent with 0‫דקק־‬, the variation is better understood as reflecting the free style of the translator. Th-Dan opts for stereotyping,39 replacing the hapax and rare words and the unique equivalents.40 ‫( ארץ‬land, earth)

og

Th

[1] χαμαί to the ground; on the ground (Dan 8:12, 18) [2] + ‫—שׁנער‬Βαβυλών (Dan 1:2) [3] γῆ earth, land (Dan 8:52X, 7, 10; 9:6; 10:9, 15) [4] χώρα place, land, country (Dan 9:7; 11:16, 19, 282X, 40) [5] + ‫—מצרים‬Αἴγυπτος (Dan 9:15) og=0: Dan 11:41, 422X

[1] γῆ earth, land (Dan 1:2; 8:52X, 7, 10, 18; 9:6–7, 15; 10:9, 15; 11:16, 19, 282X, 40–41, 422X) [2] χαμαί to the ground; on the ground (Dan 8:12)

39 40

Λεπτύνω is further the standard equivalent in lxx (see ch. 3 B §9.2.1). For the use of κατακόπτω in Th-Dan 7:23, see ch. 3 B § 8.1 (0‫)דקק־‬. The hapax legomena include συναλοάω (ch. 3 B § 9.2.1) and καταλεαίνω; the rare words regard κοπανίζω (ch. 3 B § 9.2.2), καταλέω, and θλάω. Beside Daniel, καταλέω occurs twice (Exod 32:20; Deut 9:21) and θλάω ten times (Judg 10:8; 1Sam 12:4; 2Sam 22:39; 2Kgs 18:21; Job 20:19; Sir 30:12; Sol 13:3; Isa 36:6; 42:3; Ezek 29:7). The other equivalents in og-Dan 2:35, 402º, 44 are unique: see ch. 3 B § 9.1.1 (0‫—דקק־‬ἐκκόπτω; 0‫—דקק־‬πατάσσω).

100

chapter 3

og-Dan used several techniques for the common word ‫ארץ‬, further underlining its free stylistic approach.41 On the other hand, Th-Dan consistently maintained γῆ.42 0‫( קטל־‬to slay) og

Th

[1] ἀποκτείνω to kill (Dan 2:131º) [2] συναπόλλυμι to perish together (Dan 2:132º) [3] ἐξάγω to lead away, bring out (Dan 2:14) [4] ἀποτυμπανίζω to bludgeon to death (Dan 7:11) og=0: Dan 3:22; 5:19, 30

[1] ἀναιρέω to destroy, carry off, kill (Dan 2:132º, 14; 5:19, 30; 7:11) [2] ἀποκτείνω to kill (Dan 2:131º) Th=0: Dan 3:22

The og’s translator grasped the meaning of the root ‫ קטל‬which was rendered with acceptable renditions, excepting Dan 2:14.43 However, the catalog of his lexical choices is predisposed to rare words44 and peculiar equivalents.45 The 41

42 43

44

45

The techniques include condensation of two terms into one (Dan 1:2; 9:15), the use of the rare χαμαί, and the interchangeable employment of γῆ and χώρα. Regarding the latter equivalents, γῆ represents the standard rendition in lxx while χώρα seconds it in frequency. Χώρα translates ‫ ארץ‬in Gen 10:20, 31; 41:57; 42:9; 32:12X; Josh 5:12; 2Kgs 18:33; Isa 2:7; 7:18; 8:8, 23; 9:1; 13:14; 18:3, 7; 19:19–20; 21:14; 22:18; 27:13; 28:2; 36:10, 18; 37:7, 18; Jer 16:15; 23:8; Ezek 5:5–6, 8; 11:16–17; 12:15; 20:23, 34, 41; 21:24; 22:4, 15; 25:7; 29:12; 30:7, 23, 26; 34:13; 35:10; 36:19; 39:27; Jonah 1:8; Pss 105[104]:44; 106[105]:27; 107[106]:3; 116[114]:9; Job 1:1; Prov 8:26; 29:4; 1 Chr 20:11; 2 Chr 15:5; 32:13. The exception of the equivalent employed in Dan 8:12 is tantamount to a significant equivalent. For its discussion, see Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 55 (No. 22). ‫ קטל‬entered Hebrew probably from the Akk. qatālum via Aramaic (halot, s.v. “‫)”קטל‬. In the Aramaic sections of the Hebrew Bible, it occurs seven times and in Daniel only. Besides Ps 139[138]:19, where it was translated with ἀποκτείνω, ‫ קטל‬occurs twice more in Job. Apparently, the equivalents in these instances represent contextual guesses: χειρόω “to overpower” (Job 13:15) and παραδίδωμι “to deliver” (Job 24:14). Both συναπόλλυμι and ἀποτυμπανίζω occurs rarely: eight times and twice, respectively. The former mostly translates ‫“ ספה‬to sweep away” (Gen 18:23; 19:15; Num 16:26; Deut 29:18; Sir 8:15), but once it reflects etymological exegesis (Ps 26[25]:9; cf. ‫“ אסף‬to gather”); once it occurs in a plus (Ps 28[27]:3); and twice it lacks a counterpart in Hebrew (Odes 12:13; Wis 10:3). Ἀποτυμπανίζω appears only once outside Daniel, in 3Macc 3:27. Ἀποκτείνω and ἐξάγω represent rare and hapax renditions in lxx for ‫קטל‬. For the assess-

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 101

opposite tendency is visible in Th-Dan which employs ἀναιρέω as its stereotyped and more conventional equivalent.46 ‫בינה‬/0‫( בינה־‬understanding)

og

Th

[1] παιδεία instruction, discipline (Dan 1:20) [2] ἐπιστήμη knowledge (Dan 2:21) [3] διανοέομαι to intend, plan, understand (Dan 8:15; 10:1) [4] διάνοια mind, thought, intention (Dan 9:22)

[1] σύνεσις understanding, intelligence (Dan 2:21; 8:15; 9:22; 10:1) [2] ἐπιστήμη knowledge, skill, art (Dan 1:20)

Excepting ἐπιστήμη,47 the hapax and rare equivalents are consistently corrected in Th-Dan toward the standard lxx equivalent σύνεσις.48 0‫( ערב־‬to mix) og

Th

[1] συμμίγνυμι to mix, mingle with (Dan 2:41 cf. Mu: pap 967)

[1] ἀναμίγνυμι to mix, mix up (Dan 2:41, 431º, 433º)

46

47 48

ment of the former as a significant equivalent, see Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 92 (No. 67). The use of the latter imprecisely in Dan 2:14 aims at solving the internal logic of the narrative which confuses the reader regarding the task of Arioch: How could Daniel still approach Arioch if he was already on his way to execute an imperial order? og-Dan solves the issue by reinterpreting the nature of Arioch’s imperial assignment from “putting the wise men of Babylon to death” (mt) toward “bringing forward the savants of Babylonia” (og). Ἀναιρέω occurs frequently in lxx—over eighty times—translating roots such as ‫הרג‬, ‫מוּת‬, ‫נכה‬, ‫ פגע‬and ‫( חרם‬hrcs, s.v. “ἀναιρέω”). Th-Dan’s reviser presumably preferred ἀναιρέω instead of ἀποκτείνω since the latter was the main equivalent for ‫ הרג‬in lxx, while the usage of the former was broader. For the analysis of the exceptional ἐπιστήμη, see ch. 3 B §9.1.2 (0‫—בינה־‬ἐπιστήμη). Διάνοια (ch. 3 B § 9.1.1), παιδεία, and διανοέομαι are hapax equivalents of ‫בינה‬, though they frequently are attested in the lxx corpus. For the rare ἐπιστήμη, see ch. 3 B §8.1; for the translation of ‫בינה‬, see ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.2.

102

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[2] παραμίγνυμι to mix with (Dan 2:431º cf. Mu: pap 967) [3] συμμιγής mixed, commingled; promiscuous (Dan 2:432º) [4] δύναμαι to be able + συγκεράννυμι to mix together (Dan 2:433º)

[2] συμμιγής mixed, commingled; promiscuous (Dan 2:432º)

The og (based on the reading of pap 967 in Dan 2:41 and 2:431º) translates 0‫ערב־‬ differently each time.49 Th-Dan coins the stereotyped equivalent ἀναμίγνυμι, excepting 2:432º where it shares with the og the significant agreement συμμιγής.50 ‫( עת‬time)

og

Th

[1] ὥρα hour (Dan 8:17; 9:21; 11:6, 40; 12:11º) [2] καιρός time, season, opportunity (Dan 9:25[27]; 11:13–14, 35; 12:4) [3] ἡμέρα day, period (Dan 12:12º–4º) [4] μάτην futile, purposeless, vainly (Dan 11:24) og=0: Dan 12:9, 11

[1] καιρός time, season, opportunity (Dan 8:17; 9:25; 11:6, 13–14, 24, 35, 40; 12:14X, 4, 9, 11) [2] ὥρα hour (Dan 9:21)

og-Dan’s less frequent equivalents are corrected toward the standard lxx equivalent καιρός.51

49

50 51

Note the og’s tendency to vary within even a single verse, in Dan 2:43 offering three alternative renditions (the last being a paraphrase). We agree with the reconstructed text of Munnich in Dan 2:41, 431º in view of pap 967. The presence of ἀναμίγνυμι in ms 88 of these verses was correctly interpreted as a secondary correction towards Th-Dan. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 41–42 (No. 6). Ὅρα renders ‫ עת‬twenty times in lxx: Gen 18:14; 29:7; Exod 9:18; 18:22, 26; Lev 16:2; Deut

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 103

0‫( גבר־‬man) og

Th

[1] ἄνθρωπος man, human (Dan 2:25; 3:122º, 13, 27[94]; 5:11; 6:25[24]) [2] ἀνήρ man (Dan 3:8, 121º, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25[92]) [3] αὐτός (pl.) they, these (men) (Dan 6:12[11]) og=0: Dan 3:24[91]; 6:6[5], 16[15]

[1] ἀνήρ man (Dan 2:25; 3:8, 121º, 20, 21, 24[91], 25[92], 27[94]; 5:11; 6:12[11], 16[15], 25[24]) [2] τακτικός administrator (Dan 6:6[5]) Th=0: Dan 3:122º, 13, 22, 23

0‫ גבר־‬occurs seventeen times in mt-Dan. Whereas the og uses ἄνθρωπος and ἀνήρ interchangeably,52 Th-Dan corrects the former toward the lxx main equivalent ἀνήρ.53 On five other occasions, Th-Dan points to a different underlying text.54 1.1.1.3 Further Supporting Evidence Though more complex, the subsequent examples wherein Th-Dan records three or four equivalents still show contrast with og-Dan. In each of these cases, Th-Dan’s consistency was demonstrably affected by the persistence of og-Dan’s equivalents in one or two occasions. Since these equivalents are characteristic of the og’s style, they are interpreted as lexical choices stemming from the og and, thus, their presence in Th-Dan does not disprove its tendency toward stereotyping.

52

53

54

11:14; Josh 11:6; 2 Sam 24:15; 1 Kgs 19:2; 20[21]:6; 2 Kgs 4:16–17; 7:1, 18; 10:6; Hos 2:11; Zech 10:1; Job 24:1; 38:23; ἡμέρα only four times, and μάτην constitutes a hapax equivalent. Καιρός renders stereotypically ‫( עת‬see ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.2 [‫)]עת‬. There is not enough ground to posit exegesis as the motivation behind the two renditions, though most of the time ἄνθρωπος refers to Jewish individuals (Dan 2:25; 3:122º, 13; 3:27[94]; 5:11). The use of ἄνθρωπος for non-Jewish figures (Dan 6:25[24]) along with the use of ἀνήρ for both Jewish (Dan 3:121º, 21, 23, 25) and non-Jewish individuals (Dan 3:8, 20, 22) mitigates such a distinction. 1‫ גבר־‬occurs sixty-six times in mt and was rendered in thirty-seven instances with ἀνήρ (Exod 10:11; 12:37; Deut 22:52X; Josh 7:14, 17; 2 Sam 23:1; Isa 22:17; Mic 2:2; Hab 2:5; Zech 13:7; Pss 18[17]:26; 34[33]:9; 40[39]:5; Job 3:23; 4:17; 10:5; 14:10; 16:21; 33:29*; 34:7*, 9, 34; 38:3; 40:7; Prov 6:34; 20:24; 28:21; 30:1, 19; Lam 3:1, 27, 35, 39; 1 Chr 23:3), whereas ἄνθρωπος translates it in only seventeen occasions (Num 24:3, 15; Jer 17:5, 7; 22:30; 23:9; 30[37]:6; 31[38]:22; Pss 37[36]:23; 52[51]:9; 88[87]:5; 89[88]:49; 94[93]:12; 127[126]:5; 128[127]:4; Job 14:14; Dan 8:15). Ἀνήρ has also rendered 0‫ גבר־‬in Ezra 4:21; 5:4, 10; 6:8. Ch. 4 § 1.1.2.1 (‫)גבריא אלך‬.

104

chapter 3 ‫( גדול‬great)

og

Th

[1] μέγας great, large (Dan 8:8, 21; 9:4, 12; 10:4, 8; 11:2; 12:1) [2] πολύς much, many (Dan 11:13, 251º, 28) [3] ἰσχυρός strong, mighty (Dan 10:1, 7; 11:252º, 44)

[1] μέγας great, large (Dan 8:8, 21; 9:4, 12; 10:1, 4, 7–8; 11:2, 13, 252X; 12:1) [2] πολύς much, many (Dan 11:28, 44)

The og employs three interchangeable equivalents for rendering the common word ‫גדול‬, namely, μέγας (eight times), ἰσχυρός (four times), and πολύς (three times). Both the unique equivalent ἰσχυρός and rare equivalent πολύς were corrected in Th-Dan with μέγας, the standard rendition for ‫ גדול‬in lxx.55 Πολύς in 11:28 is tantamount to a significant equivalent.56 ‫( שׁנה‬year)

og

Th

[1] ἔτος year (Dan 1:1, 5, 21; 2:1; 8:1; 9:1, 21º, 3º; 11:8) [2] ἡμέρα day, lifetime, time-period (Dan 9:22º cf. Mu: pap 967 ≠ Ra: 88-Syh [ἔτος]) [3] ἐνιαυτός year; cycle, period (Dan 10:1; 11:1, 6, 13)

[1] ἔτος year (Dan 1:1, 5, 21; 2:1; 8:1; 9:1, 22º–3º; 10:1; 11:1, 6) [2] ἐνιαυτός year; cycle, period (Dan 11:13) Th-Dan =0: Dan 9:21º; 11:8

55

56

See ch. 3 B § 9.1.2 (‫—גדול‬πολύς). Πολύς was replaced presumably because it is the standard equivalent for 1‫ רב־‬in lxx: Gen 13:6; 21:34; 24:25; Dan 8:25, 26; 9:27; 11:3, 5; etc. Furthermore, the reviser borrowed πολύς in Dan 11:28, maintaining it once more in v. 44. Here it replaces ἰσχυρός, which was primarily used to render both 1‫“ כח־‬strength” (Dan 1:4; 8:6–7, 22, 242X; 10:82X, 16–17; 11:6, 15, 25) and 0‫“ חיל־‬strength” (Dan 3:4, 20; 4:11; 5:17). See Daniel Olariu, “Criteria for Determining the Common Basis of the Greek Versions of Daniel,” Text 28 (2019): 105–124 (121).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 105

The reviser has consistently corrected the og’s second most frequent equivalent ἐνιαυτός towards the main ἔτος57 but has maintained ἐνιαυτός in Dan 11:13.58 ‫( בין‬to understand)

og

Th

[1] διανοέομαι to intend, plan, understand (Dan 8:5, 17, 23, 27; 9:2, 231º; 10:1, 11–12; 11:30; 12:8, 101º) [2] προνοέω to try, care for (Dan 11:372X) [3] πρόσταγμα command (Dan 8:16) [4] προσέρχομαι to come to (Dan 9:22) [5] ὑποδείκνυμι to show, inform (Dan 10:14) [6] συνίημι to understand, to think about (Dan 11:33) [7] προσέχω to pay attention to (Dan 12:102º) [8] συνετός intelligent (Dan 1:17) [9] + ‫—מדע‬σοφός wise; skilled (Dan 1:4) og=0: Dan 9:232º

[1] συνίημι to understand, to think about (Dan 1:17; 8:5, 17, 23, 27; 9:2, 232º; 10:11–12; 11:30, 33, 372X; 12:8, 102X) [2] συνετίζω to instruct (Dan 8:16; 9:22; 10:14) [3] διανοέομαι to intend, plan, understand (Dan 1:4) [4] ἐννοέω to consider, understand, intend (Dan 9:231º) Th=0: Dan 10:1

Th-Dan consistently corrects the peculiar og’s equivalents toward the standard lxx equivalents συνίημι and συνετίζω in eighteen out of twenty-two occasions.59

57

58 59

Whereas ἔτος translates ‫ שׁנה‬more than 400 times (e.g., Gen 5:2–28, 30–32; 6:3; etc.), ἐνιαυτός translates it more than 100 times (i.e., Gen 1:14; 17:21; 26:12; 47:17, 28; Exod 12:2; 23:14, 16–17, 29; 30:102X; 34:22–24; Lev 16:34; 23:41; 25:5, 10–11, 15, 29–30, 50, 52, 532X; 27:17–18, 23– 24; Num 10:11; 14:34; 28:14; Deut 11:122X; 14:222X, 28; 15:202X; 16:16; 24:5; 31:10; Josh 5:12; Jud 10:8; 11:40; 1 Sam 1:72X; 7:162X; 2 Sam 11:1; 21:12X; 1 Kgs 4:7; 5:25; 10:14, 252X; 14:21, 25; 15:9; 18:1; 20[21]:22, 26; 22:2; 2 Kgs 8:26; 13:20; 17:4; 18:9–10; 19:29; 24:18; 25:8, 27; Isa 6:1; 21:162X; 29:12X; 32:10; 34:8; 37:303X; 61:2; 63:4; Jer 11:23; 17:8; 23:12; 28[35]:16; 32[39]:1; 36[43]:1; 45:1[51:31]; 48[31]:44; 52:31; Ezek 4:62X; Zech 14:16; Ps 65[64]:12; Job 3:6; Neh 10:13, 352X, 362X; 1Chr 27:1; 2 Chr 8:13; 9:13, 242X; 22:2; 24:5, 23; 27:5; 36:10). Ch. 3 A § 4.1 (Dan 11:1). As in the case of 1‫שׂכל־‬, most of og-Dan’s equivalents for ‫ בין‬are hapax (διανοέομαι and

106

chapter 3

In two instances, the reviser was influenced by og-Dan in his selection of equivalents,60 while once it reflects a different Vorlage.61 1‫( שׂכל־‬to be wise, understand) og

Th

[1] διανοέομαι to intend, plan, understand (Dan 9:13, 25; 12:10) [2] ἐπιστήμων understanding (Dan 1:4) [3] σύνεσις understanding + φρόνησις wisdom (Dan 1:17 cf. Mu = Ra: pap 967, 88-Syh) [4] ὑποδείκνυμι to show, inform (Dan 9:22) [5] ἐννοέω to consider, understand, intend (Dan 11:33) [6] συνίημι to understand, to think about (Dan 11:35; 12:3)

[1] συνίημι to understand, to think about (Dan 1:4; 9:13, 25; 11:35; 12:3); συνετός intelligent (Dan 11:33) [2] φρόνησις wisdom (Dan 1:17) [3] συμβιβάζω to advise; to bring together, unite (Dan 9:22) [4] νοήμων understanding, thoughtful (Dan 12:10)

1‫ שׂכל־‬occurs nine times in mt-Dan, and, excepting Dan 11:35 and 12:3, og-Dan felt at liberty to render it with hapax and rare equivalents.62 Th-Dan contrasts with the og’s liberty in lexical choices, making use six times of a standard compound derived from ἵημι. In another two cases, Th depends on the og, and once, the reviser was influenced by its style.63

60 61 62 63

ὑποδείκνυμι [ch. 3 B § 9.1.1]); rare renditions (προσέχω [ch. 3 B §9.1.2]); rare words (προνοέω [ch. 3 B § 9.2.2]), and contextual or free renderings (πρόσταγμα, see ch. 3 C §13.1.3.2 [‫;]דבר‬ σοφός). For the textual problems involved in og-Dan 9:22, see ch. 3 A §3.3. For Dan 1:4 and 9:231º, see ch. 3 B §§ 7 (‫ ;)בין‬8.2 (διανοέομαι). Ch. 4 § 1.2 (Dan 10:1). See ch. 3 B §§ 9.2.2 (ἐπιστήμων); 9.1.1 (1‫—שׂכל־‬ἐννοέω; 1‫—שׂכל־‬διανοέομαι). In Dan 12:10, Th-Dan adopts and partly reworks og-Dan’s equivalent (ch. 3 B §7 [1‫)]שׂכל־‬. The situation in Dan 9:22 is more complex, pertaining to those instances where the og’s freedom apparently excuses the reviser to go his own way.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 107 ‫( עם‬people)

og

Th

[1] λαός people (Dan 9:15, 19–20, 24; 10:14; 12:12X, 7) [2] ἔθνος nation, people, Gentile (Dan 9:6, 26; 11:14, 33) [3] δῆμος people (Dan 8:24; 9:16; 11:32 cf. Mu: pap 967) [4] μετά with (+gen); after (+acc) (Dan 11:15)

[1] λαός people (Dan 8:24; 9:6, 15–16, 19–20, 24; 11:14, 32–33; 12:12X) [2] σύν (+dat) with, besides (Dan 9:26) [3] ἀνίστημι to raise up, arise (Dan 11:15) Th=0: Dan 12:7

The variety in equivalents is evident in og-Dan’s interchanging use of no less than three equivalents to render the common word ‫עם‬.64 Excepting Dan 9:26 and 11:15, the reviser consistently employs λαός.65 1.1.2 Root Consistency Our search for stereotyping in the Hebrew/Aramaic—Greek equivalents includes the examination of root consistency. Significantly, the data provide further examples which document the tendency of Th-Dan to maintain the same equivalent for cognate Hebrew/Aramaic lexemes. In addition, though even more difficult to achieve, the reviser successfully employed derivates from the same Greek root for Semitic word families. 1.1.2.1 Cognate Words By cognates we refer to those words which share in Hebrew and Aramaic the same Semitic, consonantal root. The reviser attempted to maintain the same equivalents across the two language sections of Daniel.

64

65

Λαός constitutes the standard equivalent. Whereas ἔθνος frequently represents ‫ עם‬in lxx (hrcs, s.v. “ἔθνος,” lists ca. 130 instances), δῆμος renders it only once. See ch. 3 B §9.1.2 (‫—עם‬δῆμος). There is no evidence that the variation of og-Dan’s equivalents reflect exegesis. They were rather employed interchangeably, for both people of Israel and the other nations. The deviation in Th-Dan 9:26 from mt demonstrably reflects difference in vocalization or pronunciation, that is, instead of ‫ עם‬the text has been read ‫עם‬. For the more complex case of Th-Dan 12:7, see ch. 4 § 3 (Dan 12:7).

108

chapter 3 ‫גלה‬/0‫( גלה־‬to reveal, deport)

og

Th

[1] δηλόω to make clear, declare (Dan 2:19, 472º) [2] ἀνακαλύπτω to uncover, disclose (Dan 2:22, 29) [3] φωτίζω to give light (Dan 2:28) [4] ἐκφαίνω to exhibit, show forth (Dan 2:30, 471º) [5] δείκνυμι (also δεικνύω) to show (Dan 10:1)

[1] ἀποκαλύπτω to reveal (Dan 2:19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 472X; 10:1)

Considering that seven out of the eight occurrences of ‫ גלה‬are confined to only one chapter, evoking the very same concept of God disclosing secret revelation, the technique of the og’s translator to disregard the context and employ variegated equivalents is symptomatic of his free approach. The og has ostensibly employed no less than five different equivalents,66 featuring hapax, rare, and exegetical equivalents.67 Th-Dan revises them toward the standard lxx equivalent ἀποκαλύπτω.68

66

67

68

The statistics above follow Munnich’s critical edition. Even though one might prefer Rahlfs’s reconstruction or prioritize pap 967’s readings, the variety persists. According to the former og-Dan’s equivalents include ἀνακαλύπτω (Dan 2:22, 28, 29), ἐκφαίνω (2:19, 30, 471º), δηλόω (2:472º), and δείκνυμι (10:1); pap 967 differs by Munnich’s reconstruction in adding two new equivalents in 2:30 (ἀποκ[αλύ]πτω “to reveal”) and 10:1 (δίδωμι “to give” [this reading is preferred by McLay, og and Th Versions, 45, n. 16]). Considering the apocalyptic genre of the book, ‫ גלה‬would have been the right term to attract exegesis. It seems that such an interest is at work in mss 88-Syh which tends to reserve ἀνακαλύπτω (Dan 2:22, 28, 29) for cases when God is indicated as the source of revelation and employ ἐκφαίνω (2:19, 30, 471º) whenever the source is not explicitly stated. Δηλόω, φωτίζω, ἐκφαίνω, and δείκνυμι are hapax equivalents, while ἀνακαλύπτω renders ‫גלה‬ in eleven instances (Isa 22:8, 14; 26:21; 47:3; 49:9; Jer 13:22; 49:10[30:4]; Ps 18[17]:16; Job 12:22; 20:27; 33:16). Ἀποκαλύπτω appears about 100 times in lxx and consistently renders ‫גלה‬: Exod 20:26; Lev 18:6–19; 20:11, 17–21; Num 22:31; 24:4, 16; Deut 23:1; 27:20; Josh 2:20; Ruth 3:4, 7; 1Sam 2:27; 3:7, 21; 9:15; 20:2, 13; 22:8, 17; 2 Sam 6:20, 22; 7:27; 22:16; Pss 98[97]:2; 119[118]:18; Prov 11:13; 27:5; Song 4:1; Job 41:5; Hos 2:12; 7:1; Amos 3:7; Mic 1:6; Nah 2:8; 3:5; Isa 47:2; 53:1; 56:1; Jer 11:20; 20:12; Lam 2:14; 4:22; Ezek 13:14; 16:36–37, 57; 21:29; 22:10; 23:10, 18, 29.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 109

0‫ארע־‬/‫( ארץ‬land, earth) og

Th

[1] Βαβυλών Babylon (Dan 1:2) [2] γῆ earth, land (Dan 2:35, 392º; 4:7[10]–8[11], 12[15]1º; 6:26[25]; 7:4, 17, 232X; 8:52X, 7, 10; 9:6; 10:9, 15) [3] ἐλαχύς small, short, little (Dan 2:391º) [4] ἐν αὐταῖς (Dan 3:31[4:34c]) [5] ὄρος mountain, high hill (Dan 4:12[15]2º) [6] χαμαί to the ground; on the ground (Dan 8:12, 18) [7] χώρα place, land, country (Dan 9:7; 11:16, 19, 282X, 40) [8] Αἴγυπτος Egypt (Dan 9:15) og=0: Dan 4:17[20], 19[22]–20[23], 32[35]; 6:28[27]; 11:41, 422X cf. Mu

[1] γῆ earth, land (Dan 1:2; 2:35, 392º; 3:31[4:1]; 4:7[10]–8[11], 12[15]2X; 17, 19[22]–20[23], 32[35]2X; 6:26[25], 28[27]; 7:4, 17, 23; 8:52X, 7, 10, 18; 9:6–7, 15; 10:9, 15; 11:16, 19, 282X, 40–41, 422X) [2] ἥσσων less, worse (Dan 2:391º) [3] χαμαί to the ground; on the ground (Dan 8:12)

The translational liberty is visible in representing both ‫ ארץ‬and its Aramaic cognate 0‫ארע־‬.69 Th-Dan succeeds in maintaining the standard γῆ in thirty-seven out of thirty-nine instances.70 0‫מדינה־‬/‫( מדינה‬province) og

Th

[1] πρᾶγμα thing, deed (Dan 2:48) [2] χώρα place, land, country (Dan 3:1, 12, 30; 8:2)

[1] χώρα place, land, country (Dan 2:48–49; 3:1–3, 12, 30[97]; 8:2; 11:24)

69

70

The use of ἐν αὐταῖς for 0‫ ארע־‬in og-Dan 3:31[4:37c] seems to be a free, contextual translation. Apparently, the translator had recourse to ὄρος in Dan 4:12[15]2º stylistically, attempting to avoid its repetition because the term was employed in the immediate context as a free equivalent for ‫( ברא‬internal harmonization with 4:9[12]; the phrase also occurs in the long pluses of 4:14[17a], 30[33b]). Th-Dan diverges twice from its stereotyped equivalent: in Dan 8:12 due to its dependence

110

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[3] οἰκουμένη world (Dan 3:2) [4] πόλις city, town; city-state (Dan 11:24) og=0: Dan 2:49; 3:3

The free stylistic technique of the og has generated unique renditions like πρᾶγμα, οἰκουμένη, and πόλις.71 By contrast, Th-Dan has revised the peculiar renditions with the standard lxx equivalent χώρα.72 ‫בשׂר‬/0‫( בשׂר־‬body)

og

Th

[1] σῶμα body (Dan 1:15) [2] σάρξ flesh, meat, body (Dan 2:11; 7:5) [3] ζῷον living being; animal (Dan 4:9[12]) [4] κρέας meat (Dan 10:3)

[1] σάρξ flesh, meat, body (Dan 1:15; 2:11; 4:9[12]; 7:5) [2] κρέας meat (Dan 10:3)

71

72

on og-Dan’s equivalent (see “Quest for the Common Basis,” 55 [No. 22]), and in Dan 2:391º because of contextual exegesis (see ch. 3 C § 12.3.2 [0‫)]ארע־‬. The og’s free approach is also reflected in its minuses at Dan 2:49; 3:3. Whereas in the former case 0‫ ְמ ִדי ָנה־‬is most likely left untranslated as superfluous, in the latter it is part of a long minus caused by avoiding a mot-a-mot reiteration of what was said in the previous verse. See ch. 3 A § 2.2.2.1 (Dan 3:3). Χώρας is the standard equivalent of both 0‫ מדינה־‬and ‫מדינה‬, rendering them twenty-three times: 1 Kgs 20[21]:14–15, 17, 19; Ezek 19:8; Eccl 2:8; 5:7; Lam 1:1; Esth 1:1, 222º; 2:3; 3:12, 14; 4:3; 8:17; 9:28[27]; Ezra 2:1; 4:15; 5:8; 7:16; Neh 1:3; 7:6; 11:3. Besides χώρας, there are some unique paraphrastic renditions confined only to the book of Esther such as σατράπης “satrap,” “governor” (1:3; 8:92X; 9:3) and βασιλεία “kingdom” (Esth 1:22; 2:18; 3:13; 4:11; 8:5, 12–13; 9:4, 16, 20; in most of these cases it renders ‫)מדינות המלך‬. lxx=0: Esth 1:16; 3:8, 122X; 3:14[?]; 4:3[?]; 8:9[?]; 8:17[?]; 9:2, 28[?], 30.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 111

Th-Dan has replaced the hapax equivalent ζῷον and less frequent σῶμα with the standard σάρξ,73 excepting Dan 10:3, wherein the retention of κρέας may entail exegetical nuances.74 0‫זרע־‬/‫( זרע‬seed) og

Th

[1] γένος family, race, kind; offspring (Dan 1:3) [2] γένεσις birth, lineage, offspring, family (Dan 2:43) [3] γενεά generation (Dan 9:1)

[1] σπέρμα seed, offspring (Dan 1:3; 2:43; 9:1)

Th-Dan consistently replaces the og’s peculiar equivalents for ‫ זרע‬with the standard σπέρμα.75 1.1.2.2 Word Families A well-known characteristic of the Semitic languages is the formation of new words by means of adding different vowel patterns, suffixes, and prefixes to the same root. In certain occasions, Th-Dan attempts to replicate the same process in the target language, rendering the Semitic word family with derivates from the same Greek root. √‫שׁטף‬ Derivates

og

‫[ שׁטף‬verb] to over- [1] κατασύρω to drag (Dan

flow, rinse

73

74 75

11:10, 26) [2] συντρίβω to crush, to break (Dan 11:22) og=0: Dan 11:40

Th [1] κατακλύζω to overflow (Dan 11:10. 22, 26) [2] συντρίβω to crush, to break (Dan 11:40)

Ζῷον occurs thirty-eight times in lxx but nowhere else does it render ‫בשׂר‬. Σῶμα occurs more than 120 times and renders ‫ בשׂר‬in twenty instances: Lev 6:3; 14:9; 15:2–3, 13, 16, 19; 16:4, 24, 26, 28; 17:16; 19:28; 22:6; Num 8:7; 19:7–8; 1 Kgs 21[20]:27; Job 7:5; 41:15. Σάρξ occurs over 200 times and stereotypically translates ‫בשׂר‬: Gen 2:21, 232X, 24; 6:3, 12, 17, 19; 7:15–16, 21; 8:17; 9:11, 152X, 16, 17; 17:11, 13–14, 24–25; 29:14; 37:27; 40:19; etc. Ch. 3 C § 12.1.3.1 (Dan 10:3). See ch. 3 B §§ 9.1.1 (0‫—זרע־‬γένεσις); 9.1.2 (‫—זרע‬γενεά; ‫—זרע‬γένος).

112

chapter 3

(cont.)

Derivates

og

Th

‫[ ֶשֶׁטף‬noun] flood

[1] ὀργή wrath; anger (Dan 9:26) [2] συντρίβω to crush, to break (Dan 11:22)

[1] κατακλυσμός flood, deluge (Dan 9:26) [2] κατακλύζω to overflow (Dan 11:22)

Notwithstanding the complexity of rendering ‫ שׁטף‬in the target language, ThDan successfully produced a stereotyped equivalent for both the verb and the noun deriving from the same lexeme. Namely, the reviser has corrected the imprecise, rare word equivalents κατασύρω, συντρίβω, and ὀργή76 with the most common equivalent κατακλύζω.77 √‫לבשׁ‬78 Derivates

og

Th

0‫[ לבשׁ־‬verb] to wear

[1] στολίζω to clothe (Dan 5:7, 16) [2] ἐνδύω to wear, put on (Dan 5:29)

[1] ἐνδύω to wear, put on (Dan 5:7, 16, 29)

‫[ ָלבוּשׁ‬passive participle] clothed

[1] ἐνδύω to wear, put on (Dan 10:5) [2] περιβάλλω to put on, clothe (Dan 12:6, 7)

[1] ἐνδύω to wear, put on (Dan 10:5; Dan 12:6, 7)

76

77

78

og-Dan’s renditions for rendering ‫ שׁטף‬include peculiar equivalents. Consequently, κατασύρω is a rare Greek word which, besides og-Dan, occurs once more in Jer 49[30]:10 rendering ‫“ חשׂף‬to bare,” “to scoop”; and συντρίβω and ὀργή are hapax equivalents in lxx. For the significant shared rendition συντρίβω, see ch. 3 B §8.1 (συντρίβω). The analysis above reveals that most common equivalents in rendering √‫ שׁטף‬are compound derivates of κλύζω such as ἐκκλύζω, συγκλύζω, and ἐπικλύζω. Interestingly, κατακλύζω constitutes the main equivalent translating √‫ שׁטף‬nine times: Jer 47[29]:22X; Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22; Nah 1:8; Pss 78[77]:20; 32[31]:6; Job 14:19*. In terms of linguistic accuracy, κατακλύζω represents a more adequate rendition. See ch. 3 B § 9.2.2 (στολίζω).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 113

√‫גדל‬ Derivates

og

Th

‫[ גדל‬verb] to grow

Piel [1] ἐκπαιδεύω to educate completely (Dan 1:5) Hiphil/Qal [2] ὑψόω to lift up; to exalt (Dan 8:4, 10, 25) Hiphil/Hithpael [3] κατισχύω to overcome, strengthen (Dan 8:8–9) [2] ὑψόω to lift up; to exalt (Dan 11:36–37) Hiphil [4] ῥύομαι to deliver (Dan 8:11)

Piel [1] θρέψαι to feed (Dan 1:5)

[1] μέγας great, large (Dan 8:8, 21; 9:4, 12; 10:4, 8; 11:2; 12:1) [2] πολύς much, many (Dan 11:13, 251º, 28) [3] ἰσχυρός strong, mighty (Dan 10:1, 7; 11:252º, 44)

[1] μέγας great, large (Dan 8:8, 21; 9:4, 12; 10:1, 4, 7–8; 11:2, 13, 252X; 12:1) [2] πολύς much, many (Dan 11:28, 44)

up, become great

‫[ גדול‬adj.] great

Hiphil/Hithpael/Qal [2] μεγαλύνω to enlarge, magnify, boast, grow (Dan 8:4, 8–10, 25; 11:36–37) Hiphil [3] ῥύομαι to deliver (Dan 8:11)

The analysis of √‫—גדל‬which occurs nine times as a verb and fifteen times as an adjective—reveals the following pattern: excepting cases when the reviser demonstrably depends on the og (i.e., Dan 8:11; 11:28, 44),79 he prioritizes derivates from √μέγας for each verbal stem and the adjective.

79

For the og’s influence on Th-Dan 11:28, 44, see Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 105 (No. 87); for ῥύομαι, see ch. 3 C § 12.1.3.3 (Dan 8:11). Considering that μεγαλύνω does not fit the context of Dan 1:5, and the og is free, Th-Dan appears to go its own way in determining a suitable contextual equivalent.

114

chapter 3

1.2 Greek—Hebrew/Aramaic Equivalents In the preceding sections, we have tested the assumption of Th-Dan as a stereotyped revision by examining how Hebrew/Aramaic lexemes have been rendered with Greek equivalents. The test indicated the reviser’s tendency to employ absolute and general stereotyped equivalents for individual Semitic lexemes, cognate words, and word families. In order to further document ThDan’s stereotyping, we apply a second test which emerges from an examination of how Greek equivalents have been maintained for Hebrew/Aramaic lexemes. We suggest that this test returns even more relevant results since it affirms the reviser’s tendency to restrict the use of Greek renditions to certain Hebrew/Aramaic words. That it is to say, it shows that his agenda included as a goal not only the maintenance of the same rendition for a Semitic lexeme (Hebrew/Aramaic 1—Greek 1, but Greek 1 may render Hebrew 1, 2, etc.), but also the restriction, whenever possible, of each Greek rendition to a single Semitic lexeme (Greek 1= Hebrew/Aramaic 1). In our view such a goal is much more difficult to accomplish, and it raises the question of whether the reviser consulted a glossary of equivalents. 1.2.1 Restricting Equivalents To describe the reviser’s degree of success in restricting an equivalent to a particular Semitic lexeme, we distinguish between “absolute” and “general” restrictions. Each of these two categories are supported by examples that are designed to capture the contrast between the Greek versions. Since the examples are meant to highlight the way a Greek equivalent was employed, each one has as its heading the equivalent under scrutiny. It is then followed by a presentation in a two-column chart of the corresponding Semitic lexemes in og-Dan and Th-Dan. 1.2.1.1 Absolute Restriction When the reviser successfully reserves a Greek rendition for only one Hebrew/ Aramaic lexeme, we characterize the outcome as “absolute restriction.” (a) ἄνθρωπος (man, human) [Aramaic] og

Th

[1] 0‫ גבר־‬man (Dan 2:25; 3:12, 13, 27[94]; 5:11; 6:25[24]) [2] 0‫־‬1‫ חי־‬life (Dan 2:30) [3] 0‫ אנשׁ־‬+ 0‫־‬2‫ בר־‬sons of men (Dan 2:38)

[1] 0‫ אנשׁ־‬man (Dan 2:10, 38, 43; 3:10; 4:13[16], 14[17]2X, 22[25]2X, 29[32]2X, 30[33]; 5:5, 212X; 6:8[7], 13[12]2X; 7:42X, 8, 13)

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 115 (cont.)

og

Th

[4] 0‫ אנשׁ־‬man (Dan 2:43; 3:10; 4:28[31]2º; 5:5; 6:13[12]2º; 7:13) [5] 0‫ כל־‬all (Dan 6:8[7]) mt=0: Dan 4:19[22], 28[31]1º, 29[32]; 5:0, 9, 23; 6:6[5], 7[6], 13[12]1º, 13[12a], 23[22], 27[26]

In the Aramaic section, ἄνθρωπος appears twenty-seven times in og-Dan and twenty-two times in Th-Dan. In the former it was employed mainly for 0‫גבר־‬ and 0‫אנשׁ־‬, and occasionally for 0‫־‬1‫חי־‬, 0‫כל־‬, and ‫בר אנשׁ‬. In other instances, ἄνθρωπος appears as a plus in og-Dan over against mt. Contrastingly, ἄνθρωπος was restricted as the only equivalent for 0‫ אנשׁ־‬in Th-Dan, presumably because it constitutes its standard equivalent.80 (b) ἄνθρωπος (man, human) [Hebrew] og

Th

[1] 1‫ גבר־‬man (Dan 8:15) [2] ‫ גבריאל‬Gabriel (Dan 8:162º) [3] 1‫ אדם־‬man (Dan 8:161º, 17; 10:16 [+1‫]בן־‬, 18) [4] ‫ אישׁ‬man (Dan 9:7; 10:5, 7, 11, 19) [5] ‫ אשׁה‬woman, wife (Dan 11:17)

[1] 1‫ אדם־‬man (Dan 8:17; 10:16, 18)

80

The Hebrew cognate word 0‫“ אנשׁ־‬man” occurs forty-two times and was rendered stereotypically with ἄνθρωπος: Deut 32:26; Isa 8:1; 13:7; 24:6; 33:8; 51:7, 12; Pss 8:5; 9:20–21; 10:18 [9:39]; 55[54]:14; 56[55]:2; 66[65]:12; 73[72]:5; 90[89]:3; 103[102]:15; 104[103]:152X; 144[143]: 3; Job 5:17; 7:1, 17; 10:4*; 14:19*; 25:6; 33:26; 2 Chr 14:10. It was also rendered with βροτός “mortal human” (Job 4:17; 9:2; 15:14; 25:4; 28:4, 13; 32:8; 33:12; 36:25); καταλείπω “to leave” (Isa 13:12); ἀνήρ “man” (Isa 56:2; Jer 20:10); ἀνθρώπινος “human” (Job 10:5); πᾶς “everything” (Job 13:9). See also ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.2 (0‫)גבר־‬.

116

chapter 3

The use of ἄνθρωπος by both versions in the Hebrew section further indicates its restrictive use in Th-Dan. While ἄνθρωπος interchangeably renders ‫ אישׁ‬and 1‫ אדם־‬in og-Dan, Th-Dan employs it only for the latter.81 γένος (kind)82 og

Th

[1] ‫ זרע‬seed (Dan 1:3) [2] + υἱός—1‫ בן־‬son (Dan 1:6) [3] 0‫ זן־‬kind (Dan 3:5) [4] 0‫ לשׁן־‬language (Dan 7:14) mt=0: Dan 6:29[28] cf. Ra = Zi: 88-Syh ≠ Mu: Syh[mg]

[1] 0‫ זן־‬kind (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15)

ἐπιστρέφω (to turn back, return) og

Th

[1] ‫ שׁוב‬to return (Dan 9:25[27]; 10:20; 11:9–10, 13, 19, 282X, 302X) [2] ‫ הפך‬to turn (Dan 10:8, 16) [3] ‫ שׁפך‬to pour out (Dan 11:15) [4] ‫ שׁבת‬to cease, rest (Dan 11:18)

[1] 0‫תוב־‬/‫ שׁוב‬to return (Dan 4:31[34], 33[36]2X; 9:25; 10:20; 11:13, 182X, 19, 282X, 29, 302X)

Ἐπιστρέφω consistently translates ‫ שׁוב‬in lxx.83

81

82 83

1‫ אדם־‬occurs over 540 times in mt and was stereotypically rendered with ἄνθρωπος: Gen 1:26–27; 2:5, 72X, 8, 15, 18; 5:1; 6:1–72X; 7:21, 23; 8:212X; 9:52X, 62X; 11:5; 16:12; Exod 4:11; 8:13–14; 9:9–10, 19, 22, 25; etc. See ch. 3 B § 6.1 (0‫)זן־‬. Ἐπιστρέφω occurs almost 500 times in lxx, and it stereotypically renders ‫שׁוב‬: Gen 8:12; 21:32; 44:13; Exod 4:20; 5:22; 34:31; Num 17:15; 23:5; Deut 4:30, 39; 28:60; 30:2, 8–10; Josh 19:27, 34; Judg 6:18; 7:15; 8:9; 9:57; 11:9; etc. The equivalency ‫—הפך‬ἐπιστρέφω is attested only six times: 1 Sam 4:19; 1 Kgs 22:34; 2 Kgs 5:26; 9:23; Job 30:15; 2Chr 18:33. Furthermore, ἐπιστρέφω constitutes a hapax equivalent for both ‫ שׁפך‬and ‫ שׁבת‬in lxx.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 117

ὄχλος (crowd) og

Th

[1] ‫ חיל‬strength, wealth, army (Dan 11:10, 13, 252X) [2] 0‫ חיל־‬strength (Dan 3:4) [3] ‫ מצעד‬step (Dan 11:43)

[1] ‫ המון‬multitude, sound (Dan 10:6; 11:10, 112X, 12–13)

While og-Dan employs ὄχλος for multiple Aramaic and Hebrew words, Th-Dan restricts the use of ὄχλος to rendering ‫המון‬. ἀπόλλυμι (to destroy) og

Th

[1] 0‫ אבד־‬to perish, destroy (Dan 2:24; 7:11, 262º) [2] 0‫ קום־‬to rise (Dan 7:17) [3] 0‫ עדה־‬to take away (7:261º)

[1] 0‫ אבד־‬to perish, destroy (Dan 2:12, 18, 242X; 7:11, 26)

Whereas the analysis of 0‫“ אבד־‬to perish,” “to destroy”84 underscored the contrast between the og’s translational freedom and the stereotyped nature of Th-Dan, the analysis of ἀπόλλυμι reveals that Th-Dan contrasts with og-Dan in restricting ἀπόλλυμι to rendering only 0‫אבד־‬. og-Dan’s style displays once more the propensity toward freedom: it utilizes ἀπόλλυμι for three distinct roots within a single chapter (i.e., Daniel 7), and even for two roots in a single verse of the same chapter (i.e., v. 26). πνεῦμα (spirit) og

Th

[1] ‫רוח‬/0‫ רוח־‬spirit, breath, wind (Dan 2:3; 5:12; 6:4[3]) [2] 0‫נשׁמה־‬/‫ נשׁמה‬breath (Dan 5:23; 10:17)

[1] ‫רוח‬/0‫ רוח־‬spirit, breath, wind (Dan 2:1, 3, 35; 4:5[8]–6[9], 15[18]; 5:11–12, 14, 20; 6:4[3]; 7:15)

84

See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 (0‫)אבד־‬.

118

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[3] 1‫ הוד־‬splendor (Dan 10:8) mt=0: Dan 5:4

Πνεῦμα was restricted to rendering only ‫ רוח‬in Th-Dan.85 θρόνος (throne) og

Th

[1] 0‫ היכל־‬palace (Dan 4:1[4]) [2] 0‫ מלכו־‬kingdom (Dan 4:23[26]) [3] 0‫ כרסא־‬throne (Dan 7:92X) mt=0: Dan 4:24[27], 34[37b]

[1] 0‫ כרסא־‬throne (Dan 5:20; 7:92X)

Θρόνος was restricted to rendering only 0‫ כרסא־‬in Th-Dan.86 1.2.1.2 General Restriction There are times when, in spite of his tendency to restrict equivalents to a oneto-one correspondence, the reviser exceptionally employs a Greek equivalent for a second or third Semitic lexeme. These exceptions arise because of either og-Dan’s influence on Th-Dan or another recensional principle, such as standardization. The examples containing exceptional uses of restricted equivalents under the influence of og-Dan are listed first, these being close in nature to those listed under the heading of “absolute restriction.” They are followed by 85

86

Πνεῦμα occurs about 350 times in lxx and stereotypically renders ‫רוח‬: Gen 1:2; 6:3, 17; 7:15; 8:1; 41:38; 45:27; Exod 15:8, 10; 28:3; 31:3; 35:31; Num 5:142X, 30; 11:17, 252X, 26, 29, 31; 14:24; 16:22; 23:7; 24:2; 27:16, 18; Deut 2:30; 34:9; Josh 2:11; Judg 3:10; 6:34; 8:3; 9:23; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14, 19; etc. It further renders ‫ נשׁמה‬in three instances (1Kgs 17:17; Job 34:14 [+ ‫)]רוח‬ but none of the time 1‫הוד־‬. Θρόνος occurs about 160 times in lxx and stereotypically renders the Hebrew cognate ‫כסא‬ “throne”: Gen 41:40; Exod 11:5; 12:29; Judg 3:20; 1 Sam 2:8; 2Sam 3:10; 7:13, 16; 14:9; 1Kgs 1:13, 17, 20, 24, 27, 30, 35, 372X, 46, 472X, 48; 2:4, 12, 19, 24, 33, 45; 3:6; 5:19; 7:7[44]; 8:20, 25; 9:5; 10:9, 18–19; 16:11; 22:10, 19; etc. If the alignment above, which follows catss and hrcs, is correct, then the renditions of both 0‫ מלכו־‬and 0‫ היכל־‬with θρόνος are unique.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 119

examples which highlight exceptional uses of restrictive renditions stemming from other recensional principles, which will be subsequently discussed in this investigation. συντρίβω (to crush, to break) og

Th

[1] 1‫שׁבר־‬/0‫ תבר־‬to break (Dan 2:42; 8:71º, 8, 22; 11:4, 20) [2] ‫ רמס‬to trample (Dan 8:72º) [3] ‫ שׁטף‬flood (Dan 11:221º) [4] ‫ שׁטף‬to overflow, rinse (Dan 11:222º) [5] ‫ כשׁל‬to stumble (Dan 11:34)

[1] 1‫שׁבר־‬/0‫ תבר־‬to break (Dan 2:42; 8:7, 8, 22, 25; 11:4, 20, 22, 26) [2] ‫ שׁטף‬to overflow, rinse (Dan 11:40)

Both versions attest συντρίβω ten times each in Daniel 1–12. However, excepting Dan 11:40,87 the reviser has succeeded to maintain συντρίβω as the stereotyped equivalent for 1‫שׁבר־‬. ἔλεος (mercy) og

Th

[1] ‫ תחנון‬supplication (Dan 9:3) [2] 2‫ חסד־‬lovingkindness (Dan 9:4) [3] ‫ סליחה‬forgiveness (Dan 9:9) [4] ‫ רחמים‬compassion (Dan 9:18)

[1] 2‫ חסד־‬lovingkindness (Dan 1:9; 9:4) [2] 1‫ תחנה־‬supplication (Dan 9:20)

Ἔλεος constitutes the stereotyped and frequent equivalent for 2‫“ חסד־‬lovingkindness”88 and 1‫“ תחנה־‬supplication,” respectively.89

87 88

89

For the significance of the equivalents ‫—שׁטף‬συντρίβω in Th-Dan 11:40, see ch. 3 B §8.1 (συντρίβω). Gen 24:12, 14, 49; 39:21; 40:14; Exod 20:6; Num 14:19; Deut 5:10; 7:9, 12; Josh 2:122X, 14; Judg 1:24; 8:35; 1 Sam 15:6; 20:8, 14–15; 2 Sam 2:5–6; 3:8; 7:15; 9:1, 3, 7; 10:22X; 15:20; 16:17; 22: 51; 1Kgs 2:7; 3:62X; 8:23; Isa 16:5; 54:8, 10; 63:7; etc. 1‫ תחנה־‬occurs twenty-five times and has as its main equivalents δέησις and ἔλεος. The former was mainly used in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:30, 38, 45, 522X, 54; 9:3; cf. 2Chr 6:19,

120

chapter 3

ἕτερος (other, another) og

Th

[1] 0‫ כל־‬all (Dan 3:28[95]) [2] 0‫אחרן־‬/1‫ אחר־‬other (Dan 3:29[96]; 11:4; 12:5) [3] ‫ שׁני‬second (Dan 8:3) [4] + κἐρας—‫ חזות‬vision (Dan 8:8) [5] ‫ אחד‬one (Dan 8:131º, 132º [+ ‫)]קדושׁ‬ mt=0: Dan 4:28[31]2X, 29[32], 34[37], 34[37a]; 8:3 cf. Mu ≠ Ra

[1] 0‫אחרן־‬/1‫ אחר־‬other (Dan 2:11, 39, 44; 3:29[96]; 5:17; 7:6, 8, 20, 24; 11:4; 12:5) [2] ‫ שׁני‬second (Dan 8:3)

Th-Dan confines the use of ἕτερος to the cognates 0‫ אחרן־‬and 1‫אחר־‬.90 ταράσσω (to trouble) og

Th

[1] ‫ פעם‬to disturb (Dan 2:1) [2] ‫ נפל‬to fall (Dan 11:12) [3] ‫ בהל‬to dismay, terrify, hasten (Dan 11:44)

[1] 0‫בהל־‬/‫ בהל‬to alarm (Dan 5:9–10; 7:15; 11:44) [2] 0‫ הרהר־‬thoughts (Dan 4:2[5])

When ‫ בהל‬was perceived in context as meaning “to terrify” and not “to hasten,” the lxx translators mainly made recourse to ταράσσω.91 1.2.2 Root Consistency The tendency of the reviser to maintain the same equivalent for Hebrew/Aramaic cognate roots was noted above. The examination of Greek—Hebrew/Ara-

90 91

29, 35, 39) and in Pss 6:10; 55[54]:2. The latter occurs frequently in Jer 36[43]:7; 37[44]:20; 38[45]:26; 42[49]:2 and Josh 11:20. 1‫ תחנה־‬was also rendered exceptionally with ἀξίωμα “petition” (Ps 119[118]:170); προσευχή “prayer” (Dan 9:20); ἐπιεικεύομαι “to deal mercifully with” (Ezra 9:8); βοή “cry” (2 Chr 33:13); lxx=0: 1 Kgs 8:28, 49; Jer 42[49]:9. See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 (0‫)אחרן־‬. Gen 15:3; Isa 13:8; Pss 2:5; 6:3–4, 11; 30[29]:8; 48[47]:6; 83[82]:16, 18; 90[89]:7.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 121

maic equivalents produces examples which demonstrate that the reviser further aimed to consistently restrict renditions for semantically equivalent roots and word families. 1.2.2.1 Semantic Equivalent Roots By semantic equivalent roots we refer to those Hebrew and Aramaic words which carry the same meaning but do not feature the same consonantal skeleton. The classifying principle for the examples that follow aims to underscore the contrast between the translational approaches of og-Dan and Th-Dan: the more Semitic lexemes a Greek word renders in the og, the higher the position it ranks in the list. εὑρίσκω (to find) og

Th

[1] ‫ מצא‬to find (Dan 1:19; 12:1) [2] 0‫ שׁכח־‬to find (Dan 2:25; 6:5[4], 23[22]1º) [3] 1‫ אמר־‬to say (Dan 8:26 cf. Ra: pap 967, 88-Syh ≠ Mu = Zi) [4] ‫ בקשׁ‬to seek (Dan 9:3) [5] 1‫ מוצא־‬going forth, source (Dan 9:25) mt=0: Dan 6:14[13], 23[22]2º

[1] ‫ מצא‬to find (Dan 1:19–20; 11:19; 12:1) [2] 0‫ שׁכח־‬to find (Dan 2:25, 35; 5:11, 14, 27; 6:5[4]1º, 5[4]2º [+0‫]יכל־‬, 6[5], 12[11], 23[22]–24[23])

Εὑρίσκω appears eleven times in og-Dan and constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ מצא‬in lxx.92 Beside the expected semantic equivalent roots ‫ מצא‬and 0‫שׁכח־‬, it further translates 1‫אמר־‬, ‫בקשׁ‬, and the noun 1‫מוצא־‬. On two occasions εὑρίσκω appears as a plus as compared to mt. By contrast, Th-Dan reserves εὑρί-

92

‫ מצא‬occurs over 450 times in mt and was regularly rendered with εὑρίσκω: Gen 2:20; 4:14– 15; 6:8; 8:9; 11:2; 16:7; 18:3, 26, 28, 30; 19:19; 26:12, 19, 32; 27:20; 30:14, 27; 31:32–33, 35, 37; 32:6, 20; 33:8, 10, 15; 34:11; 36:24; 37:15, 17, 32; 38:20, 22–23; 39:4; 41:38; 44:8–10, 12, 162X, 17, 34; etc. The equivalency ‫—בקשׁ‬εὑρίσκω occurs only once more in 2Chr 15:4. For the reading in og-Dan 8:26 we follow pap 967, 88-Syh which jointly attest ηὑρέθη. Montgomery’s suggestion (Daniel, 355) that we should read ερρεθη was followed by both Ziegler and Munnich. Though possible, this suggestion remains conjectural. In Dan 9:25, the og reflects a different understanding of the text: see ch. 3 A § 3.2.2.2 (Dan 9:25).

122

chapter 3

σκω for ‫ מצא‬and 0‫שׁכח־‬.93 It is also noteworthy that ‫ מצא‬and 0‫ שׁכח־‬in og-Dan were also rendered with different equivalents.94 ποιέω (to do, make) og

Th

[1] 0‫ אמר־‬to say (Dan 2:9) [2] 0‫ נסך־‬to pour out (Dan 2:46) [3] 0‫ עבד־‬to make, do (Da 3:1; 5:1; 6:11[10]) [4] 0‫ נתן־‬to give (Dan 4:14[17]) [5] 1‫ עשׂה־‬to do, make (Dan 8:4, 12, 24–25; 9:14–15, 19; 11:3, 6–7, 16–17, 23– 242X, 28, 30, 32, 36, 39) mt=0: Dan 4:34[37], 34[37a]4X, 34[37b], 34[37c]; 5:23; 6:13[12a], 19[18]; 7:8;

[1] 1‫[ עשׂה־‬qal] to do, make (Dan 1:13; 8:4, 12, 24, 27; 9:14–15; 11:3, 6–7, 16–17, 23–242X, 28, 30, 32, 36, 39) [2] 0‫[ עבד־‬peal] to make, do (Dan 3:1, 15, 32[99]; 4:32[35]2X; 5:1; 6:11[10], 23[22], 28[27]; 7:21)

Th-Dan represents only two roots by ποιέω, while og-Dan represents five in addition to its other uses unparalleled in mt.95 συνάγω (to gather, bring together) og

Th

[1] 0‫ כנשׁ־‬to gather (Dan 3:27[94]) [2] ‫ אסף‬to gather (Dan 11:10)

[1] 0‫ כנשׁ־‬to gather (Dan 3:2–3, 27[94])

93

94

95

‫ מצא‬occurs four times and was stereotypically rendered with εὑρίσκω. Equally, 0‫שׁכח־‬ occurs fourteen times, and the reviser has used εὑρίσκω throughout (see chart above), excepting Dan 5:12, 6:5[4]3º, 6[5]2º, where Th-Dan=0. In og-Dan, ‫ מצא‬was translated once more with καταλαμβάνω “to take” (Dan 1:20). Furthermore, in addition to εὑρίσκω, 0‫ שׁכח־‬was rendered with καταλείπω “to leave” (Dan 2:35); καταλαμβάνω “to take,” “to overtake” (Dan 6:12[11]); παρενοχλέω “to trouble” (Dan 6:24[23]); and og=0: Dan 5:11–12, 14, 27; 6:5[4]1º, 2º, 6:6[5]2X. In addition to the cases above, 0‫ עבד־‬occurs two more times in hithpeel in the idiom ‫הדמין‬ ‫ תתעבדון‬/‫( הדמין יתעבד‬Dan 2:5; 3:29[96]). Both times Th-Dan uses the same equivalents

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 123 (cont.)

og

Th

[3] ‫[ עמד‬hiphil] to stand (Dan 11:13) [4] ‫ עזר‬to help (Dan 11:34) [5] ‫ נגע‬to touch, strike (Dan 12:12) mt=0: Dan 6:24[23]

[2] ‫ אסף‬to gather (Dan 11:10) [3] 2‫ שׂער־‬to whirl away (Dan 11:40)

In comparison with the use of συνάγω for multiple Hebrew roots in og-Dan, Th-Dan restricts it to only the analogous 0‫ כנשׁ־‬and ‫אסף‬.96 The use of συνάγω in Dan 11:40 reflects a contextual rendering of the difficult root 2‫שׂער־‬.97 σῶμα (body) og

Th

[1] ‫ בשׂר‬flesh (Dan 1:15) [2] 0‫ גשׁם־‬body (Dan 3:27[94]–28[95]; 7:11) [3] 0‫ לבב־‬heart, mind (Dan 4:13[16]) [4] ‫ גויה‬body (Dan 10:6)

[1] 0‫ גשׁם־‬body (Dan 3:27[94]–28[95]; 4:30[33]; 5:21; 7:11) [2] ‫ גויה‬body (Dan 10:6)

Th-Dan corrects other uses of σῶμα for ‫ בשׂר‬and 0‫ לבב־‬toward standard renditions, maintaining σῶμα exclusively for 0‫ גשׁם־‬and ‫גויה‬.98

96 97 98

while og-Dan varies: Dan 2:5 εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσεσθε “you will be destroyed” (Th); παραδειγματισθήσεσθε “you will be made an example” (og); and Dan 3:29[96] εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσονται “they will be for destruction” (Th); διαμελισθήσεται “you will be dismembered” (og). In the other cases where 0‫ כנשׁ־‬occurs, og-Dan renders it once with the compound synonym ἐπισυνάγω (ἐπί, σύν, ἄγω) “to gather together” (Dan 3:2); and once og=0. The root occurs only four times in mt and has posed problems in translation. Th-Dan has rendered ‫ בשׂר‬in Dan 1:15 with σάρξ “flesh,” “body” (see ch. 3 C §12.1.3.1 [Dan 10:3]). For the alignment in og-Dan 4:13[16] we followed catss. Th-Dan has translated 0‫ לבב־‬in this case with the expected equivalent καρδία “heart.”

124

chapter 3

ἀναβαίνω (to go up, rise up, advance) og

Th

[1] 0‫[ סלק־‬peal] to come up (Dan 7:3) [2] ‫ עלה‬to go up (Dan 8:3, 8) [3] ‫ עמד‬to stand (Dan 8:22)

[1] 0‫[ סלק־‬peal] to come up (Dan 2:29; 7:3, 8, 20) [2] ‫ עלה‬to go up (Dan 8:3, 8; 11:23)

The reviser stereotypically uses ἀναβαίνω for rendering ‫ עלה‬in all its occurrences in mt-Dan. Likewise, he consistently employed the same equivalent for 0‫סלק־‬ in the peal stem.99 On the other hand, og-Dan has used ἀναβαίνω for an additional root and further rendered 0‫ סלק־‬and ‫ עלה‬variously.100 φέρω (to bring, carry) og

Th

[1] 0‫[ אתה־‬haphel] to bring (Dan 5:21º, 3, 23; 6:18[17]) [2] 0‫[ נפק־‬haphel] to take out (Dan 5:22º) [3] 2‫ יעף־‬to fly swiftly (Dan 9:21)

[1] ‫[ בוא‬hiphil] to bring (Dan 1:2; 11:6, 8) [2] 0‫[ אתה־‬haphel] to bring (Dan 5:2– 3, 23; 6:18[17])

Φέρω was retained in Th-Dan for only the analogous roots ‫ בוא‬and 0‫אתה־‬.101

99

100

101

0‫ סלק־‬occurs another three times in mt-Dan in the haphel/hophal stem and has been rendered twice in Th-Dan with ἀναφέρω “to bring up” (Dan 6:24[23]2X) and once Th=0 (Dan 3:22; for the analysis of this minus, see ch. 4 § 1.1.2.1 [Dan 3:22–23]). In the latter instance, og-Dan translated 0‫ סלק־‬with προχειρίζομαι “to choose,” “to appoint” (Dan 3:22), while in the former og=0. Beside ἀναβαίνω, 0‫ סלק־‬in peal was rendered in og-Dan with ὁράω “to see” (Dan 2:29); ἀναφύω “to spring up” (Dan 7:8); and προσφύω “to grow to” (Dan 7:20). In Dan 11:23, the reading ‫ ועלה‬was contextually rendered in the og with καὶ ἐπὶ ἔθνος (reflecting the equivalency ‫—על‬επι, ἔθνος seemingly being an explicating addition). For a complete analysis of these verbs, see ch. 3 C § 12.2.2 (‫בוא‬, 0‫)אתה־‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 125

φθάνω (to come before, to overtake, to reach) og

Th

0‫מטא־‬ [1] ἐγγίζω to bring near, come near (Dan 4:8[11], 19[22]) [2] πάρειμι to be present; to pass by (Dan 7:13) [3] δίδωμι to give (Dan 7:22) og=0: Dan 4:17[20], 21[24], 25[28]; 6:26[25] ‫[ נגע‬hiphil] [1] προσάγω (πρό, ἄγω) to bring to (Dan 8:7) [2] συνάγω (σύν, ἄγω) to gather (Dan 12:12)

[1] 0‫ מטא־‬to reach (Dan 4:8[11], 17[20], 19[22], 21[24], 25[28]; 6:26[25]; 7:13, 22) [2] ‫[ נגע‬hiphil] to touch, reach, strike (Dan 8:7; 12:12)

Both 0‫ מטא־‬and the hiphil stem of ‫ נגע‬occur in mt-Dan only in the above instances. Th-Dan has perceived the words as analogous and has therefore employed an absolute equivalent in their translation.102 1.2.2.2 Word Families The word-family analysis of the roots φόβ- and ὕψ- indicates they were restrictively employed by the reviser. The examples further evidence Th-Dan’s tendency to preserve the same equivalent for semantically equivalent Hebrew/ Aramaic roots as well as for cognate ones. √φόβDerivates

og

Th

φοβέω [verb] to fear

[1] 0‫[ דחל־‬peal] to fear (Dan 2:31) [2] 0‫ שׂים־‬to set, make (Dan 3:12)

[1] ‫[ ירא‬adj.] fear (Dan 1:10) [2] 0‫[ דחל־‬peal] to fear (Dan 2:31; 5:19; 6:27[26])

102

For the statistics of ‫ נגע‬in qal stem, see further ch. 3 A §1.1.1.1 (‫)נגע‬.

126

chapter 3

(cont.)

Derivates

og

Th

[2] 0‫ פלח־‬to serve (Dan 3:17) [3] 1‫ ירא־‬to fear (Dan 10:12, 19) [4] ‫ עזז‬to be strong (Dan 11:12) mt=0: Dan 4:16[19]

[3] 1‫ ירא־‬to fear (Dan 10:12, 19)

φοβερίζω [verb] to terrify

[1] 0‫[ דחל־‬pael] to fear (Dan 4:2[5])

φόβος [noun] fear, [1] + ἐπιπίπτω—0‫דחל־‬ (Dan 4:2[5]) terror; reverence [2] 0‫ אימתן־‬terrible (Dan 7:7) [3] 1‫ חרדה־‬trembling (Dan 10:7) [4] ‫ מעוז‬strength, stronghold (Dan 11:31) mt=0: Dan 4:34[37a]1º

[1] ‫[ חבא‬niphal const.] to hide (Dan 10:7)

φοβερός [adj.] terrible, fearful

[1] 0‫[ דחל־‬peal ptc.] to fear (Dan 7:7) [2] 1‫[ ירא־‬niph. ptc.] to fear (Dan 9:4) mt=0: Dan 4:34[37a]2º

ὑπέρφοβος [adj.] very terrifying

[1] 0‫[ דחל־‬peal ptc.] + 0‫( יתיר־‬Dan 7:19)

[1] 0‫[ דחל־‬peal ptc.] to fear (Dan 7:7, 19)

The φόβ- derivates in both og-Dan and Th-Dan include the verbs φοβέω and φοβερίζω, the noun φόβος, and the adjectives φοβερός and ὑπέρφοβος. In addition to the use of φοβέω for the expected semantic equivalent roots √‫ ירא‬and √0‫דחל־‬, og-Dan uses it freely for three others, i.e., 0‫שׂים־‬, 0‫פלח־‬, and ‫עזז‬. The same picture emerges from the use of φόβος, with which the og-d freely ren-

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 127

dered words like 0‫אימתן־‬, 1‫חרדה־‬, and ‫מעוז‬. In contrast, Th-Dan reserved the word family based on √φόβ-, with one exception in Dan 10:7,103 for representation of only the analogous roots √‫ ירא‬and √‫דחל‬. √ὕψDerivates

og

Th

ὕψος [noun] height

[1] 0‫ רום־‬height (Dan 3:1)

[1] 0‫ רום־‬height (Dan 3:1; 4:7[10], 8[11], 17[20])

ὕψιστος [adj.] highest; most high

[1] 0‫ שׁמין־‬heavens (Dan 2:18–19) [2] 0‫ עלי־‬Most High (Dan 3:26[93]; 4:21[24], 34[37], 34[37a]; 7:251º) [3] 0‫ עליון־‬Most High (Dan 7:18, 22, 252º, 27) mt=0: Dan 4:11[14], 30[33c]; 5:0

[1] 0‫ עלי־‬Most High (Dan 3:26[93]; 4:2[3:99], 14[17], 21[24], 22[25], 29[32], 31[34]; 5:18, 21; 7:251º) [2] 0‫ עליון־‬Most High (Dan 7:18, 22, 252º, 27)

[1] 0‫[ רום־‬polel] to be high, exalted (Dan 4:34[37])

ὑπερυψόω (ὑπέρ, ὕψος) [verb] to highly exalt ὑψόω [verb] to lift up; to exalt

103

[1] 0‫ רבה־‬to be great (Dan 4:19[22]2º) [2] ‫[ גדל‬hiphil/hithpael] to grow up, become great (Dan 8:4, 10, 25; 11:36–37) [3] ‫[ רום‬qal/hiphil] to be high, exalted (Dan 11:12; 12:7) [4] 1‫ מלט־‬to escape (Dan 12:1 cf. Ra: 88-Syh ≠ Mu [σωθήσεται]) mt=0: Dan 4:19[22]3º

[1] 0‫[ רום־‬aphel/peal/hithpolel] to be high, exalted (Dan 5:19–20, 23) [2] ‫[ רום‬qal/hithpolel/hiphil] to be high, exalted (Dan 11:12, 36; 12:7)

For the exceptional use of φόβος for ‫ חבא‬in Dan 10:7, see ch. 3 C §13.1.3.1 (‫)חבא‬. For 1‫ ירא־‬in

128

chapter 3

(cont.)

Derivates

og

Th

ἀνυψόω (ἀνά, ὕψος) mt=0: Dan 4:19[22]1º; 5:0, 2 to lift, raise up ὑψηλός [adj.] high, proud

[1] 0‫ רום־‬+ 0‫ שׂגיא־‬great, much (Dan 4:7[10]) [2] ‫ גבה‬high (Dan 8:33X)] [3] ‫ חזק‬strong (Dan 9:15)

[1] ‫ גבה‬high (Dan 8:33X)

The reviser consistently corrects og-Dan’s renditions toward the equivalency ὕψος—0‫רום־‬/‫רום‬. However, he does not do so at the expense of standardization (ch. 3 B §9). The latter tendency is in fact visible in the way he maintains ὑψηλός for ‫“ גבה‬high”104 and ὕψιστος for 0‫ עלי־‬and 0‫עליון־‬.105

2

Quantitative Representation

This section affirms the tendency of the reviser to adhere to the quantitative representation of his underlying, mt-like text as a norm. In addition to stereotyping, it would be expected for a literal reviser to perceive as part of his work the generation of a text which quantitatively resembles his Semitic Vorlage. Accordingly, he would subject his base text, i.e., og-Dan, to a careful scrutiny to address the issues of its pluses and minuses over against his source text, i.e., mtDan. The pluses would call for a recensional process of eliminating additions, while the minuses for a process of filling in omissions.

104

105

Dan 9:4, Th-Dan employs the equivalent θαυμαστός “marvelous,” “wonderful” which most likely stands in a synonymous relationship with φοβερός in og-Dan. Besides Daniel, ‫ גבה‬occurs thirty-four times and was stereotypically translated with ὑψηλός: Gen 7:19; Deut 3:5; 28:52; 1 Sam 2:3; 9:2; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2Kgs 17:10; Isa 2:15; 10:33; 30:25; 40:9; 57:7; Jer 2:20; 3:6; 51[28]:58; Ezek 17:22, 24; 21:31; 40:2; Zeph 1:16; Pss 104[103]:18; 138[137]:6; Job 41:26; Eccl 5:73X. ‫—עליון‬the cognate Hebrew epithet for God—was systematically rendered with ὕψιστος: Gen 14:18–20, 22; Num 24:16; Deut 32:8; 2 Sam 22:14; Isa 14:14; Pss 7:18[17]; 9:3[2]; 18[17]:14; 21[20]:8; 46[45]:5; 47[46]:3; 50[49]:14; 57[56]:3; 73[72]:11; 77[76]:11; 78[77]:17, 35, 56; 82[81]:6; 83[82]:19; 87[86]:5; 91[90]:1, 9; 92[91]:2; 97[96]:9; 107[106]:11; Lam 3:35, 38; Neh 3:25.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 129

The structure of this section consists of two sub-sections: the elimination of og-Dan pluses and the supplementation of og-Dan minuses, according to mt. Furthermore, contingent on the amount of added and omitted material, we differentiate in each sub-section between short and long pluses and short and long minuses, respectively. The investigation of the way the reviser has dealt with the pluses and minuses in his base text compellingly demonstrates his tendency towards literalism. The data in this section is presented in charts with parallel columns containing the readings from mt-Dan, og-Dan, and Th-Dan. The examples of each tendency do not follow the pattern used with those documenting stereotyping, but instead, since the same phenomenon shines through each of them with equal clarity, the items below are listed in canonical order. 2.1 Elimination of og-Dan Pluses according to mt The reviser has demonstrably taken issue with those added elements in ogDan which did not maintain a word-for-word equivalency between the source and target language. Consequently, he attempted to systematically eliminate them. The nature of these eliminated pluses sheds light on the nature of the reviser’s work: he attempted to generate a literal revision free of expansionistic elements, exegetical detours, explicating and harmonistic pluses. This process included the rejection of og-Dan pluses which were the result of a differing underlying text. On the other hand, the nature of these pluses often allows us to apprehend the og translator’s struggle with the source text, his exegesis, and ideology. In view of the reviser’s goal, all these pluses were probably perceived as failures in fulfilling the desideratum in translating word-for-word his Vorlage. 2.1.1 Short Pluses For the sake of describing the data in this study, we define a short plus in ogDan as one that consists of three or fewer lexemes or words,106 not including occurrences of the definite article. 2.1.1.1 Expanded Renderings The reviser adjusts accurate but expanded renderings in og-Dan to correspond quantitatively to his Vorlage. These are indivisible two- or three-element translations in the target language of a single word from the source language. The effect of these “expanded” renderings was seemingly that the og translator used more of a Greek style and was not wedded to his Semitic source text. 106

By a lexeme we understand “the typically foundational element of a word or lexical item.” See Long, Grammatical Concepts, 4.

130

chapter 3

Dan 2:18 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ די לא יהבדון דניאל‬ὅπως μὴ ἐκδοθῶσι ‫ וחברוהי עם שאר חכימי‬Δανιηλ καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ‫ בבל׃‬εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἅμα τοῖς

σοφισταῖς Βαβυλῶνος. […] so that Daniel and his colleagues would not be put to death together with the other wise men of Babylon.

[…] so that Daniel and those who were with him might not be delivered to destruction together with the savants of Babylon.

Th […] ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἀπόλωνται Δανιηλ καὶ οἱ φίλοι αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἐπιλοίπων σοφῶν Βαβυλῶνος. […] so that Daniel and his friends might not perish with the rest of the sages of Babylon.

og-Dan renders idiomatically ‫ יהבדון‬with ἐκδοθῶσι … εἰς ἀπώλειαν “they would not be handed over to destruction.” The reviser corrects the paraphrase toward a quantitatively literal representation, i.e., ἀπόλλυμι.107 Dan 5:16 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ותלתא במלכותא‬καὶ ἕξεις ἐξουσίαν ‫ תשלט׃‬τοῦ τρίτου μέρους τῆς

Th […] καὶ τρίτος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου ἄρξεις.

βασιλείας μου. […] and rule as one of three in the kingdom.”

107

[…] and you will have authority over a third part of my kingdom.”

See ch. 3 A § 1.2.1.1 (ἀπόλλυμι).

[…] and you will rank third in my kingdom.”

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 131

Dan 7:5 mt

og

‫ וארו חיוה אחרי תנינה דמיה‬καὶ ἰδοὺ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν ἄλλο ‫ לדב ]…[׃‬θηρίον ὁμοίωσιν ἔχον

Th καὶ ἰδοὺ θηρίον δεύτερον ὅμοιον ἄρκῳ […].

ἄρκου […]. Then I saw a second, different beast, which was like a bear […].

And lo, another beast was after it, having the likeness of a bear. […]

And lo, there was a second beast like a bear. […]

2.1.1.2 Exegetical Pluses The reviser eliminated many og-Dan pluses which are meant to exegetically clarify tensions in the Semitic Vorlage or to overtly express the religious beliefs of the translator, i.e., monotheism. This aspect becomes even more revealing once it is taken into account that, notwithstanding the alleged reviser shared a similar religious background with the og translator, he has nevertheless rejected these elements. The string of words under discussion appears as red text in the middle column of the chart below. They are exegetical elements which appear as pluses in og-Dan over against mt-Dan and Th-Dan. Dan 1:6 mt

og

Th

‫ ויהי בהם מבני יהודה דניאל‬καὶ ἦσαν ἐκ τοῦ γένους ‫ חנניה מישאל ועזריה׃‬τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ τῶν ἀπὸ

καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Ιουδα Δανιηλ τῆς Ιουδαίας Δανιηλ, Ανα- καὶ Ανανιας καὶ Μισαηλ καὶ Αζαριας. νιας, Μισαηλ, Αζαριας.

Among them were the Judahites Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.

And there were of the race of the sons of Israel who were from Judea: Daniel, Hananias, Misael, Azarias.

And among them from the sons of Iouda were Daniel and Hananias and Misael and Azarias.

132

chapter 3

The reviser rejected the seemingly added words attempting to clarify the precise tribal identity of the main characters of the story. The og translator probably believed that a literal translation of the phrase ‫ מבני יהודה‬would confuse the readers, creating an exegetical tension with v. 3 which informs that the youth are ‫“ מבני ישראל ומזרע המלוכה‬Israelites of royal descent.” Consequently, the translator elaborates that they are the descendants of their forefather Israel, from the “province of Judah” (cf. Hag 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21; Neh 5:14), instead of the “tribe of Judah.”108 Dan 2:47 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ וגלה רזין די יכלת‬ὁ ἐκφαίνων μυστή‫ למגלא רזה דנה׃‬ρια κρυπτὰ μόνος, ὅτι

ἐδυνάσθης δηλῶσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο. […] and the revealer of mysteries to have enabled you to reveal this mystery.

[…] who alone brings to light hidden mysteries, because you have been able to disclose this mystery!

Th […] καὶ ἀποκαλύπτων μυστήρια, ὅτι ἠδυνήθης ἀποκαλύψαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο. […] and a revealer of mysteries, because you have been able to reveal this mystery!

As appealing as the expansion may have been, the reviser eliminates the og’s inserted words, which theologically emphasize the exclusive power of the God of Israel in untangling impenetrable secrets.109 The words belong to Nebuchadnezzar’s confession, which acknowledges the God of Daniel, who can reveal secrets.

108

109

The phrase ‫ בני יהודה‬occurs fifty-four times and mainly refers to members of the tribe of Judah. This may have led Collins to note that ‫ מבני יהודה‬signifies “from the tribe of Judah, because they have already been characterized as Israelites.”Daniel, 140. However, it appears that none of the modern interpreters have noted the exegetical tension that the og translator attempted to solve in v. 6. See also Amara, “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 178.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 133

Dan 3:17 mt

og

‫ הן איתי אלהנא די אנחנא‬ἔστι γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν οὐρα‫ פלחין ]…[׃‬νοῖς εἷς κύριος ἡμῶν, ὃν

Th ἔστιν γὰρ θεός, ᾧ ἡμεῖς λατρεύομεν […].

φοβούμεθα […]. for if so it must be, our God whom we serve […].

for there is God who is for there is a god whom in heaven, our one Lord, we serve […] whom we fear […]

The og translator reworks the response of the three youth into a monotheistic confession. The phrase ἐν οὐρανοῖς appears to be influenced by Daniel’s confession in the book in 2:28, whereas εἷς κύριος ἡμῶν recalls Deut 6:4. The reviser rejected the exegetical plus. Dan 7:27 mt

og

Th

‫ומלכותה ושלטנא ורבותא‬ ‫די מלכות תחות כל שמיא‬ ‫יהיבת לעם קדישי עליונין‬ ‫]…[׃‬

καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν μεγαλειότητα (αὐτῶν) καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν πασῶν τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν βασιλειῶν ἔδωκε λαῷ ἁγίῳ ὑψίστου […].

καὶ ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία καὶ ἡ μεγαλωσύνη τῶν βασιλέων τῶν ὑποκάτω παντὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐδόθη ἁγίοις ὑψίστου […].

The kingship and dominion and grandeur belonging to all the kingdoms under Heaven will be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High. […].

And he shall give the authority and the kingdom and the magnitude of all the kingdoms, which are under heaven, to the holy people of the Most High […].

And the kingdom and the authority and the greatness of the kings, which are under the whole heaven, was given to the holy ones of the Most High, […].

134

chapter 3

The phrase καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν “and the power” expands the list of the kingdom’s domain, revealing the translator’s ideological interest in boosting its universal character.110 Dan 9:14 mt

og

‫ וישקד יהוה על הרעה ]…[׃‬καὶ ἠγρύπνησε κύριος ὁ

θεὸς ἐπὶ τὰ κακὰ […]. Hence the lord was intent upon […].

And the Lord God kept watch over the evils […].

Th καὶ ἐγρηγόρησεν κύριος […]. And the Lord stayed watchful […].

og-Dan expands God’s name in view of more elaborate appellations in the immediate context, cf. vv, 3–4, 10, 14b.111 Dan 9:23 mt

og

‫ בתחלת תחנוניך יצא דבר‬ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς δεήσεώς σου ‫ ]…[׃‬ἐξῆλθε πρόσταγμα παρὰ

Th ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς δεήσεώς σου ἐξῆλθεν λόγος, […].

κυρίου, […]. A word went forth as you began your plea,

110

111

At the beginning of your supplication an ordinance went out from the Lord, […].

At the beginning of your supplication a word went out, […].

The reading is extant in all three og witnesses: pap 967, ms 88, and Syh. There is no solid evidence for interpreting it as a secondary double reading, as implied by Ziegler’s reconstruction, or for entirely excluding it as did Munnich (Daniel, Bel, and Draco, 54). The same exegetical principle is revealed in Dan 2:37, wherein καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν was added and received the same problematic treatment (ibid., 53). For other harmonistic expansions in og-Dan involving God’s name, see Dan 9:15; 10:12 cf. Ra: pap 967, 88-Syh ≠ Mu and possibly 3:28[95], 29[96]. The addition of κύριος in the last two

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 135

The addition παρὰ κυρίου seemingly has the exegetical function of distinguishing between differing types of ordinances within the chapter: the “ordinance” which went out straight “from the Lord” and was mediated by the angel Gabriel (v. 23), and “the ordinance of the Lord [that] came to the prophet Ieremias” (v. 2). Dan 11:8 mt

og

‫ וגם ֱאלהיהם עם נסכיהם עם‬καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν ‫ כלי חמדתם כסף וזהב בשבי‬καταστρέψει μετὰ τῶν ‫ יבא מצרים ]…[׃‬χωνευτῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς

ὄχλους αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν σκευῶν τῶν ἐπιθυμημάτων αὐτῶν, τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὸ χρυσίον, ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ ἀποίσουσιν εἰς Αἴγυπτον· […]. He will also take their gods with their molten images and their precious vessels of silver and gold back to Egypt as booty. […]

And he will overthrow their gods with their cast images and their crowds with their precious vessels. They will carry off the silver and gold to Egypt in captivity, […].

Th καί γε τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν χωνευτῶν αὐτῶν, πᾶν σκεῦος ἐπιθυμητὸν αὐτῶν ἀργυρίου καὶ χρυσίου, μετὰ αἰχμαλωσίας οἴσει εἰς Αἴγυπτον· […].

And indeed their gods, with their cast images, all of their precious vessels of silver and gold, he will carry to Egypt with a body of captives, […].

og-Dan split the long Hebrew clause into two clauses, adding καταστρέφω “to overthrow” as an explicating verb in the first clause. However, καὶ τοὺς ὄχλους αὐτῶν was probably inserted to fill in the list, which completely overlooked “people” as affected by the devastating attack of the king of the south (cf. vv. 7–8).

examples are assessed by Amara (“Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 178–179) as theological expansions emphasizing the exclusiveness of God.

136

chapter 3

2.1.1.3 Explicating Pluses Explicating pluses refer to those words which were added during the translational process in og-Dan in order to improve readability or to make explicit what is implicit in the source text. Consequently, the examples culled in this group differ from the exegetical pluses of the previous category, in the sense that they add no new information to that which is implicit in mt. None of these pluses were accepted by the reviser, who aimed at word-for-word correspondence. Dan 1:13 mt

og

‫ ויראו לפניך מראינו ומראה‬καὶ ἐὰν φανῇ ἡ ὄψις ἡμῶν ‫ הילדים ]…[׃‬διατετραμμένη112 παρὰ

τοὺς ἄλλους νεανίσκους […]. Then compare our appearance with that of the youths […].

And if our appearance seems more twisted than the other young men […].

Th καὶ ὀφθήτωσαν ἐνώπιόν σου αἱ ἰδέαι ἡμῶν καὶ αἱ ἰδέαι τῶν παιδαρίων […].

And let our forms be seen before you, and the forms of the youths […].

While og-Dan paraphrases by adding both a verb and a pronoun and omitting ‫לפניך‬, Th-Dan eliminates the explicating additions, supplies the untranslated morphemes, and utilizes his stereotyped equivalents.113

112

113

We follow this reading which is attested in ms 88 and Syh (cf. Rahlfs’s and Ziegler’s reconstructions). Munnich rejects this reading as probably influenced from v. 10, prefering to reconstruct διαφανης (which does not have the support of any ms). For the reviser’s correction of νεανίσκος with παιδάριον and ὄψις with ἰδέα, see ch. 3 B §§6.2 (‫ ;)ילד‬6.3 (‫)מראה‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 137

Dan 1:20 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ וימצאם עשר ידות על‬κατέλαβεν αὐτοὺς ‫ כל החרטמים האשפים ]…[׃‬σοφωτέρους δεκαπλα-

σίως ὑπὲρφέροντας τῶν σοφιστῶν καὶ φιλολόγων […]. […] he found them to be ten times better than all the magicians and exorcists […].

[…] he took them to be ten times wiser, surpassing the servants and scholars […]

Th […] εὗρεν αὐτοὺς δεκαπλασίονας παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἐπαοιδοὺς καὶ τοὺς μάγους […].

[…] he found them ten times better than all the enchanters and magicians […].

Σοφωτέρους and ὑπὲρφέροντας were added to make more explicit what is implicit in the comparative Hebrew construction.114 Dan 2:26 mt

og

‫ ענה מלכא ואמר לדניאל די‬ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς ‫ שמה בלטשאצר ]…[׃‬εἶπε τῷ Δανιηλ ἐπικα-

λουμένῳ δὲ Χαλδαϊστὶ Βαλτασαρ […]. The king said in reply to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzar),

So having answered, the king said to Daniel, but called Baltasar in Chaldean, […].

Th καὶ ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ εἶπεν τῷ Δανιηλ, οὗ τὸ ὄνομα Βαλτασαρ […].

And the king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Baltasar, […].

The added hapax Χαλδαϊστὶ explains that Baltasar is “in Chaldean” language.

114

For the standard comparative constructions, see gkc §133, 429–432.

138

chapter 3

Dan 3:26[93] mt

og

‫ באדין קרב נבוכדנצר לתרע‬καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ βασι‫ אתון נורא יקדתא ענה ואמר‬λεὺς πρὸς τὴν θύραν τῆς ‫ שדרך מישך ועבד נגו ]…[׃‬καμίνου ἔτι καιομένης

Nebuchadnezzar then approached the hatch of the burning fiery furnace and called, “Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-nego, […].

Th

ἐκάλεσεν αὐτοὺς ἐπ ὀνόματος Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω, […].

τότε προσῆλθεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ πρὸς τὴν θύραν τῆς καμίνου τοῦ πυρὸς τῆς καιομένης καὶ εἶπεν Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω […].

And approaching the door of the still blazing furnace, the king called them by name, “Sedrach, Misach, Abdenago, […].

Then Nabouchodonosor approached the door of the furnace blazing with fire and said, “Sedrach, Misach, Abdenago, […].

Th-Dan eliminates the implicit information added by the og translator. Dan 7:23 mt

og

‫ כן אמר חיותא רביעיתא‬καὶ ἐρρέθη μοι περὶ τοῦ ‫ מלכו רביעיא תהוא בארעא‬τετάρτου θηρίου, ὅτι ‫ ]…[׃‬βασιλεία τετάρτη ἔσται

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς […] This is what he said: ‘The fourth beast [means]—there will be a fourth kingdom upon the earth […].

And it was said to me concerning the fourth beast: “There shall be a fourth kingdom upon the earth. […]

Th καὶ εἶπεν Τὸ θηρίον τὸ τέταρτον, βασιλεία τετάρτη ἔσται ἐν τῇ γῇ […]. And he said: “As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on the earth, […].

The formula ‫כן אמר‬, which technically introduces the utterance of the angelus interpretum, was freely transformed intro an introduction of indirect speech. To achieve his purpose, the og translator has first changed the verbal aspect

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 139

(from act. to pass.), then added the explicating μοι περὶ, and finally inserted the conjunction ὅτι, which connects the first clause to the reminder.115 Dan 8:27 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואקום ואעשה את‬καὶ ἀναστὰς ἐπρα‫ מלאכת המלך ]…[׃‬γματευόμην πάλιν

[…] Then I arose and attended to the king’s business, […]

Th

βασιλικά […].

[…] καὶ ἀνέστην καὶ ἐποίουν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ βασιλέως […].

[…] and having risen, again was conducting the royal affairs. […]

[…] And I arose and kept doing the king’s business. […]

The adverb πάλιν “again” explicates that the seer once more returns to doing the king’s business.116 Dan 10:4 mt

og

‫ וביום עשרים וארבעה לחדש‬καὶ ἐγένετο τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ‫ הראשון ]…[׃‬τετάρτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ

It was on the twentyfourth day of the first month, […].

Th

μηνὸς τοῦ πρώτου […].

ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εἰκοστῇ καὶ τετάρτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ πρώτου […].

And it happened on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, […].

On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, […].

By means of the addition καὶ ἐγένετο, the og translator succeeds both in smoothing the narrative flow and in literarily marking the scene of the appearance of the celestial entity in vv. 4–6.

115 116

The idiosyncrasy of og-Dan that often transforms active verbal forms into passive is documented by Amara, “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 57–70. For the condensed rendering of ‫מלאכת המלך‬, see ch. 3 A §2.1.1.3 (Dan 8:27).

140

chapter 3

Dan 11:9 mt

og

‫ ובא במלכות מלך הנגב ושב‬καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς βασι‫ אל אדמתו׃‬λείαν Αἰγύπτου ἡμέρας·

who will invade the realm of the king of the south […].

Th

[…].

καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ νότου· […].

And he will enter into the kingdom of Egypt for days […].

And he will enter into the kingdom of the king of the south […].

Ἡμέρας was probably added to inform the reader that the incursion of the king of the north into Egypt was not just a speedy-attack but lasted “days.” Dan 12:3 mt

og

Th

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ומצדיקי הרבים‬καὶ οἱ κατισχύοντες ‫ ככוכבים לעולם ועד׃‬τοὺς λόγους μου ὡσεὶ τὰ

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὸν τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι. αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος.

[…] and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever.

[…] and those who […] and some of the strengthen my words many righteous, like the will be as the stars of stars forever and anon. heaven forever and ever.

The translator makes explicit what is implicit in the word ‫“ כוכב‬star.” 2.1.1.4 Harmonistic Pluses The reviser rejected harmonistic pluses found in og-Dan. These are additions of words from the immediate and larger context of the book of Daniel which were presumably imported during the translation process or at a previous stage. Like exegetical and explicating pluses, they reflect a type of contextual exegesis. However, as far as the harmonistic pluses are concerned, they reflect not so much the translator’s concern regarding the understanding of the text

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 141

and/or his ideology, but rather his interest to level a word or a phrase in light of more expansionistic constructions from the immediate or remote contexts.117 Dan 2:19 mt

og

Th

‫ אדין לדניאל בחזוא די ליליא‬τότε τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ ‫ רזה גלי ]…[׃‬βασιλέως τῷ Δανιηλ ἐδη-

τότε τῷ Δανιηλ ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς τὸ λώθη· τῇ νυκτὶ ἐν ὁράματι μυστήριον ἀπεκαλύφθη τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐξεφάνθη […]. εὐσήμως […].

The mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision; […].

Then the mystery of the king was disclosed to Daniel. In the night in a vision the matter was clearly brought to light. […].

Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night, […].

Three of the four added words reflect contextual harmonization from the same chapter: βασιλεύς “king,” cf. vv. 15, 24; πρᾶγμα “thing,” cf. vv. 8cf. 88-Syh, 10; and δηλόω “to make clear,” cf. vv. 9, 11, 16, 23, 24. The hapax εὐσήμως “clearly” was probably inserted to underline the unequivocal nature of the revelation. Dan 2:48 mt

og

‫ אדין מלכא לדניאל רבי ]…[׃‬τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς Ναβουχο-

δονοσορ Δανιηλ μεγαλύνας […].

117

Th καὶ ἐμεγάλυνεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸν Δανιηλ […].

Furthermore, the possibility always remains open that the harmonistic pluses have been secondarily produced during the transmission process of Greek mss. Likewise it is difficult to precisely determine whether they reflect the translation technique of the og translator or a differing (harmonized) Vorlage.

142

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

The king then elevated Daniel […].

Then King Nabouchodonosor, after he magnified Daniel […].

And the king magnified Daniel […].

The appellative ὁ βασιλεὺς Ναβουχοδονοσορ reflects ‫נבוכדנצר מלכא‬, which mainly occurs in Daniel 3 (see the example below). If not because of the influence of the Aramaic phrase in the next chapter, the proper name was added as a harmonization with ‫ מלכא נבוכדנצר‬in vv. 28, 46. Dan 3:14 mt

og

Th

‫ ענה נבכדנצר ואמר להון‬οὓς καὶ συνιδὼν Ναβουχο- καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ναβουχο‫ ]…[׃‬δονοσορ ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπεν δονοσορ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς

Nebuchadnezzar spoke to them and said […].

αὐτοῖς […].

[…].

So when King Nabouchodonosor saw them, he said to them […].

And Nabouchodonosor answered and said to them […].

The complete appellative ‫ נבוכדנצר מלכא‬occurs most of the time in Daniel 3 (vv. 1, 22X, 3, 5, 7, 9, 24). Βασιλεὺς in v. 14 most likely represents a contextually harmonized addition.118 Dan 3:15 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ תפלון ותסגדון‬πεσόντες προσκυ‫ לצלמא]…[ ׃‬νῆσαι τῇ εἰκόνι τῇ χρυσῇ

Th […] πεσόντες προσκυνήσητε τῇ εἰκόνι […].

[…]. 118

For similar harmonized additions of βασιλεύς in Daniel 3, see vv. 16, 28.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 143 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] fall down and worship the statue […].

[…] to fall down and do obeisance to the gold image […]

[…] you should fall down and do obeisance to the image […]

The phrase ‫ צלם דהבא‬usually occurs in Daniel 3 (cf. vv. 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 18) excepting vv. 2, 15 where only ‫ צלם‬occurs. In both instances, og-Dan harmonizes toward the usual phrase. Th-Dan eliminates the plus in each case. Dan 7:1a mt

og

‫ בשנת חדה לבלאשצר מלך‬Ἔτους πρώτου βασιλεύ‫ בבל ]…[׃‬οντος Βαλτασαρ χώρας

Th Εν ἔτει πρώτῳ Βαλτασαρ βασιλέως Χαλδαίων […].

Βαβυλωνίας […]. In the first year of King Belshazzar of Babylon, […].

During the first year of Baltasar’s reign over the land of Babylonia […].

In the first year of Baltasar, king of the Chaldeans […].

Χώρας probably represents a contextual harmonization from Dan 3:1, 12, wherein ‫ מדינת בבל‬was rendered with (τῆς) χώρας (τῆς) Βαβυλωνίας. Dan 7:1b mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ באדין חלמא כתב ]…[׃‬τότε Δανιηλ τὸ

ὅραμα, ὃ εἶδεν, ἔγραψεν […]. […] afterward he wrote down the dream. […].

Then Daniel wrote down the vision that he saw. He wrote […].

Th […] καὶ τὸ ἐνύπνιον ἔγραψεν.

And he wrote down the dream:

144

chapter 3

og-Dan harmonizes under the influence of the first part of v. 1.119 Dan 7:8a mt

og

‫ משתכל הוית בקרניא ואלו‬καὶ βουλαὶ πολλαὶ ἐν ‫ קרן אחרי זעירה סלקת‬τοῖς κέρασιν αὐτοῦ. καὶ ‫ ביניהון ]…[׃‬ἰδοὺ ἓν κέρας ἀνεφύη ἀνὰ

μέσον αὐτῶν μικρὸν ἐν τοῖς κέρασιν αὐτοῦ […]. While I was gazing upon these horns, a new little horn sprouted up among them […].

And many designs were in its horns, and lo, one horn grew up among them, a little one among its horns, […].

Th προσενόουν τοῖς κέρασιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἰδοὺ κέρας ἕτερον μικρὸν ἀνέβη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν […].

I was considering its horns, and lo, another little horn came up among them, […].

The og translator transforms the adj. ‫ זעירה‬into an expanded apposition. The explicative words are taken in from the beginning of the same verse, i.e., ‫—בקרניא‬ἐν τοῖς κέρασιν αὐτοῦ. Dan 7:8b mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ופם ממלל רברבן׃‬καὶ στόμα λαλοῦν

μεγάλα, καὶ ἐποίει πόλεμον πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους. […] and a mouth that spoke arrogantly.

119

[…] and a mouth speaking great things. And it made war against the holy ones.

Th […] καὶ στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα.

[…] and a mouth speaking great things.

Cf. ‫—דניאל חלם חזה וחזוי ראשׁה על משׁכבה‬Δανιηλ ὅραμα εἶδε παρὰ κεφαλὴν ἐπὶ τῆς κοίτης αὐτοῦ (og).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 145

Both mss 88 and Syh indicate by means of an obelus that the addition was not witnessed in the mt form of his time. The expansion was probably drawn from the phrase ‫ עבדה קרב עם קדישׁין‬in v. 21.120 Dan 10:7 mt

og

‫ וראיתי אני דניאל לבדי את‬καὶ εἶδον ἐγὼ Δανιηλ τὴν ‫ המראה ]…[׃‬ὅρασιν τὴν μεγάλην ταύ-

Th καὶ εἶδον ἐγὼ Δανιηλ μόνος τὴν ὀπτασίαν […].

την […]. I, Daniel, alone saw the vision; […].

And I, Daniel, saw this great vision, […].

And I, Daniel, alone saw the appearance, […].

Possible harmonization with v. 8: ‫—המראה הגדלה הזאת‬ὴν ὅρασιν τὴν μεγάλην ταύτην (og). Dan 11:2 mt

og

‫ ועתה אמת אגיד לך ]…[׃‬καὶ νῦν ἦλθον τὴν ἀλή-

And now I will tell you the truth: […].

Th

θειαν ὑποδεῖξαί σοι […].

καὶ νῦν ἀλήθειαν ἀναγγελῶ σοι […].

“And now I have come to explain the truth to you. […]

“And now I will announce the truth to you. […]

Ἐ͂ λθον was presumably added to harmonize v. 2 with the similar language in Dan 9:22: ‫ ;עתה יצאתי להשכילך בינה‬ἄρτι ἐξῆλθον ὑποδεῖξαί σοι διάνοιαν (og); νῦν

120

The og in v. 21 differs slightly: πόλεμον συνιστάμενον πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους “preparing for war against the holy ones.” However, considering the overall og style, the variation reflects the idiosyncrasy of the same hand. The possibility that the addition could have been a later scribal contamination from Th-Dan 7:21 is mitigated by the fact that Th-Dan uses a different prep., though it has the same verb: ἐποίει πόλεμον μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων “made war with the holy ones.”

146

chapter 3

ἐξῆλθον συμβιβάσαι σε σύνεσιν (Th). In both instances the reviser renders the mt quantitatively. 2.1.1.5 Different Vorlage Not all the longer readings attested in og-Dan were created by the translator himself. The reviser has rejected, on many occasions, plus elements that could demonstrably reflect a different Semitic Vorlage. Probable examples are adduced below. Dan 2:20 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ להוא שמה די אלהא‬Ἔστω τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ‫ מברך מן עלמא ועד עלמא‬κυρίου τοῦ μεγάλου εὐλο-

:[…] γημένον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα […]. “Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, […].

“Let the name of the great Lord be blessed forever, […].

Th […] Εἴη τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ εὐλογημένον ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος […]. “May the name of God be blessed from age to age, […].

The og plus element of μέγας “great” aligns with 4QDana: ‫להוא שמה די אלהא רבא‬ ‫מברך ]מן ע[למא ועד עלמא‬. Th-Dan agrees with the shorter text of mt, Peshitta, and Vulgate.121 Dan 2:28 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ מה די להוא באחרית‬ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐπ᾽ :[…] ‫ יומיא‬ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν.

Th […] ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν. […]

βασιλεῦ, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ζῆθι· […].

121

See further Michael Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel, bzaw 455 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 34 (n. 14).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 147 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] what is to be at the end of days. […]

[…] what must happen at the end of days. O King, you shall live forever! […]

[…] what must happen at the end of days. […]

4QDana displays the reading [‫מה די להוא באחרית יומיא מ]לכא לעלמין חיי חלמך‬ ‫על משכבך דנה הוא‬. Both the letter ‫ מ‬at the beginning of the lost line and the space available for reconstructed text support the reading βασιλεῦ and probably the other plus elements as well. Furthermore, it is plausible to reason that the phrase ‫ מלכא לעלמין חיי‬was lost due to parablepsis between the graphically and phonetically similar words [‫מ]לכא … חלמך‬. If our reasoning is correct, mt, Th-Dan, Peshitta and Vulgate attest a secondary, short reading.122 Dan 2:40 mt

og :‫ ]…[ ]…[ כל אלין תדק ותרע‬καὶ πᾶν δένδρον ἐκκόπτων, καὶ σεισθήσεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ.

[…] so will it crush and smash all these.

[…] and cuts down every tree, and the whole earth will be shaken.

Th […] ὕτως πάντα λεπτυνεῖ καὶ δαμάσει.

[…] so it will pulverize and overpower everything

The og addition agrees with 4QDana: ‫וכפרזלא די מ[רעע כל א]לין תדק ותר[ע כל‬ ‫ארעא‬. As in the previous example, there are two alternative ways to interpret the plus: (1) it can be regarded as the original reading which was lost due

122

Alternatively, ‫ מלכא לעלמין חיי‬can be interpreted as a secondary harmonization in ogDan’s Vorlage based on v. 4 of the same chapter: ‫—מלכא לעלמין חיי‬βασιλεῦ, τὸν αἰῶνα ζῆθι (og); Βασιλεῦ, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ζῆθι (Th).

148

chapter 3

to homoioarcton. The scribal error would have occurred between the graphically/phonetically similar endings of the words ‫( ;ותר[ע … ארעא‬2) it can be regarded as secondary in light of its expansionistic nature and the likelihood of harmonization with either v. 35 or v. 39 or both (cf. ‫ ומלת כל ארעא‬and‫די‬ ‫תשלט בכל ארעא‬, respectively). Th-Dan aligns with mt, Vulgate, and partly with Peshitta. Dan 5:7 mt

og

Th

‫ קרא מלכא בחיל להעלה‬καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐφώνησε ‫ לאשפיא כשדיא וגזריא‬φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καλέσαι ‫ ]…[׃‬τοὺς ἐπαοιδοὺς καὶ φαρ-

καὶ ἐβόησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ἰσχύι τοῦ εἰσαγαγεῖν μάγους, Χαλδαίους, γαζαμάκους καὶ Χαλδαίους καὶ ρηνοὺς […]. γαζαρηνοὺς […].

The king called loudly for the exorcists, Chaldeans, and diviners to be brought […].

And the king called in a loud voice that the enchanters and sorcerers and Chaldeans and Gazarenes be summoned […].

And the king shouted aloud in order that the magicians, Chaldeans, Gazarenes be brought in […].

While 4QDana reads ‫ חרטמיא‬in agreement with the og its, the shorter list of mt is attested by Th-Dan and Vulgate. Dan 8:3 mt

og ‫ והנה איל אחד עמד לפני‬κριὸν ἕνα μέγαν ἑστῶτα ‫ האבל ]…[׃‬ἀπέναντι τῆς πύλης […].

[I] saw a ram standing between me and the river […].

I saw one large ram standing in front of the gate […].

Th καὶ ἰδοὺ κριὸς εἷς ἑστηκὼς πρὸ τοῦ Ουβαλ […]. and lo, there was one ram standing before the Oubal […].

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 149

og-Dan is supported by the combined evidence of 4QDana and 4QDanb. The mt reading is attested by Th-Dan, Peshitta, and Vulgate. Dan 8:4 mt

og

‫ ראיתי את האיל מנגח ימה‬μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα εἶδον τὸν ‫ וצפונה ונגבה ]…[׃‬κριὸν κερατίζοντα πρὸς

ἀνατολὰς καὶ πρὸς βορρᾶν καὶ πρὸς δυσμὰς καὶ μεσημβρίαν, […]. I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward. […].

But after this I saw the ram charging to the east and to the north and to the west and to the south. […].

Th εἶδον τὸν κριὸν κερατίζοντα κατὰ θάλασσαν καὶ βορρᾶν καὶ νότον, […].

I saw the ram charging toward the sea and northward and southward. […].

The reading of 4QDana, ‫ומזרחה‬, affirms the og plus πρὸς ἀνατολάς.123 Th-Dan agrees with mt, Peshitta, and Vulgate.124 Dan 11:33 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ונכשלו בחרב ובלהבה‬καὶ προσκόψουσι ‫ בשבי ובבזה ימים׃‬ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ παλαιω-

θήσονται ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ καὶ ἐν προνομῇ ἡμερῶν κηλιδωθήσονται.

123

124

Th […] καὶ ἀσθενήσουσιν ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν φλογὶ καὶ ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ καὶ ἐν διαρπαγῇ ἡμερῶν.

Collins (Daniel, 325) reconstructs the original order of the direction points according to 4QDana and pap 967 (both mss 88 and Syh attests all points but in different order). Considering 4QDana’s attestation, Munnich’s suggestion that πρὸς ἀνατολὰ is a doublet is untenable. Consequently, we prefer Ziegler’s reconstruction. It is also probable that og-Dan’s Vorlage was harmonized in light of v. 9. At least, the opposite influence is probably true. See ch. 3 A § 5 (1‫)צבי־‬.

150

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] and for a while they shall fall by sword and flame, suffer captivity and spoliation.

[…] and they will stumble by sword and will become old by it and by captivity, and they will be soiled by pillaging for days.

[…] and they will become weak by sword and by flame and by captivity and by plunder of days.

The renderings of ‫“ להבה‬flame” elsewhere show that the lxx translators understood the term, mainly rendering it with φλόξ “flame.”125 Consequently, it seems likely that the og deviation from mt is due to its underlying text rather than to an intentional change. The og indicates a different word division, i.e., ‫ובלה בה‬ instead of ‫ובלהבה‬.126 2.1.2 Long Pluses The reviser has further eliminated from the base text longer pluses so that it would align quantitatively with his source text, especially in Daniel 4–6.127 As far as the character of these pluses is concerned, our study builds on the assumption that they generally reflect a different underlying text, though, methodologically, each one has to be individually scrutinized. This assump-

125

126

127

‫ להבה‬appears another eighteen times in mt, and lxx renders it with φλόξ in Num 21:28; Isa 5:24; 43:2; 47:14; Ezek 21:3; Joel 1:19; 2:3; Obad 1:18; Pss 29[28]:7; 83[82]:15; 106[105]:18; Lam 2:3. When the word formed a construct chain with ‫אש‬, the translators felt free to slightly diverge but still show that they understood the term, cf. πυρὸς καιομένου for ‫אש‬ ‫( להבה‬Isa 4:5); ὡς πυρὸς φέγγος for ‫( כאש להבה‬Hos 7:6); πῦρ καταφλέγον for ‫אש להבות‬ (Ps 105[104]:32). In 1 Sam 17:7, ‫ להבה‬was rendered with λόγχη “spear,” which reflects its second meaning “blade” (halot, s.v. “‫)”ֶלָהָבה‬, while in Isa 10:17 was rendered with πῦρ “fire,” probably influenced by the presence of ‫ אש‬in the context. lxx=0: Jer 48[31]:45. Παλαιόω “to make or become old” renders mainly ‫“ בלה‬to wear out,” cf. Deut 29:14; Josh 9:5, 13; Isa 50:9; 51:6; 65:22; Pss 18[17]:46; 32[31]:3; 49[48]:15; 102[101]:27; Job 13:28; Lam 3:4; Neh 9:21; Sir 14:17. There are three major opinions regarding on the textual character of og-Dan 4–6: (1) the og’s deviations are the result of a free, midrashic translation style; (2) the deviations reflect a different Vorlage either superior or inferior to mt-Dan; and (3) og-Dan and mt-Dan represent two parallel editions, each one featuring original and secondary elements alike. For a summary and literature on these views, see further Olariu, “Textual History of Daniel,” 523–525.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 151

tion is informed from the results of previous investigations of og-Dan which describe its overall translation style as both being “faithful” to his Vorlage and displaying idiosyncrasies of stylistic freedom.128 That is to say, the intent of the og-Dan’s translator was to provide a reliable translation, showing “a genuine attempt to translate the sense of the Semitic narrative.”129 From a translational point of view, it is less likely that the og-Dan translator would allow himself the liberty to add long strings of words, phrases, or even paragraphs. At times, the assumption of a different Vorlage of the og is supported by readings of 4QDana differing from mt. The selection of subsequent examples discusses ten cases of long additions. These are pluses of more than five lexemes (excluding articles and conjunctions). Though assembled together, not all the examples are of the same type. However, they do document in each case the same tendency of Th-Dan to eliminate the long pluses from the base text in order to bring it into alignment with his mt-like Vorlage. Dan 1:20 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ אשר בכל מלכותו׃‬τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ τῇ

βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐδόξασεν αὐτοὺς ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ἀνέδειξεν ἐν πράγμασιν ἐν πάσῃ ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείᾳ.

128

129

Th […] τοὺς ὄντας ἐν πάσῃ τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ.

Pace Jeansonne (The Old Greek Translation of Daniel, 69): “og was a faithful translation (freer [than Th-Dan], but not less accurate).” A similar opinion was posited by Wenthe. In his Appendix 1 regarding the character of og-Dan, he concludes: “first, there is a clear fidelity of the Old Greek in rendering specific vocables in Dan 1–3 and 7–12, and this must be taken into account when chapters 4–6 are assessed; secondly, the richer vocabulary stock of the og, as compared with θ′ does not signal paraphrasis or a theological Tendenz, but rather fidelity in translation expressed with sensitivity to meaning and style in the target language.” Wenthe “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 1–6,” 256–257. At the same time, Amara rightly notes the textual implications of og-Dan’s high degree of translational freedom: “The extremely non-literal nature of this translation turns it almost worthless for text-critical purposes, since one can never be certain whether a variant text actually goes back to a different Vorlage or originated from the hand of the translator.” Amara, “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” iv (Abstract). Pace-Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel, 69.

152

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] throughout his realm.

[…] that were in the whole kingdom. And the king glorified them and appointed them in affairs in his whole kingdom.

[…] who were in his whole kingdom.

4QDana col. i frag. 2 preserves a longer version of v. 20,130 implying that the long og addition likewise stems from a longer Vorlage. Furthermore, it seems plausible that the shorter mt is the result of a mechanical copying error: haplography between ‫ ;בכל מלכותו … בכל מלכותו‬ἐν πάσῃ τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ … ἐν πάσῃ ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείᾳ. In any case, the reviser adjusted the base text to quantitatively correspond to his mt-like Vorlage.131 Dan 3:1 mt

og

Th

‫ נבוכדנצר מלכא ]…[׃‬Ἔτους ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου

[Ἔτους ὀκτωκαιδεκάΝαβουχοδονοσορ διοικῶν του] Ναβουχοδονοσορ ὁ πόλεις καὶ χώρας καὶ πάν- βασιλεὺς […]. τας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἀπὸ Ινδικῆς ἕως Αἰθιοπίας […].

King Nebuchadnezzar […]. 130 131

In the eighteenth year of Nabouchodonosor,

[In the eighteenth year,] King Nabouchodonosor

The remains of the fragment attest a longer addition [--]◦‫[◦ל◦] [◦ מלכותו‬--. The ms 88 and Syh mark the og addition by an obelus, suggesting that the haplography occurred in mt before Origen’s time. In addition, it seems that the addition reconstructed by Munnich after pap 967 (cf. our chart above) was secondarily expended during the transmission process, both ms 88 and Syh attesting an even longer text: καὶ ἐδόξασεν αὐτοὺς ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ κατέστησεν αὐτοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ ἀνέδειξεν αὐτοὺς σοφοὺς παρὰ πάντας τοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐν πράγμασιν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ (where the text in red was presumably added secondarily).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 153 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

when he was managing cities and regions and all who lived from India to Ethiopia […]

The og addition sets the story of Daniel 3 in the “eighteenth year” of Nebuchadnezzar, alluding to the complete destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Jer 52:29).132 Furthermore, it elaborates on Nebuchadnezzar’s administration which extended “from India to Ethiopia,” echoing Esth 1:1; 8:9.133 For our purpose, the complex question of whether the additions indicate a different (probably original) Vorlage, translational expansions, or later inner-Greek editorial interventions do not have any bearing. The only significant aspect for a translation-revision hypothesis is the likelihood that the long additions did exist in the base text from which the reviser worked. In the case in question, the addition is supported with slight variation by all of og-Dan’s mss (pap 967, 88, Syh). Dan 4:8[11] mt

og

‫ רבה אילנא ותקף ורומה‬καὶ ἡ ὅρασις αὐτοῦ ‫ ימטא לשמיא וחזותה לסוף‬μεγάλη· ἡ κορυφὴ αὐτοῦ ‫ כל ארעא׃‬ἤγγιζεν ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

καὶ τὸ κύτος αὐτοῦ ἕως τῶν νεφελῶν πληροῦν τὰ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἐν αὐτῷ ᾤκουν καὶ ἐφώτιζον πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. 132

133

Th ἐμεγαλύνθη τὸ δένδρον καὶ ἴσχυσεν, καὶ τὸ ὕψος αὐτοῦ ἔφθασεν ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τὸ κύτος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰ πέρατα πάσης τῆς γῆς·

Montgomery (Daniel, 199) notes that the addition has a dramatic effect “in identifying the date of Neb.’s impious creation with that of his destruction of the holy city.” Furthermore, Segal has recently proposed that the dating of the episode in the eighteenth year “may also address the exegetical question posed by the presence of the two different dates in Jeremiah 52 (or both 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52).” For further details, see Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 117. In Esth 1:1 and 8:9 the phrase ἀπὸ Ινδικῆς ἕως Αἰθιοπίας is also attested in Hebrew. It further

154

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

The tree grew and became mighty; its top reached heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the earth.

And its appearance was great. Its crown came close to heaven, and its span to the clouds, filling the area under heaven. The sun and the moon dwelled in it and illuminated the whole earth.

The tree grew great and strong, and its top reached as far as heaven, and its span to the ends of the whole earth.

The og additions in v. 8[11] expand the grandeur of the tree, “filling the area under heaven” and hosting even the “sun” and the “moon.”134 The reviser retained what he could from the og, i.e., the rare κύτος “hollow,” “jar,”135 and discarded the other additions, which diverge from mt. Dan 4:16[19] mt

og

‫ אדין דניאל די שמה‬μεγάλως δὲ θαυμάσας ‫ בלטשאצר אשתומם כשעה‬ὁ Δανιηλ, καὶ ὑπόνοια ‫ חדה ורעינהי יבהלנה ]…[׃‬κατασπευθείς, καὶ φοβη-

θεὶς τρόμου λαβόντος αὐτὸν καὶ ἀλλοιωθείσης τῆς ὁράσεως αὐτοῦ κινήσας τὴν κεφαλὴν ὥραν μίαν ἀποθαυμάσας […].

134 135

Th τότε Δανιηλ, οὗ τὸ ὄνομα Βαλτασαρ, ἀπηνεώθη ὡσεὶ ὥραν μίαν, καὶ οἱ διαλογισμοὶ αὐτοῦ συνετάρασσον αὐτόν […].

occurs without a Hebrew counterpart in 1 Esd 3:2; Esth 3:12; 13:1[B.1]; 16:2[E.2], technically indicating the universal dominion of a king. Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 119–120. The equivalent constitutes a significant agreement between og and Th-Dan. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 49–50 (No. 12); Schmitt, Stammt der sogenannte “θ”–Text, 28; Montgomery, Daniel, 248.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 155 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

Then Daniel, called Belteshazzar, was perplexed for a while, and alarmed by his thoughts. […]

But since Daniel was greatly amazed and since foreboding pressed him and since he was afraid, as trembling seized him and his appearance changed, having shaken his head, having marveled for one hour […].

Then Daniel, whose name was Baltasar, was mute for about one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. […]

The og and Th-Dan share the motif of Daniel being amazed for “one hour” when he has heard the king’s dream. However, the former version (or its Vorlage) expands on the amazement motif. The reviser eliminates the expansion, though he maintains the og’s equivalent κατασπεύδω “to agitate,” “to dismay.”136 Dan 5:0 mt

og

Th

mt=0

Βαλτασαρ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐποίησε δοχὴν μεγάλην ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐγκαινισμοῦ τῶν βασιλείων αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μεγιστάνων αὐτοῦ ἐκάλεσεν ἄνδρας δισχιλίους. (…) ἔστι δὲ ἡ ἑρμηνεία αὐτῶν· μανη ἠρίθμηται, φαρες ἐξῆρται, θεκελ ἕσταται.

Th=0

136

lsj, s.v. “κατασπεύδω.”

156

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

[King Baltasar gave a great reception on the day of the dedication of his palace, and he invited two thousand men of his nobles. (…) Their translation is: mane, it has been numbered; phares, it has been taken away; thekel, it has been established.]

The og appends at the beginning of Daniel 5 a long paragraph which is in the nature of an abstract to the subsequent story. No matter how we assess its character,137 the reviser has rejected the abstract.138 Dan 5:4 mt

og

Th

‫ אשתיו חמרא ושבחו לאלהי‬καὶ ηὐλόγουν τὰ εἴδωλα ‫ דהבא וכספא נחשא פרזלא‬τὰ χειροποίητα αὐτῶν, ‫ אעא ואבנא׃‬καὶ τὸν θεὸν τοῦ αἰῶνος

ἔπινον οἶνον καὶ ᾔνεσαν τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς χρυσοῦς καὶ ἀργυροῦς καὶ χαλκοῦς οὐκ εὐλόγησαν τὸν ἔχοντα καὶ σιδηροῦς καὶ ξυλίνους τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πνεύμα- καὶ λιθίνους· τος αὐτῶν.

137 138

E.g., whether as original or secondary to the core of the story, or stemming from the og’s Vorlage, the translator himself, or a later Greek editor. For the issues involved and different positions regarding the abstract, see the detailed discussion of Michael Segal, “Daniel 5 in Aramaic and Greek and the Textual History of Daniel 4–6,” in Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016, ed. Louis C. Jonker, Gideon R. Kotzé, Christl M. Mayer, VTSup 177 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 251–284 (273–282). Segal adopts the position that the abstract is secondary, being dependent on the larger story of Daniel 5 and functioning as a literary bridge in the og between Daniel 4 and 5.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 157 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

They drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.

And they blessed their handmade idols, and they did not bless the eternal God who had authority over their spirit.

They were drinking wine and praised the gold and silver and bronze and iron and wood and stone gods.

Th-Dan eliminates the theological expansion in the og which denounces the failure of the king’s guests to “bless the eternal God who had authority over their spirit.”139 Dan 5:7 mt

og

Th

‫קרא מלכא בחיל להעלה‬ ‫לאשפיא כשדיא וגזריא ענה‬ ‫מלכא ואמר לחכימי בבל‬ ‫די כל אנש די יקרה כתבה‬ ‫דנה ופשרה יחונני ארגונא‬ ‫ילבש והמונכא די דהבא‬ ‫על צוארה ותלתי במלכותא‬ ‫ישלט׃‬

καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐφώνησε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καλέσαι τοὺς ἐπαοιδοὺς καὶ φαρμάκους καὶ Χαλδαίους καὶ γαζαρηνοὺς ἀπαγγεῖλαι τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς γραφῆς. καὶ εἰσεπορεύοντο ἐπὶ θεωρίαν ἰδεῖν τὴν γραφήν, καὶ τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς γραφῆς οὐκ ἐδύναντο συγκρῖναι τῷ βασιλεῖ. τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐξέθηκε πρόσταγμα λέγων Πᾶς ὃς ἐὰν ὑποδείξῃ τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς γραφῆς, στολιεῖ αὐτὸν

καὶ ἐβόησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ἰσχύι τοῦ εἰσαγαγεῖν μάγους, Χαλδαίους, γαζαρηνοὺς καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς σοφοῖς Βαβυλῶνος Ὃς ἂν ἀναγνῷ τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην καὶ τὴν σύγκρισιν γνωρίσῃ μοι, πορφύραν ἐνδύσεται, καὶ ὁ μανιάκης ὁ χρυσοῦς ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ, καὶ τρίτος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου ἄρξει.

139

The theological expansion is in tune with the theological rendering of 0‫ אלה־‬with εἴδωλον “false god,” “idol.” See ch. 3 A § 3.2.3 (Dan 1:2).

158

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

πορφύραν καὶ μανιάκην χρυσοῦν περιθήσει αὐτῷ, καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ ἐξουσία τοῦ τρίτου μέρους τῆς βασιλείας. The king called loudly for the exorcists, Chaldeans, and diviners to be brought. The king addressed the wise men of Babylon, “Whoever can read this writing and tell me its meaning shall be clothed in purple and wear a golden chain on his neck, and shall rule as one of three in the kingdom.”

And the king called in a loud voice that the enchanters and sorcerers and Chaldeans and Gazarenes be summoned to tell the meaning of the writing. And they came to the spectacle to see the writing, and they were unable to interpret the meaning of the writing for the king. Then the king published a declaration, saying: Anyone who can explain the meaning of the writing—he will dress him in purple, and the gold torque he will put on him, and authority over a third of the kingdom will be given to him.

And the king shouted aloud in order that the magicians, Chaldeans, Gazarenes be brought in, and he said to the sages of Babylon, “Whoever can read this writing and make known to me the interpretation will be clothed in purple and have the gold torque around his neck and will rank third in my kingdom.”

The long og addition presents a different sequence of events. The “enchanters and sorcerers and Chaldeans and Gazarenes” enter the banquet room, attempting to read the mysterious writing. Due to their unsuccessful endeavor, the king promises rewards for those who can provide its meaning. Furthermore, their

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 159

first entrance seemingly creates tension in the plot of the story since in v. 8 the og states a second time that “the enchanters and sorcerers and Gazarenes came in,” with the same result that “none was able to tell the meaning of the writing.”140 Th-Dan’s dependence on the og in v. 7 is visible in retaining the rare μανιάκης “necklace,”141 though the reviser has reworked the text to quantitatively align with mt. Dan 5:30 mt

og

‫ בה בליליא קטיל בלאשצר‬καὶ τὸ σύγκριμα ἐπῆλθε ‫ מלכא כשדא׃‬Βαλτασαρ τῷ βασιλεῖ,

καὶ τὸ βασίλειον ἐξῆρται ἀπὸ τῶν Χαλδαίων καὶ ἐδόθη τοῖς Μήδοις καὶ τοῖς Πέρσαις. That very night, Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed.

And the meaning came upon Baltasar the king, and the rule was taken away from the Chaldeans and was given to the Medes and to the Persians.

Th ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ νυκτὶ ἀναιρέθη Βαλτασαρ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁ Χαλδαίων.

In that very night Baltasar, the Chaldean king, was killed.

The end of the story of the writing hand in Daniel 5 is more detailed in the og than in Th-Dan. It underscores the fulfilment of the writing’s meaning in Belshazzar’s death and the loss of the kingdom. Th-Dan eliminates the long plus.

140

141

Segal attempts to explain the tension in the og by assuming in the og’s Vorlage differing types of actors. Whereas in v. 7 those summoned were “the enchanters and sorcerers and Chaldeans and Gazarenes,” in v. 8 he assumes a larger group of wise men. Consequently, the long addition is exegetical in nature, attempting to “create” the chance for both groups to come in the proximity of the writing. Segal, “Daniel 5 in Aramaic and Greek,” 269– 273. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 50–51 (No. 15).

160

chapter 3

Dan 6:4[3] mt

og

Th

‫אדין דניאל דנה הוא מתנצח‬ ‫על סרכיא ואחשדרפניא‬ ‫כל קבל די רוח יתירא בה‬ ‫ומלכא עשית להקמותה על‬ ‫כל מלכותא׃‬

ὑπὲρ πάντας ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ. καὶ Δανιηλ ἦν ἐνδεδυμένος πορφύραν καὶ μέγας καὶ ἔνδοξος ἔναντι Δαρείου τοῦ βασιλέως, καθότι ἦν ἐπιστήμων καὶ συνετός, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ εὐοδούμενος ἐν ταῖς πραγματείαις τοῦ βασιλέως, αἷς ἔπρασσε. [τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐβουλεύσατο καταστῆσαι τὸν Δανιηλ ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς δύο ἄνδρας, οὓς κατέστησε μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ σατράπας ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ἑπτά.]

καὶ ἦν Δανιηλ ὑπὲρ αὐτούς, ὅτι πνεῦμα περισσὸν ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς κατέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐφ᾽ ὅλης τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ.

This man Daniel surpassed the other ministers and satraps by virtue of his extraordinary spirit, and the king considered setting him over the whole kingdom.

since he had authority over everyone in the kingdom. And Daniel was clothed in purple and was great and esteemed before King Darius, as he was knowledgeable and intelligent and a holy spirit was in him, and he prospered in the affairs of the king that he performed. [Then the king decided to set Daniel over all his kingdom, and the two

And Daniel was above them, because an excellent spirit was in him, and the king appointed him over his whole kingdom.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 161 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

men whom he had appointed with him and the one hundred twenty-seven satraps.]

The expansion is a contextual harmonization (especially from Daniel 5 and 6), providing supplementary reasons for the superior position and character of Daniel.142 The reviser rejects the additions and provides a literal translation of his Vorlage. Dan 6:23[22] mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואף קדמיך מלכא‬καὶ ἐναντίον δὲ σοῦ, :‫ חבולה לא עבדת‬βασιλεῦ, οὔτε ἄγνοια οὔτε

ἁμαρτία εὑρέθη ἐν ἐμοί· σὺ δὲ ἤκουσας ἀνθρώπων πλανώντων βασιλεῖς καὶ ἔρριψάς με εἰς τὸν λάκκον τῶν λεόντων εἰς ἀπώλειαν. […] or have I, O king, done you any injury.

142

[…] O king, neither ignorance nor sin was found in me. But you listened to people who deceive kings, and you cast me into the lions’ pit for destruction.

Th […] καὶ ἐνώπιον δὲ σοῦ, βασιλεῦ, παράπτωμα οὐκ ἐποίησα.

[…] and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.”

For a detailed analysis of Dan 6:4[3]–5[4], see Michael Segal, “The Old Greek Version and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6,” in Die Septuaginta—Orte und Intentionen, ed. Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund, wunt 361 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebck, 2016), 409–414.

162

chapter 3

The og supplement is construed as a rebuke for the king who “listened to people who deceive kings.” The reproof style of the supplement seemingly recalls Daniel’s elaborated rebuke of Belshazzar in 5:18–22 (especially at v. 22 mt; og=0). As in Daniel 5, it is also possible that the supplement in question represents a secondary reworking in the og’s Vorlage.143 The reviser followed closely his shorter Vorlage. 2.2 Supplementation of og-Dan Minuses according to mt In order to generate a revision which quantitatively corresponded to mt, the reviser had to address the problem of the extant minuses in his base text. Accordingly, he undertook a systematic effort to supplement the “missing” words which could be identified through a word-for-word comparison of the source text with the base text. The tendency of supplementation is discernable at the level of both short and long minuses. 2.2.1 Short Minuses This large group of minuses regards unparalleled readings in the base text, of one to four lexemes or strings of words in the Semitic text.144 The reviser perceived it as his task to supplement the elements in his Vorlage that had no parallel in og-Dan, independent of the factors that contributed to their absence in og-Dan. The first four sub-groups are tantamount to translation minuses: they reflect the style of the translator. The fifth sub-group collects minuses which are the result of differences from mt in og-Dan’s Vorlage. The sixth sub-group shows that the reviser has likely supplemented inner-Greek minuses. 2.2.1.1 Implied Renderings of the og The reviser supplemented minuses whose meaning was captured in an implied form in the og translation, but for which there was not a formal, element-forelement parallel. This attitude reflects literalism.

143

144

The phrase καὶ ἔρριψάς με εἰς τὸν λάκκον τῶν λεόντων εἰς ἀπώλειαν is tantamount to a contextual harmonization, the motif recurring across Daniel 6 in both mt and the og in vv. 8[7], 13[12], 25[24]; and only in the og in vv. 6[5], 9[8], 15[14], 18[17]. As in the case of the short pluses, the definite article and the connective conjunction ‫ ְו‬are not taken into consideration in our count of the elements in the source text.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 163

Dan 1:6 mt

og

Th

‫ ויהי בהם מבני יהודה דניאל‬καὶ ἦσαν ἐκ τοῦ γένους ‫ חנניה מישאל ועזריה׃‬τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ τῶν ἀπὸ

καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Ιουδα Δανιηλ τῆς Ιουδαίας Δανιηλ, Ανα- καὶ Ανανιας καὶ Μισαηλ καὶ Αζαριας. νιας, Μισαηλ, Αζαριας.

Among them were the Judahites Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.

And there were of the race of the sons of Israel who were from Judea: Daniel, Hananias, Misael, Azarias.

And among them from the sons of Iouda were Daniel and Hananias and Misael and Azarias.

The reviser supplements with ἐν αὐτοῖς the lack of formal equivalents for ‫בהם‬ in og-Dan. The propensity for literalism is clearly indicated by his reworking of the og translation, which implies the meaning carried by the Hebrew ‫בהם‬.145 Dan 1:13 mt

og

‫ ויראו לפניך מראינו ומראה‬καὶ ἐὰν φανῇ ἡ ὄψις ἡμῶν ‫ הילדים ]…[׃‬διατετραμμένη παρὰ τοὺς

ἄλλους νεανίσκους […].

Then compare our appearance with that of the youths […].

145

And if our appearance seems more pale than the other young men […].

See ch. 3 A § 2.1.1.2 (Dan 1:6).

Th καὶ ὀφθήτωσαν ἐνώπιόν σου αἱ ἰδέαι ἡμῶν καὶ αἱ ἰδέαι τῶν παιδαρίων […]. And let our forms be seen before you, and the forms of the youths […].

164

chapter 3

‫ לפניך‬is implied in og-Dan. The translator probably did not render it wordfor-word in order to avoid Hebraizing. The opposite characterization is true regarding ἐνώπιόν σου in Th-Dan.

Dan 1:17 mt

og

‫ והילדים האלה ארבעתם נתן‬καὶ τοῖς νεανίσκοις ἔδω‫ להם האלהים מדע ]…[׃‬κεν ὁ κύριος ἐπιστήμην

[…]. God made all four of And the Lord gave the these young men intelli- young men knowledge gent […]. […].

Th καὶ τὰ παιδάρια ταῦτα, οἱ τέσσαρες αὐτοί, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς σύνεσιν […]. And these youths, these four—God gave them insight […].

The words in red underscore specificity and do not add new information. Whereas the og most likely did not represent them explicitly to maximize the Greek flavor, the reviser cared more for representing each element of mt. Dan 1:20 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ וימצאם עשר ידות על‬κατέλαβεν αὐτοὺς ‫ כל החרטמים ]…[׃‬σοφωτέρους δεκαπλα-

σίως ὑπερφέροντας τῶν σοφιστῶν […]. […] he found them to be ten times better than all the magicians […].

Th […] εὗρεν αὐτοὺς δεκαπλασίονας παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἐπαοιδοὺς […].

[…] he took them to be […] he found them ten ten times wiser, surpass- times better than all the ing the servants […]. enchanters […].

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 165

Dan 2:23 mt

og

Th

‫ ]…[ ]…[ וכען הודעתני די בעינא‬αὶ νῦν ἐσήμανάς μοι ‫ מנך ]…[׃‬ὅσα ἠξίωσα […].

[…] καὶ νῦν ἐγνώρισάς μοι ἃ ἠξιώσαμεν παρὰ σοῦ […].

[…] For now You have let me know what we asked of You […].

[…] and now you have shown as much as I petitioned […].

[…] and you have made known to me what we petitioned from you […].

og

Th

Dan 2:41 mt

‫ ודי חזיתה רגליא ואצבעתא‬καὶ ὡς ἑώρακας τοὺς ‫ ]…[׃‬πόδας αὐτῆς […].

You saw the feet and the And as you saw its feet toes […]. […].

καὶ ὅτι εἶδες τοὺς πόδας καὶ τοὺς δακτύλους […]. And you saw that the feet and toes […].

og does not reflect the “toes” presumably either as being implied by the term “feet”146 or because it reflects a different Vorlage.147 Dan 7:5a mt

og

‫ וארו חיוה אחרי תנינה דמיה‬καὶ ἰδοὺ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν ἄλλο ‫ לדב ]…[׃‬θηρίον ὁμοίωσιν ἔχον

Th καὶ ἰδοὺ θηρίον δεύτερον ὅμοιον ἄρκῳ […].

ἄρκου […]. 146

147

For a similar case, see Isa 1:6 wherein ‫ מכף רגל ועד ראש‬was rendered with ἀπὸ ποδῶν ἕως κεφαλῆς. For a broader discussion of the omission of body parts in genitival relationships, see Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses, scs 61 (Atlanta: sbl Press, 2014), 69–71. Collins, Daniel, 154, 170.

166

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

Then I saw a second, different beast, which was like a bear […].

And lo, another beast was after it, having the likeness of a bear. […].

And lo, there was a second beast like a bear. […]

The translation of ‫ תנינה‬was perceived as redundant in view of the og’s more elaborate translation and, hence, it was disregarded.148 Dan 7:5b mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ותלת עלעין בפמה בין‬καὶ τρία πλευρὰ ἦν ἐν ‫ שניה ]…[׃‬τῷ στόματι αὐτῆς […].

[…] and with three fangs in its mouth among its teeth […].

[…] and three ribs were in its mouth. […]

Th […] καὶ τρία πλευρὰ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῆς ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὀδόντων αὐτῆς […]. […] and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth. […].

‫ בין שניה‬was disregarded by the og translator presumably because its meaning was subsumed under ‫בפמה‬. Again Th-Dan transforms the og’s rendering toward a word-for-word representation of ‫—בין שניה‬ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὀδόντων

αὐτῆς.149

148 149

See further Appendix 2 (Dan 7:5), for an explanation for the absence of any equivalent in Th-Dan for ‫אחרי‬. Origen has filled in the minus with ανα μεσον των οδοντων αυτης (cf. Th), the reading appearing as asterisked in mss 88-Syh. An alternative explanation would be to conjecture parablepsis between the words in red of the putative εν τω στοματι αυτης ανα μεσον των οδοντων αυτης.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 167

Dan 7:9 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ לבושה כתלג חור ]…[׃‬ἔχων περιβολὴν ὡσεὶ

χιόνα […]. […] His garment was like white snow, […].

[…] having a cloak like snow, […].

Th […] καὶ τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ χιὼν λευκόν […]. […] and his clothing was white like snow, […].

The color “white” is implied by “snow.” Dan 8:26 mt

og

‫ ומראה הערב והבקר אשר‬τὸ ὅραμα τὸ ἑσπέρας καὶ ‫ נאמר אמת הוא ]…[׃‬πρωὶ ηὑρέθη ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας

[…].

What was said in the vision about evenings and mornings is true.

The evening and morning vision was told truthfully. […].

Th καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τῆς ἑσπέρας καὶ τῆς πρωίας τῆς ῥηθείσης ἀληθής ἐστιν […]. And the vision of the evening and the morning that has been told is true. […].

To avoid Semitism, the og ignored the relative and resumptive pronouns ‫אשר‬ and ‫הוא‬, respectively; Th persists with quantitative representation. Dan 10:7 mt

og

‫ וראיתי אני דניאל לבדי את‬καὶ εἶδον ἐγὼ Δανιηλ τὴν ‫ המראה ]…[׃‬ὅρασιν τὴν μεγάλην ταύ-

την […].

Th καὶ εἶδον ἐγὼ Δανιηλ μόνος τὴν ὀπτασίαν […].

168

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

I, Daniel, alone saw the vision […].

And I, Daniel, saw this great vision […].

And I, Daniel, alone saw the appearance […].

og

Th

Dan 11:2 mt

‫ ]…[ ]…[ הנה עוד שלשה מלכים‬ἰδοὺ τρεῖς βασιλεῖς ‫ עמדים לפרס ]…[׃‬ἀνθεστήκασιν ἐν τῇ Περ-

σίδι […]. Persia will have three more kings […].

Lo, three kings have risen in opposition in Persia. […].

[…] ἰδοὺ ἔτι τρεῖς βασιλεῖς ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ Περσίδι […]. Lo, yet three kings will arise in Persia. […].

2.2.1.2 Condensed Renderings The reviser rejects accurate og renderings that condense two, three or four Semitic lexemes into a single Greek equivalent that capture their full meaning. From his standpoint, the lack of representation of each element in mt into the target language is tantamount to a minus. Dan 1:2 mt

og

Th

:[…] ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ויביאם ארץ שנער‬καὶ ἀπήνεγκεν αὐτὰ εἰς τὴν Βαβυλῶνα […].

[…] καὶ ἤνεγκεν αὐτὰ εἰς γῆν Σεννααρ […].

[…] and he brought them to the land of Shinar […].

[…] And he brought them to the land of Sennaar […].

[…] And taking them to Babylonia, […].

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 169

‫ ארץ שנער‬was rendered with one equivalent in the og. Th-Dan’s revisional approach dictated a word-for-word correction. Consequently, the reviser replaced Βαβυλῶνα with γῆν Σεννααρ to conform quantitatively with ‫ארץ שנער‬.150

Dan 1:4 mt ‫ילדים אשר אין בהם כל‬ ‫( וטובי מראה‬1º) ‫מאום‬ ‫ומשכילים בכל חכמה וידעי‬ (4º) ‫( ומביני מדע‬3º) ‫דעת‬ ‫( לעמד‬5º) ‫ואשר כח בהם‬ ‫בהיכל המלך וללמדם ספר‬ ‫ולשון כשדים׃‬

(2º)

youths without blemish, (1º) handsome, (2º) proficient in all wisdom, knowledgeable (3º) and intelligent, (4º) and capable (5º) of serving in the royal palace—and teach them the writings and the language of the Chaldeans.

150

og

Th

νεανίσκους ἀμώμους (1º) καὶ εὐειδεῖς (2º) καὶ ἐπιστήμονας ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ γραμματικοὺς (3º) καὶ σοφοὺς (4º) καὶ ἰσχύοντας (5º) εἶναι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ διδάξαι αὐτοὺς γράμματα καὶ διάλεκτον Χαλδαϊκὴν.

νεανίσκους οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς μῶμος (1º) καὶ καλοὺς τῇ ὄψει (2º) καὶ συνιέντας ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ γιγνώσκοντας γνῶσιν (3º) καὶ διανοουμένους φρόνησιν (4º) καὶ οἷς ἐστιν ἰσχὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς (5º) ἑστάναι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ διδάξαι αὐτοὺς γράμματα καὶ γλῶσσαν Χαλδαίων.

young men without physical defect (1º) and good-looking (2º) and knowledgeable in all wisdom and educated (3º) and wise (4º) and strong (5º) to be in the king’s house, and to teach them letters and Chaldean speech.

young men, who had no physical defect in them (1º) and were handsome in appearance (2º) and versed in all wisdom and endowed with knowledge (3º) and full of discernment (4º) and who had strength in them (5º) to stand in the king’s house, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans.

See ch. 3 A § 1.1.2.1 (0‫ארע־‬/‫)ארץ‬. Beside quantitative representation, Th-Dan also applies the principle of standardization (see ch. 3 B § 9). Indeed, in translating ‫ארץ שנער‬, the reviser was likely influenced by Gen 10:10; 11:2. The phrase occurs one more time in Zech

170

chapter 3

This sample showcases condensed renderings as a cherished idiosyncrasy of the og-Dan translator. In this verse, both a six- and a four-word relative, attributive clause (nos. 1º and 5º, respectively) are rendered with a single word each. Furthermore, the same treatment is received by another three construct chains made of two lexemes each (nos. 2º, 3º, 4º).151 All condensed renditions fairly convey the meaning of the source text, avoiding Hebraisms in the target language. In contrast, Th-Dan prioritizes a literalist approach in representing its Semitic Vorlage. Dan 2:10 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ לא איתי אנש על‬Οὐδεὶς τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς :[…] ‫ יבשתא‬γῆς […].

[…] “There is no one on earth […].

[…] “Nobody on earth […].

Th […] Οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ τῆς ξηρᾶς […]. […] “There is no person on dry land […].

The nominal clause formed with the adverb of existence 0‫“ איתי־‬there is/are” was rendered in the og dynamically. Th-Dan renders each individual element of the clause, replacing the indefinite compound pronoun οὐδείς “no one.” Dan 2:43 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ולא להון דבקין דנה‬οὐκ ἔσονται δὲ ὁμο‫ עם דנה הא כדי פרזלא לא‬νοοῦντες οὔδε εὐνοοῦντες ‫ מתערב עם חספא׃‬ἀλλήλοις, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ὁ

σίδηρος δύναται συγκραθῆναι τῷ ὀστράκῳ.

151

Th […] καὶ οὐκ ἔσονται προσκολλώμενοι οὗτος μετὰ τούτου, καθὼς ὁ σίδηρος οὐκ ἀναμείγνυται μετὰ τοῦ ὀστράκου.

5:11, where it was rendered with ἐν γῇ Βαβυλῶνος. Standing alone, ‫ שנער‬was transliterated in Gen 14:1, 9 with Σεννααρ, and in Josh 7:21 it was mistranslated with ποικίλος “many colored.” Lastly, only in Isa 11:11 was ‫ שנער‬rendered with Βαβυλωνία. In rendering the phrase ‫( ומביני מדע‬no. 4º in the chart), the addition of καὶ συνετοὺς before καὶ σοφοὺς in ms 88 and Syh (cf. Rahlfs) reflects most likely a secondary harmonization toward mt, as Munnich’s reconstruction and apparatus suggest. In addition, the size of the gap in pap 975 led its publisher to contend that σοφοὺς would be the best candidate for

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 171 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] but shall not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.

[…] but they will not be in agreement or well disposed to one another, even as iron is not able to be blended with earthenware.

[…] and they will not hold together, this one with that one, just as iron does not mix with earthenware.

The comparable Hebrew phrases ‫( איש אל אחיו‬Gen 42:28), ‫( זה אל זה‬Exod 14:20), and ‫( איש לרעהו‬Exod 18:7; 25:20; 2Chr 20:23) were all rendered with the pronoun ἀλλήλων “one another.” Th-Dan revises the og rendition toward a word-for-word translation, even at the expense of a more natural and perspicuous Greek.152 Dan 6:14[13]153 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ וזמנין תלתה ביומא‬καὶ δεόμενον τοῦ ‫ בעא בעותה׃‬προσώπου τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ

τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας.

[…] three times a day he […] praying and offers his petitions [to entreating the face of his God]. his God thrice a day.

152

153

Th […] καὶ καιροὺς τρεῖς τῆς ἡμέρας αἰτεῖ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ τὰ αἰτήματα αὐτοῦ. […] and he requests his requests of his God three times a day.

the original reading. See Jacques Schwartz, “Le Septante de Daniel (1,2–10),” zpe 81 (1990): 275–277 and Munnich, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, 18–19. Th-Dan employs ἀλλήλων once in Dan 7:3, rendering ‫דא מן דא‬. He has seemingly rendered it thusly in an attempt to distinguish it from ‫דנה עם דנה‬. The og translator produces a quantitative translation in Dan 7:3, e.g., ἓν παρὰ τὸ ἕν. However, from the standpoint of the reviser, employing numerals for demonstrative is tantamount to an imprecise rendition that needs correction. The same translation technique is visible in og/Th-Dan 6:11[10].

172

chapter 3

The adverb τρὶς “three times” represents a good dynamic translation of the adverbial ‫זמנין תלתה‬.154 By rendering quantitatively, the reviser has produced a calque translation.155 Dan 7:15 mt

og

‫ אתכרית רוחי אנה דניאל‬καὶ ἀκηδιάσας ἐγὼ ‫ בגוא נדנה ]…[׃‬Δανιηλ ἐν τούτοις […].

As for me, Daniel, my spirit was disturbed within me […].

And as for me, Daniel, since I was exhausted by these things, […].

Th ἔφριξεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τῇ ἕξει μου, ἐγὼ Δανιηλ, […]. As for me, Daniel, my spirit shuddered in my possession, […].

Both the og and Th-Dan contextually render the idiomatic ‫אתכרית רוחי‬. The problematic lexeme is most likely the hapax 0‫“ כרה־‬to be distressed.”156 The significance of this example stems from the fact that it documents the same tendencies in rendering difficult language. While the og designed a single equivalent for the idiomatic phrase, Th-Dan, though approximating its meaning, at the same time prioritized quantitative representation.

154

155

156

‫ זמנין תלתה‬corresponds to the Hebrew ‫שלש פעמים‬, which is translated with the adv. τρὶς in 1 Kgs 17:21; 2 Kgs 13:18–19, 25. Τρὶς also appears in Sir 13:7; 48:3 and in some (long) additions in og-Dan 6:6[5], 9[8], 12[11], 17[16]. The latter appearance indicates the importance of the literary motif of Daniel’s prayer for og-Dan in this chapter. The calque in this word-order is not attested elsewhere. However, in the wording τρεῖς καιροὺς, it refers to the three appointed festivals over the year which were mandatory for males to attend the temple ceremonies (Exod 23:14, 17; 34:23–24; Deut 16:16; 2Chr 8:13). In addition to τρὶς (see nn. above), the Hebrew cognate ‫ שלש פעמים‬was translated elsewhere with τρεῖς καιροὺς (Exod 23:17; 34:23–24) and with the adverbs τρεῖς (1Sam 20:41), τρισσῶς (1 Kgs 7:41–42), and τρίτος (Num 24:10; Judg 16:15). halot, s.v. “‫כרה‬.” For the analysis of ‫בגוא נדנה‬, see ch. 3 C §13.1.2.1 (Dan 7:15).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 173

Dan 7:19 mt

og

‫ אדין צבית ליצבא על חיותא‬τότε ἤθελον ἐξακριβάσα‫ רביעיתא ]…[ דחילה יתירה‬σθαι περὶ τοῦ τετάρτου ‫ ]…[׃‬θηρίου […] καὶ ὑπερφό-

Then I wanted to ascertain the true meaning of the fourth beast, […], very fearsome […].

Th

βου, […].

καὶ ἐζήτουν ἀκριβῶς περὶ τοῦ θηρίου τοῦ τετάρτου, […] φοβερὸν περισσῶς, […].

Then I wanted to learn accurately concerning the fourth beast, […] and extremely terrible. […].

And I was seeking carefully concerning the fourth beast, […], exceedingly terrifying; […].

The og hapax ὑπέρφοβος “very terrifying” accurately renders the meaning of ‫דחילה יתירה‬. The reviser replaces the peculiar compound with literal equivalents.157 Dan 8:3 mt

og :[…] ‫ ואשא עיני ואראה‬ἀναβλέψας εἶδον […].

I looked and saw […].

when I looked up, I saw […].

Th καὶ ἦρα τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου καὶ εἶδον […]. And I raised my eyes and saw, […].

og-Dan provides a dynamic translation for the Hebraistic idiom, whereas the reviser substitutes it with a word-for-word translation.158

157 158

For the analyses of φόβος and 0‫יתיר־‬, see ch. 3 A § 1.2.2.2 (√φόβ-); B §6.2 (0‫)יתיר־‬, respectively. See ch. 3 B § 10.1.2 (‫)נשׂא‬.

174

chapter 3

Dan 8:5 mt

og

:[…] ‫ ואני הייתי מבין והנה‬καὶ ἐγὼ διενοούμην καὶ ἰδοὺ […]. As I looked on, […].

And I was pondering, and lo, […].

Th καὶ ἐγὼ ἤμην συνίων καὶ ἰδοὺ […]. And I was considering, and lo, […].

The periphrastic construction ‫ היה‬+ ptc. occurs four times in mt-Dan and was rendered in a condensed form in og-Dan only here.159 Dan 8:27 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואקום ואעשה את‬καὶ ἀναστὰς ἐπρα[…] ‫ מלאכת המלך‬γματευόμην πάλιν

[…] Then I arose and attended to the king’s business […].

Th

βασιλικά […]

[…] καὶ ἀνέστην καὶ ἐποίουν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ βασιλέως […]

[…] and having risen, again was conducting the royal affairs. […]

[…] And I arose and kept doing the king’s business. […]

og-Dan is concerned more about the target language than the source text. Consequently, to arrive at an elegant translation, he changed the mood of the first verb (i.e., from finite to ptc.), employed a rare equivalent for an otherwise common verb (πραγματεύομαι “to tend to business”),160 added a new word (πάλιν “again”), and condensed the last two words. The reviser has enacted the changes required to literally reproduce the source text.

159 160

The construction ‫ היה‬+ ptc. appears elsewhere in Dan 8:7; 10:2, 9. Both versions render its constituents with separate equivalents. See ch. 3 A §1.1.1.3 (‫)בין‬. See ch. 3 B § 9.2.2 (πραγματεύομαι).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 175

Dan 10:6, 16 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ולא עצרתי כח׃‬καὶ οὐ κατίσχυσα.

[…] and I could not summon up strength.

[…] and I did not prevail.

Th […] καὶ οὐκ ἐκράτησα ἰσχύος. […] and I did not retain strength.

The idiomatic phrase was rendered sense-for-sense in og-Dan, whereas in ThDan it is word-for-word.161 2.2.1.3 Repetitive Words The reviser supplements minuses in og-Dan which demonstrably are the result of repetitive language in mt. The translator found redundant words and phrases unnecessary in translation. In contrast, the reviser was bothered by the lack of representation of repeated lexemes in the base text and aimed at their restoration in his recension. Dan 1:10 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ירא אני את אדני המלך‬Ἀγωνιῶ τὸν κύριόν :‫ … וחיבתם את ראשי למלך‬μου τὸν βασιλέα … καὶ

[…] “I fear that my lord the king, … and you will put my lifeb in jeopardy with the king.”

161

Th

κινδυνεύσω τῷ ἰδίῳ τραχήλῳ.

[…] Φοβοῦμαι ἐγὼ τὸν κύριόν μου τὸν βασιλέα … καὶ καταδικάσητε τὴν κεφαλήν μου τῷ βασιλεῖ.

[…] “I am distressed because of my lord the king … I will risk my own neck!”

[…] “I am afraid of my lord the king … and you would sentence my head with the king.”

Lit. “and I retained no strength.” Montgomery, Daniel, 407. The idiom, which appears to be a late Hebrew feature (ibid., 410), is further attested twice in Dan 10:16 and 11:6. In the latter context, the og translator uses both the same technique and equivalent, and the reviser applies the same correction as here. In the former context, the og renders periphrastically

176

chapter 3

The reviser supplements the lack of any equivalent for ‫ למלך‬in og-Dan 1:10. The Hebrew phrase was presumably left untranslated in og-Dan because ‫המלך‬ “the king” already occurs in the immediate context. Dan 2:15 mt

og

‫ ענה ואמר לאריוך שליטא די‬καὶ ἐπυνθάνετο αὐτοῦ ‫ מלכא ]…[׃‬λέγων […].

He spoke up and said to Arioch, the royal officer […].

Th Ἄρχων τοῦ βασιλέως, […].

And he inquired of him, “Magistrate of the king, saying, […]. […].

The translator perceived that the phrase ‫ לאריוך שליטא די מלכא‬repeats, in a different form, the language ‫ לאריוך רב טבחיא די מלכא‬from v. 14; in order to avoid redundancy, he dispensed with it.162 Dan 2:20 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ להוא שמה די אלהא‬Εσται τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ‫ מברך מן עלמא ועד עלמא‬κυρίου τοῦ μεγάλου εὐλο‫ ]…[׃‬γημένον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

[…] “Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever […].

162

Th

[…].

[…] Εἴη τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ εὐλογημένον ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος […].

[…] “Let the name of the great Lord be blessed forever […].

[…] “May the name of God be blessed from age to age […].

and adds new lexemes, which were eliminated by Th-Dan: καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἐν ἐμοὶ ἰσχύς “there was not even strength in me” (og); καὶ οὐκ ἔσχον ἰσχύν “and I had no strength” (Th). For the difference between mt and Th-Dan’s Vorlage as far as the beginning of v. 15 is concerned, see further ch. 4 § 1.1.1. Segal discusses v. 15 in the framework of the secondary insertion of the long passage of vv. 15–23 into Daniel 2. Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 45–47, 51, 54. If that passage is indeed secondary, the difference in language between vv. 14

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 177

The repetitive phrase ‫ מן עלמא ועד עלמא‬was shortened in og without affecting its meaning. Dan 7:1 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ דניאל חלם חזה וחזוי‬Δανιηλ ὅραμα εἶδε ‫ ראשה על משכבה ]…[׃‬παρὰ κεφαλὴς ἐπὶ τῆς

κοίτης αὐτοῦ […].

[…] Daniel saw a dream and a vision of his mind in bed […].

Th […] Δανιηλ ἐνύπνιον εἶδεν, καὶ αἱ ὁράσεις τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς κοίτης αὐτοῦ […].

[…] Daniel saw a vision from his head upon his bed. […].

[…] Daniel saw a dream, and the visions of his head were upon his bed. […].

og

Th

Dan 7:17163 mt

‫ אלין חיותא רברבתא די אנין‬Ταῦτα τὰ θηρία τὰ ‫ ארבע ארבעה מלכין ]…[׃‬μεγάλα εἰσὶ τέσσαρες

‘These great beasts, four in number [mean] four kingdoms […].

163

βασιλεῖαι […].

Ταῦτα τὰ θηρία τὰ μεγάλα τὰ τέσσαρα, τέσσαρες βασιλεῖαι […].

“These great beasts are four kingdoms, […].

“These four beasts: four kingdoms […].

and 15—which was employed to describe Arioch—may further indicate the transition between the combined sources. Alternatively, the lack of quantitative representation in og-Dan 7:17 can be explained as haplography in either the Semitic underlying text, or in the Greek mss.

178

chapter 3

Dan 8:7 mt

og

‫ וראיתיו מגיע אצל האיל‬καὶ εἶδον αὐτὸν προσά‫ ויתמרמר אליו ויך את האיל‬γοντα πρὸς τὸν κριόν, καὶ ‫ ]…[׃‬ἐθυμώθη ἐπ̓ αὐτὸν καὶ

I saw him reach the ram and rage at him; he struck the ram […].

Th

ἐπάταξε […].

καὶ εἶδον αὐτὸν φθάνοντα ἕως τοῦ κριοῦ καὶ ἐξηγριάνθη πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἔπαισεν τὸν κριὸν […].

And I saw it approaching toward the ram. And it was inflamed against it, and it struck […].

And I saw it reaching unto the ram. And it was enraged against it and struck the ram […].

og ignores the complement ‫ את האיל‬since it was referred to twice in the context, i.e., ‫אצל האיל‬, ‫אליו‬. Dan 9:14 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ כי צדיק יהוה אלהינו‬ὅτι δίκαιος κύριος ὁ ‫ על כל מעשיו אשר עשה‬θεὸς ἐπὶ πᾶν ὅ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ‫]…[ ]…[׃‬.

[…] for the lord our God is in the right in all that He has done […].

[…] for the Lord God is right in everything that he does […].

Th […] ὅτι δίκαιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἐποίησεν, […]. […] for the Lord God is right in all his doings, which he has done […].

‫ מעשיו‬is disregarded as redundant, especially because of the proximity of ‫עשה‬, a verbal form based on the same root.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 179

Dan 11:7 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ויבא אל החיל ויבא‬καὶ ἥξει ἐπὶ τὴν ‫ במעוז מלך הצפון ]…[׃‬ἀργίαν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἰσχύι

αὐτοῦ βασιλεὺς βορρᾶ […]. […] [he] will come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north […].

[…] And the king of the north will come upon his idleness with his strength […].

Th […] καὶ ἥξει πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὰ ὑποστηρίγματα τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ βορρᾶ […]. […] And he will come against the army and enter the supports of the king of the north […].

og avoids collocating equivalents for ‫ויבא‬, which occurs twice within a short space. Dan 11:9 mt

og ‫ ובא במלכות מלך הנגב‬καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς βασι‫ ]…[׃‬λείαν Αἰγύπτου ἡμέρας

who will [later] invade the realm of the king of the south […].

Th

[…].

καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ νότου […].

And he will enter into the kingdom of Egypt for days […].

And he will enter into the kingdom of the king of the south […].

2.2.1.4 Exegetical Omissions The reviser supplemented missing elements even though they pertain to exegesis, a practice to which he had seldom made recourse in order to cope with difficulties.164 Considering the incentives which have led to omitting elements from the source text, we distinguish between linguistic and theological exegesis.

164

Ch. 3 C §§ 12.1.2; 13.1.2.

180

chapter 3

2.2.1.4.1

Linguistic Omissions

The next three examples allow for the conclusion that linguistic aspects influenced the translator’s decision to not represent specific words from mt. These minuses were supplemented in Th-Dan’s revision. Dan 2:18 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ די לא יהבדון דניאל‬ὅπως μὴ ἐκδοθῶσι ‫ וחברוהי עם שאר חכימי‬Δανιηλ καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ :‫ בבל‬εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἅμα τοῖς

σοφισταῖς Βαβυλῶνος. […] so that Daniel and his colleagues would not be put to death together with the other wise men of Babylon.

[…] so that Daniel and those who were with him might not be delivered to destruction together with the savants of Babylon.

Th […] ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἀπόλωνται Δανιηλ καὶ οἱ φίλοι αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἐπιλοίπων σοφῶν Βαβυλῶνος. […] so that Daniel and his friends might not perish with the rest of the sages of Babylon.

Considering the contextual guesses for 0‫ שאר־‬in og-Dan 7:7, 12, 19 (i.e., κύκλος “cycle,” “course,” “circle” and κυκλόθεν “from all around”),165 it stands to reason that the translator did not understand the source word. In the case in question, the translator’s omission of the term apparently constitutes a pragmatic decision to avoid rendering a difficult word. Dan 7:28[27] mt

og

Th

‫ ]…[ עד כה סופא די מלתא ]…[׃‬ἕως καταστροφῆς τοῦ […] ἕως ὧδε τὸ πέρας τοῦ

λόγου. Here the account ends. […].

165

λόγου.

[…] until the conclusion […] Here the account of the word. ends.

Κύκλος is the lxx’s stereotyped equivalent for √‫סבב‬: Gen 23:17; 35:5; 41:48; Exod 7:24; 16:13; 19:12; etc.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 181

The og reflects a different understanding of mt, treating the clause as part of the angel’s extensive interpretation presented in vv. 23–27 and not as a technical, stand-alone clause marking the end of the vision, as it should be.166 In the context of the new exegetical framework for this clause, ‫ כה‬was disregarded as unfitting. Dan 9:24 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ולחתם חזון ונביא‬καὶ συντελεσθῆναι τὸ ‫ ולמשח קדש קדשים׃‬ὅραμα καὶ εὐφρᾶναι ἅγιον

ἁγίων.

Th […] καὶ τοῦ σφραγίσαι ὅρασιν καὶ προφήτην καὶ τοῦ χρῖσαι ἅγιον ἁγίων.

[…] and prophetic […] and for the vision to […] and to seal vision vision ratified, and the be consummated and to and prophet and to Holy of Holies anointed. gladden a holy of holies. anoint a holy of holies.

Th-Dan supplements the og minus for ‫ נביא‬with the expected προφήτης. The translator’s omission was ostensibly influenced by the context. Though it is difficult to determine whether the translator’s understanding of the infinitive construct ‫תּם‬ ֹ ‫“ ַלְח‬to seal” as ‫“ ְלָהֵתם‬to bring to an end”167 should be related to his “actual” or “virtual” Vorlage, his rendition συντελεσθῆναι “to be consummated” made ‫ נביא‬unsuitable in the context, and he therefore omitted it.168 2.2.1.4.2

Theological Omissions

The reviser further applies his principle to supply readings which were omitted in og-Dan because of theological incentives. The next examples highlight two subtle og omissions, by means of which the translator expressed aspects of his conception about God.

166

167 168

Comparable examples to our phrase are ‫[“ עד הנה דברי ירמיהו‬T]hus far the words of Jeremiah” (Jer 51:64) and ‫“ סוף דבר‬the sum of the matter” (Eccl 12:13). Montgomery, Daniel, 316–317. halot, s.v. “‫תמם‬.” The Hexaplaric mss evidence the absence of any equivalent for ‫ נביא‬in og-Dan 9:24. The omission is further corroborated by the presence of the Origen’s asterisks before both και προφητην and και προφητας in mss 88-Syh.

182

chapter 3

Dan 1:2 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ויביאם ארץ שנער בית‬καὶ ἀπήνεγκεν αὐτὰ ‫ אלהיו ]…[׃‬εἰς τὴν Βαβυλωνίαν […]

[…] and he brought them to the land of Shinar to the house of his god […]

[…] And taking them to Babylonia […]

Th […] καὶ ἤνεγκεν αὐτὰ εἰς γῆν Σεννααρ οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ· […] […] And he brought them to the land of Sennaar, to the house of his god […]

We suggest that in the omission of ‫“ בית אלהיו‬to the house of his God”169 we see the og’s effort to deny the existence of any other gods beside the God of Israel.170 Dan 11:37 mt

og

‫ ועל אלהי אבתיו לא יבין ועל‬καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν ‫ חמדת נשים ועל כל אלוה‬πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ ‫ לא יבין כי על כל יתגדל׃‬προνοηθῇ καὶ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ

γυναικὸς οὐ μὴ προνοηθῇ, ἐν παντὶ ὑψωθήσεται, [καὶ ὑποταγήσεται αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἰσχυρά·]

169 170

Th καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας θεοὺς τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ συνήσει καὶ ἐπὶ ἐπιθυμίαν γυναικῶν καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν θεὸν οὐ συνήσει, ὅτι ἐπὶ πάντας μεγαλυνθήσεται·

The same tendency is visible in the way the reviser corrects the og in rendering ‫בית אוצר‬ ‫ אלהיו‬in the same verse (see ch. 3 A § 3.2.3 [Dan 1:2]). Amara, “og Version of Daniel,” 178. According to Montgomery (Daniel, 116–117), the og minus would indicate the superior reading of og’s Vorlage against mt. Since the clause is followed by a note on the destiny of the temple vessels, i.e., “he deposited the vessels in the treasury of his god,” it may appear that ‫ ויביאם‬referred not to the “vessels” but the captive people. However, the pl. pron. suff. ‫ם‬- can have as antecedent either the vessels or the vessels and Jehoiakim, and the clause may allude to a distinct presentation in the temple of the vessels before being deposited in the “treasury of his God.” J. Dyneley Prince, A Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899), 57–58; Similarly, Klaus Koch, Daniel, bkat 22/1 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 2; and Maldonat, op. cit. Montgomery, Daniel, 116.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 183 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

He will not have regard for the god of his ancestors or for the one dear to women; he will not have regard for any god, but will magnify himself above all.

And he will in no way have regard for the gods of his ancestors, and he will give no thought to the desire of a woman. He will be exalted in everything, [and strong nations will be subject to him].

And he will not take notice of all the gods of his ancestors and the desire of women, and he will not take notice of any god, because he will be magnified above all.

The impious language against God may account for the translator’s omission of the phrase ‫ ועל כל אלוה‬which was supplemented literally in Th-Dan’s recension. The og has allowed for the king of the north to “speak strange things against the God of gods” (v. 36). However, it negated the possibility that he might in any way “be exalted” over God.171 2.2.1.5 Different Vorlage The reviser supplements minuses in the base text which stem from its differing Vorlage. It emerges that the only criterion he applied to assess the quality of the shorter readings was the quantitative correspondence of the base text with his mt-like Vorlage. Dan 2:5 mt

og

‫ ענה מלכא ואמר לכשדיא‬ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς ‫ מלתא מני אזדא ]…[׃‬εἶπε τοῖς Χαλδαίοις […].

171

Th ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς Χαλδαίοις Ὁ λόγος ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη· […].

An alternative possibility is to assume haplography between ‫על‬/‫לא‬, explaining thus the minus as a mechanical error in the og’s Vorlage (e.g., Num 4:19). In either case Th-Dan fills in the minus.

184

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

The king said in reply to Then the king said in the Chaldeans, “I hereby reply to the Chaldeans, […]. decree: […].

Th The king answered the Chaldeans, “The matter has escaped me; […].

Considering that the phrase ‫ מלתא מני אזדא‬was rendered in v. 8, it stands to reason that its omission in v. 5 has to do with a mechanical error, namely, homoioteleuton of the words ‫ לכשדיא‬and ‫ אזדא‬in the og’s Vorlage.172 Dan 7:3 mt

og

‫ וארבע חיון רברבן סלקן מן‬καὶ τέσσαρα θηρία ἀνέ‫ ימא שנין דא מן דא׃‬βαινον ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης

διαφέροντα ἓν παρὰ τὸ ἕν.

Four mighty beasts different from each other emerged from the sea.

and four beasts were coming up out of the sea, each one differing from the other.

Th καὶ τέσσαρα θηρία μεγάλα ἀνέβαινον ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης διαφέροντα ἀλλήλων. and four great beasts were coming up out of the sea, differing from one another.

The og minus presumably reflects a shorter text, while mt underwent harmonization with the similar phrase in v. 17, i.e., ‫אלין חיותא רברבתא די אנין ארבע‬.173

172 173

See ch. 3 B § 8.1 (0‫)אזדא־‬. The case might be viewed as more complex in light of the absence of καὶ τέσσαρα θηρία ἀνέβαινον in pap 967. An alternative explanation to the one adduced above is to posit that the og mss were, to a certain extent, corrupted because of parablepsis between the words in red of the following putative original reading: (v. 2) … εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν μεγάλην. (v. 3) καὶ τέσσαρα θηρία μεγάλα ἀνέβαινον. However, this solution requires the reconstruction of the end of v. 2 (θάλασσαν τὴν μεγάλην) with mss 88-Syh and not with pap 967 (μεγάλην θάλασσαν, cf. Munnich). It is equally difficult to account for the absence of ἀνέβαινον in pap 967 unless it is assumed that μεγάλα was transposed after it.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 185

Dan 7:9 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ כרסיה שביבין די נור‬ὁ θρόνος ὡσεὶ φλὸξ ‫ גלגלוהי נור דלק׃‬πυρός βαδίζουσα,

His throne was tongues of flame; Its wheels were blazing fire. […]

[…] The throne was like a flame of fire shooting out,

Th […] ὁ θρόνος αὐτοῦ φλὸξ πυρός, οἱ τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέγον· […] his throne was a flame of fire; its wheels were burning fire.

The reviser fills in the og’s minus which, theoretically, could have occurred because of haplography in either the og’s Vorlage or its Greek mss, i.e., ‫די נור‬ ‫ ;גלגלוהי נור‬φλὸξ πυρός τροχοι αυτου πυρ βαδίζουσα. However, the extent of the minus varies between pap 967 (which is presupposed in the text reproduced above) and the version upon which Origen based his recension. The latter presupposes a longer minus, evinced by the combined evidence of the asterisked reading in 88-Syh: (v. 9) … τροχοι αυτου πυρ καιομενον· (v. 10) ποταμος πυρος ελκων instead of βαδίζουσα.174 We suggest that what seemingly started as a small-scale corruption in the og Vorlage, was repeated on a larger scale in the Greek mss, i.e., haplography between (v. 9) … πυρός βαδίζουσα (v. 10) καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ποταμὸς πυρός. Dan 8:27 mt

og

‫ ואני דניאל נהייתי ונחליתי‬ἐγὼ Δανιηλ ἀσθενήσας ‫ ימים ]…[׃‬ἡμέρας πολλὰς […].

[…].

174

Th καὶ ἐγὼ Δανιηλ ἐκοιμήθην καὶ ἐμαλακίσθην ἡμέρας […]. […].

While the asterisked reading differs slightly from Th-Dan, the latter text is attested by Justin Martyr: (v. 9) … οι τροχοι αυτου πυρ φλεγνον (v. 10) ποταμος πυρος ειλκεν.

186

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

So I, Daniel, was stricken, and languished many days. […].

I, Daniel, having been weak many days […].

And I, Daniel, slept and lay sick. […].

The phrase ‫ נהייתי ונחליתי‬is puzzling, especially when compared with the Greek versions. The absence in the og af any equivalent for ‫ נהייתי‬has led some scholars to conveniently posit dittography of ‫ נחליתי‬in mt,175 whereas others settle the problem by etymologizing ‫ נהייתי‬from √‫“ הוה‬to fall,” “to befall,” accounting for Th’s equivalent ἐκοιμήθην.176 However, each alternative explains only part of the problem, accounting either for the og’s reading or Th-Dan’s. We suggest that a more complex process is at work, one which can potentially explain both versions. If it is accepted that ‫ נהייתי ונחליתי‬reflects a corruption of the original periphrastic construction ‫“ והיתי נחלה‬I was sick,” then it could explain the use of ἀσθενήσας as a condensed translation in the og. Furthermore, the putative original reading underwent corruption in the transmission process, each word assimilating to each other, due to their graphic similarity—‫ והיתי‬gaining the niphal prefix -‫ נ‬while ‫ נחלה‬took on the 1st common sing. ending ‫תי‬-. Each assimilation is textually plausible: a scribe could have easily assumed or confused either ‫ה‬/‫ ת‬or (a corrupted) dittography of ‫ו‬/‫נ‬. Lastly, in a continuous text like ‫נהי)י(תי)ו(נחלית)י(ימים‬, the bracketed letters may have emerged due to graphic confusion or added.177 175

176

177

The dittography was assumed by Prince, Daniel, 245; D. Karl Marti, Das Buch Daniel, Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament 18 (Tübingen: Mohr & Siebeck, 1901), 63; Arnold Bogumil Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches, vol. 7 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914), 126–155 (for Daniel); M. Löhr, “Textkritische Vorarbeiten zu einer Erklärung des Buches Daniel,” zaw 15 (1895): 75–103, 193–226; ibid., “Textkritische Vorarbeiten zu einer Erklärung des Buches Daniel,” zaw 16 (1896): 17–39; Charles, Daniel, 1929, 221. This explanation seemingly started with the Jewish medieval scholars Rashi and Ḳimḥi who assumed ‫“ הוה‬ruin” cf. Job 6:2 (Montgomery, Daniel, 355). The proposal was further accepted by Bertholdt who pointed to the Arabaic hawa(y) “to lay down”; and Hävernick who pointed to both Syriac and to Dan 2:1 for the use of ‫ היה‬with the basic meaning cadere factus sum (in the special sense “sich legen”/“to lay down”). Bertholdt, Daniel, 539; Hävernick, Daniel, 316. Montgomery (Daniel, 355–356) arrived at a similar conclusion independently. Another option would be to explain that the og’s ἀσθενήσας was offered for the mt reading ‫נהייתי ונחליתי‬, either as a reduction of two synonyms, or understanding ‫ נהייתי‬as “I was”, and therefore subsumed in the other verb.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 187

2.2.1.6 Inner-Greek Corruptions The reviser seemingly reworked a form of og-Dan’s text affected by inner-Greek corruptions. He supplemented minuses that resulted from mechanical copying errors in order to conform word-for-word the base text with mt. Dan 2:39 mt

og ‫ ובתרך תקום מלכו אחרי‬καὶ μετὰ σὲ στήσεται ‫ ארעא מנך ]…[׃‬βασιλεία ἐλάττων σου,

[…]. But another kingdom will arise after you, […].

And after you will rise a kingdom […].

Th καὶ ὀπίσω σου ἀναστήσεται βασιλεία ἑτέρα ἥττων σου […]. And behind you will arise another kingdom […].

The reviser supplements the lack of an equivalent for ‫ אחרי‬that was demonstrably created during the transmission of og-Dan mss. Pap 967 attests αλλη after βασιλεία indicating a haplography in the og mss transmission, i.e., homoioarcton of the graphically and phonetically similar letters in the phrase αλλη ἐλάττων (αλληελαττων).178 Dan 8:3 mt

og ‫ ואשא עיני ואראה והנה‬ἀναβλέψας εἶδον […]. ‫]…[׃‬

I looked and saw […].

178

when I looked up, I saw […].

Th καὶ ἦρα τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ […]. And I raised my eyes and saw, and lo, […].

The alleged og original reading has to include αλλη in v. 39. This suggestion goes against Munnich’s who apparently excluded it because it would resemble mt. However, bearing in mind that 0‫“ אחרן־‬other” was consistently rendered in the og with ἄλλος “other,” “another” (while Th-Dan uses ἕτερος, see ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 [0‫ )]אחרן־‬and corroborating with the fact that a plausible, inner-Greek mechanical omission in the og mss has occurred, we can

188

chapter 3

Taking into account that ἀναβλέπω “to look up at”179 implies the ability of sight, it may be suggested that it was freely employed to render the Hebrew ‫ואשא עיני‬.180 However, the absence of any equivalent in the og for ‫ והנה‬is most likely due to the inner-Greek parablepsis of the graphically similar words ειδον καὶ ιδου.181 Dan 9:23 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ובין בדבר והבן‬καὶ διανοήθητι τὸ ‫ במראה׃‬πρόσταγμα.

[…] so mark the word and understand the vision.

[…] And think about the ordinance:

Th […] καὶ ἐννοήθητι ἐν τῷ ῥήματι καὶ σύνες ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ. […] And consider by means of the word and understand by means of the vision:

Ὃραμα “vision” translates frequently ‫ מראה‬in og-Dan, e.g., 8:26–27; 10:1. It is probable that the minus has occurred due to homoioarcton in the og mss, corrupting the putative original καὶ διανοήθητι τὸ πρόσταγμα … το οραμα.182

179 180

181

182

safely argue that αλλη should be reconstructed in the text. For a similar explanation, see Montgomery, Daniel, 175. lsj, s.v. “ἀναβλέπω.” The transitive use of ἀναβλέπω covers the meaning “to recover one’s sight,” “to open one’s eyes.” The same technique of condensation regarding the same collocation is apparently at work in Deut 4:19. In this particular context, the phrase ‫ ופן תשא עיניך השמימה‬was translated in lxx with καὶ μὴ ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν. For the revision of other condensed cases in Th-Dan, see ch. 3 A § 2.2.1.2. Contra Pace Jeansonne (The og Translation of Daniel, 50) who posits either “parablepsis” in mt between ‫ ואראה והנה‬or alleges that the phrase “may be a pair of synonymous variants, only one of which properly occurs in any given text.” However, in og-Dan 10:5 the entire clause was rendered literally. Furthermore, it seems that the graphic similarity within the phrase ειδον καὶ ιδου has occasioned the repeated mechanical omission of one of the terms as attested in Gen 24:63; 26:8; Josh 5:13. The Hebrew phrase is similar to one in Dan 10:1, which confirms our tentative reconstruction: ‫—ובין את הדבר ובינה לו במראה‬διανοηθήσεται τὸ πρόσταγμα, καὶ διενοήθην αὐτὸ ἐν ὁράματι. Our reconstruction assumes that οραμα takes the accusative case in context

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 189

Dan 10:2 mt

og

‫ בימים ההם אני דניאל הייתי‬ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ‫ מתאבל שלשה שבעים‬ἐγὼ Δανιηλ ἤμην πενθῶν· ‫ימים׃‬

At that time, I, Daniel, kept three full weeks of mourning.

In those days I, Daniel, was in mourning.

Th ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐγὼ Δανιηλ ἤμην πενθῶν τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας ἡμερῶν· In those days I, Daniel, was in mourning for three weeks of days.

In contrast to the short reading πενθῶν in pap 967, the other og witnesses (i.e., ms 88, Syh, and Tert.) add the phrase τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας after it, at the end of v. 2. The shorter reading probably reflects homoioarcton, departing from the putative original, πενθῶν τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας ημερων.183 Dan 11:15 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ וזרעות הנגב לא יעמדו‬καὶ οἱ βραχίονες ‫ ]…[׃‬βασιλέως Αἰγύπτου ⟨οὐ⟩

στήσονται […]. […] and the forces of the south will not hold out […].

183

Th […] καὶ οἱ βραχίονες τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ νότου οὐ στήσονται […].

[…] And the arms of the […] And the arms of the king of Egypt will ⟨not⟩ king of the south will stand […]. not stand […].

(cf. 2:7), paralleling τὸ πρόσταγμα. An alternative explanation would be that the phrase was disregarded by the og translator as unnecessarily repetitive. The addition of τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας in mss 88-Syh (but without ἡμερῶν as in Th-Dan) may indicate a secondary scribal correction in order to fill in the lacking reading. It is likely that ἡμερῶν was not added in mss 88 and Syh since its meaning was implied in the addition. Alternatively, ἡμερῶν was not added because the underlying mt form toward which ms 88 and Syh were corrected had undergone secondary omission, i.e., ‫ ימים‬was omitted because of homoioarcton in the phrase ‫שלשה שבעים ימים‬.

190

chapter 3

None of the og mss preserves the negative particle οὐ “not,” which was likely omitted erroneously by haplography, i.e., Αἰγύπτου ου.184 2.2.1.7 Other Types of Supplementation We have affirmed recensional supplementation in the previous categories by looking at specific lexemes within the framework of single verses. The subsequent examples further evidence the same recensional tendency but across chapters. In each case the heading states the specific grammatical or syntactical feature that is investigated in the two Greek versions. A comparison of the information collated in the og and Th-Dan columns highlights the reviser’s agenda to supply elements absent in the base text. 0‫ הוה־‬+ Ptc. og

Th

[Style 1] εἰμί to be, exist + ptc. (Dan 2:42–43; 6:4[3], 27[26]) [Style 2] finite verb (Dan 6:5[4], 11[10]; 7:19) og=0: Dan 5:195X; 6:3[2], 15[14]

[Style 1] εἰμί to be, exist + ptc. (Dan 2:42–43; 5:191º; 6:11[10], 15[14], 27[26]; 7:19) [Style 2] finite verb (Dan 5:194X; 6:3[2]; 6:5[4]) Th=0: Dan 6:4[3]

The reviser has maximized the quantitative rendering of the periphrastic construction by separate lexemes. Consequently, he has revised og-Dan 6:11[10], 6:15[14] and 7:19, toward a word-for-word representation of the mt.185 ‫( שׁמע‬to hear)

og

Th

[1] χράω to use (Dan 1:14) [2] ἀκούω to hear, to heed, to obey

[1] εἰσακούω to hear, hearken (Dan 1:14; 9:6, 10, 14, 17, 19)

184 185

Munnich’s edition reconstructed the negation, probably applying the same logic. Furthermore, in two other instances when og=0, Th-Dan has rendered quantitatively: 5:191º; 6:15[14]. In Dan 5:194X, constrained by Greek syntax, Th-Dan had recourse to Style 2 (here he has employed four times the modal βούλομαι “to will,” “to want”). The same syntactic rationales are at work in Dan 6:3[2]. The reviser might have been influenced by the og translator’s technique in Dan 6:5[4].

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 191 (cont.)

og

Th

(Dan 8:13, 16; 9:6, 10, 11, 14; 10:91º; 12:7– 8) [3] ἐπακούω to hear, heed (Dan 9:17, 18) [4] εἰσακούω to hear, hearken (Dan 10:12) og=0: 9:19; 10:92º

[2] ἀκούω to hear, to heed, to obey (Dan 8:13, 16; 9:11, 18; 10:92X, 12; 12:7–8)

The statistics show that Th-Dan vacillated between ἀκούω and εἰσακούω in translating ‫שׁמע‬. However, the variation demonstrates the reviser’s attempt to render, as much as possible, the constituents of Hebrew words. In the case in question, the compound εἰσακούω was preferred instead of ἀκούω to render the phrasal verb ‫ שׁמע‬+ prepositions (i.e., ‫[ ל‬Dan 1:14], ‫[ אל‬Dan 9:6, 17], ‫[ ב‬Dan 9:10, 14]).186 ‫ ב‬+ Inf. Const. + Pron. Suff.

og

Th

[Style 1] ἐν + def. art. + inf. + pron. suff. (Dan 8:15, 17; 10:11, 19) [Style 2] ptc. + pron. suff. (Dan 8:18) [Style 3] ἐν + def. art. + pron. suff. + inf./ […] inf. (Dan 10:15, 19Mu)

[Style 1] ἐν + def. art. + inf. + pron. suff. (Dan 8:15, 17–18; 10:11, 15, 19) Th=0: Dan 8:2

186

The only exceptions to this rule of using the first element of a compound verb to represent a Hebrew preposition are Dan 9:11, wherein ‫ ב‬+‫ שׁמע‬was rendered with ἀκούω, and Dan 9:19, wherein εἰσακούω represents ‫ שׁמע‬without a preposition. However, regarding the former case, corroborated evidence from the reviser’s literal style, revising technique of ‫שׁמע‬ and the mss witnesses (A′ 26 233 239) would suggest εἰσακούω as the original reading. The use of εἰσακούω for the imperative ‫ שׁמע‬could be explained as a stylistic variation (such as the use of εἰσακούω in Pss 4:2; 17[16]:6; 27[26]:7; 28[27]:2; 54[53]:4; 64[63]:2; 143[142]:1 where, as a rule, it renders the imperative forms of ‫ שׁמע‬when the call to hear is exclusively directed to God).

192

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[Style 4] conjunction + subjunctive (Dan 11:34) [Style 5] def. art. + subst. + pron. suf (Dan 8:2)

og-Dan deviates from the literal Style 1 omitting the preposition ‫ ב‬in Styles 2 and 5; the definite article in Styles 2 and 4; and the pronominal suffix in Style 4. Contrastingly, Th-Dan revises these instances toward Style 1. ‫ כ‬+ Inf. Const. + Pron. Suff.

og

Th

[Style 1] prep. + def. art. + inf. + pron. suff. (Dan 11:4) [Style 2] conjunction + aorist act. ind. (Dan 8:8) og=0: Dan 4:32[35]; 6:21[20]; 10:9

[Style 1] prep. + def. art. + inf. + pron. suff. (Dan 6:21[20]; 8:8; 10:9) [Style 2] prep. + def. art. + subst. + pron. suff. (Dan 4:32[35]) [Style 3] conjunction + particle + aorist act. subj. (Dan 11:4)

Th-Dan consistently represents mt quantitatively in all instances where og=0.187 2.2.2 Long Minuses Among other things, the reviser supplemented og-Dan with long segments of text to conform quantitatively with his mt-like Vorlage. As with the long pluses, some of the long minuses can be explained as the result of translation technique and others as mechanical omissions. This observation holds especially true for Daniel 1–3 and 7–12. However, in the assessment of the character of 187

Th-Dan aims to represent the Semitic text according to the standard Style 1 (see also the previous example of ‫ ב‬+ inf. const. + pron. suff.). Considering the stative nature of the verb in Dan 4:32[35], Th-Dan changes the grammatical category from verb to noun but still adheres to the Style 1 pattern.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 193

other cases, particularly in Daniel 4–6, a theory of double literary editions is posited. Consequently, only some of the minuses in Daniel 4–6 can be viewed as superior or secondary as compared with the purported original or common source for each of the stories involved.188 2.2.2.1 Translational Omissions The following omissions were deliberately produced by the og translator. In some cases, he seemingly aimed to avoid the repetition of redundant information; other cases appear to reflect translator exegesis. In contrast, the reviser slavishly follows the source text. Dan 3:3 mt

og

‫ באדין מתכנשין‬καὶ ἔστησαν οἱ προγε‫ אחשדרפניא סגניא ופחותא‬γραμμένοι κατέναντι τῆς ‫ אדרגזריא גדבריא דתבריא‬εἰκόνος. ‫תפתיא וכל שלטני מדינתא‬ ‫לחנכת צלמא די הקים‬ ‫נבוכדנצר מלכא וקאמין‬ ‫לקבל צלמא די הקים‬ ‫נבוכדנצר׃‬

So the satraps, prefects, governors, counselors, treasurers, judges, officers, and all the provincial officials assembled for the dedication of the statue that King Nebuchadnezzar

188

Th καὶ συνήχθησαν οἱ τοπάρχαι, ὕπατοι, στρατηγοί, ἡγούμενοι, τύραννοι μεγάλοι, οἱ ἐπ᾽ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν χωρῶν εἰς τὸν ἐγκαινισμὸν τῆς εἰκόνος, ἧς ἔστησεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ ὁ βασιλεύς, καὶ εἱστήκεισαν ἐνώπιον τῆς εἰκόνος, ἧς ἔστησεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ.

and the aforementioned And the local rulers, stood in front of the magistrates, generimage. als, governors, great despots, the authorities and all the rulers of the regions assembled for the dedication of the image, which King

For a more detailed discussion of the problems posed by the presence of long pluses and minuses in Daniel 4–6, see ch. 3 A §§ 2.1.2, 2.2.2.

194

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th Nabouchodonosor had set up, and they took their stand before the image.

had set up, and stood before the statue that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

The clue for correctly assessing the long minus is provided in the og by οἱ προγεγραμμένοι “the aforementioned.” Working from a text similar to mt, the translator avoided listing again the participants at the statue’s dedication from v. 2, referring briefly to them as “the aforementioned.” Th-Dan is not bothered at all rendering the repetitive list of officials again in v. 3.189 Dan 3:26[93] mt

og

Th

‫באדין קרב נבוכדנצר לתרע‬ ‫אתון נורא יקדתא ענה‬ ‫ואמר שדרך מישך ועבד‬ ‫נגו עבדוהי די אלהא עליא‬ ‫פקו ואתו באדין נפקין שדרך‬ ‫מישך ועבד נגו מן גוא נורא׃‬

καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τὴν θύραν τῆς καμίνου ἔτι καιομένης ἐκάλεσεν αὐτοὺς ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματος Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω οἱ παῖδες τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, ἐξέλθετε ἐκ τοῦ πυρός. οὕτως οὖν ἐξῆλθον οἱ ἄνδρες ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρός.

τότε προσῆλθεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ πρὸς τὴν θύραν τῆς καμίνου τοῦ πυρὸς τῆς καιομένης καὶ εἶπεν Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, ἐξέλθετε καὶ δεῦτε. καὶ ἐξῆλθον Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρός.

Nebuchadnezzar then approached the hatch of the burning fiery furnace and called,

And approaching the door of the still blazing furnace, the king called them by name,

Then Nabouchodonosor approached the door of the furnace blazing with fire and said,

189

We have already indicated elsewhere the tendency of the og to use a single lexeme for two or more Semitic words (see ch. 3 A § 2.2.1.2). The og translator’s tendency toward condensation was previously discussed by Amara, “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 112–131.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 195 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

“Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-nego, servants of the Most High God, come out!” So Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out of the fire.

“Sedrach, Misach, Abdenago, servants of the Most High God, come out of the fire!” So then, the men came out from the middle of the fire.

“Sedrach, Misach, Abdenago, slaves of the Most High God, come out, and come here!” And Sedrach, Misach, Abdenago came out from the middle of the fire.

The names of the heroes in Daniel 3 are replaced with “the men.” The translator refrains from repeating elements from the near context, presumably because of stylistic considerations. Dan 11:11 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ והעמיד המון רב ונתן‬καὶ παραδοθήσεται ἡ ‫ ההמון בידו׃‬συναγωγὴ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας

αὐτοῦ· […] He will muster a great multitude, but the multitude will be delivered into his [foe’s] power.

[…] and the gathering will be given into his hands.

Th […] καὶ στήσει ὄχλον πολύν, καὶ παραδοθήσεται ὁ ὄχλος ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ· […] And he will establish a great crowd, and the crowd will be given into his hand.

The word ‫ המון‬occurs three times in the immediate context: twice in v. 11b and once at the beginning of v. 12.190 The og perceived it as redundant to repeat the stages implied by mt, i.e., that the king of the north first assembled “a great

190

This collocation of the term ‫ המון‬in a short space led Montgomery (Daniel, 437) to write of a “tautologous doublet” or to regard one of the sentences wherein ‫ המון‬is found as reflecting “a primitive doublet.”

196

chapter 3

multitude,” and then that the multitude was delivered into the hands of the king of the south.191 Dan 11:22 mt

og

‫ וזרעות השטף ישטפו מלפניו‬καὶ τοὺς βραχίονας τοὺς ‫ וישברו וגם נגיד ברית׃‬συντριβέντας συντρίψει

ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ·

The forces of the flood will be overwhelmed by him and will be broken, and so too the covenant leader.

And he will break the broken arms before his face.

Th καὶ βραχίονες τοῦ κατακλύζοντος κατακλυσθήσονται ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ καὶ συντριβήσονται, καὶ ἡγούμενος διαθήκης· And the arms of the one who overwhelms will be overwhelmed from before his face, and they will be broken—and a leader of the covenant.

It appears that the minus192 was strategically omitted by the og translator, who probably perceived an exegetical connection between this passage and 9:25– 27 and 8:11. In 8:11, he did not allow that the “commander in chief” should be affected by the actions of the little horn, availing himself of etymological exegesis in interpreting the source text.193 Similarly, for ideological reasons which are difficult to precisely ascertain, he did not allow that the ‫“ נגיד‬leader,” “ruler” of v. 22 should “be broken,” omitting the entire clause.194

191

192

193 194

An alternative explanation is to assume a copying error in the transmission of the og mss. If ‫ והעמיד‬were supposedly rendered with και αναστησεται (cf. √‫ עמד‬hiphil in 11:14), then it would be possible to conjecture homoioarcton in the hypothetical reading και αναστησεται … καὶ παραδοθήσεται. Earlier commentators based their discussion on a reading like καὶ μετὰ τῆς διαθήκης for ‫וגם‬ ‫( נגיד ברית‬e.g., Montgomery, Daniel, 453; Charles, Daniel, 1929, 298), though not present in Rahlfs’s reconstructed text, nor in ms 88 and Syh. See ch. 3 C § 12.1.3.3 (Dan 8:11). The language ‫ נגיד ברית‬and ‫ השטף ישטפו‬of v. 22 connects exegetically this passage with similar terminology of 9:25–27, and this connection might provide a clue for the intentional omission. In Daniel 9, the translator has rendered ‫ משיח נגיד‬with κύριος (v. 25; two

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 197

2.2.2.2 Scribal Errors The reviser also supplements long minuses in which the og lacks words because of mechanical errors that either were present in its Vorlage or arose during the transmission of its mss. In attempting to differentiate between these two phenomena, there is, at times, no certainty. Dan 3:24[91]–25[92] mt

og

Th

‫( ]…[ ענה ואמר‬v. 24) ‫להדברוהי הלא גברין תלתא‬ ‫רמינא לגוא נורא מכפתין‬ ‫ענין ואמרין למלכא יציבא‬ ‫מלכא׃‬ ‫( ענה ואמר הא אנה‬v. 25) ‫חזה גברין ארבעה ]…[׃‬

(v. 91) […] καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ (v. 92) Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ θεωρῶ τέσσαρας ἄνδρας […].

(24[91]) […] καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μεγιστᾶσιν αὐτοῦ Οὐχὶ ἄνδρας τρεῖς ἐβάλομεν εἰς μέσον τοῦ πυρὸς πεπεδημένους; καὶ εἶπαν τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀληθῶς, βασιλεῦ. (25[92]) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ὁρῶ ἄνδρας τέσσαρας […].

(v. 24) [The king …] addressed his companions, saying, “Did we not throw three men, bound, into the fire?”

(v. 91) […] and said to his friends, (v. 92) “Lo, I see four men […].

(v. 91) […] and said to his nobles, “Was it not three men that we threw bound into the middle of the fire?” And

for one word, cf. Collins, Daniel, 346). Consequently, in this case he has interpreted ‫נגיד‬ ‫ ברית‬through ‫משיח נגיד‬, the phrase was omitted because it constituted an improper language against a comparable entity that was perceived by the translator sitting behind ‫( משיח נגיד‬or ‫ שר הצבא‬in 8:11). Montgomery (Daniel, 453) reads v. 22 in light of 9:25, but his judgment is based on a secondary text (see nn. above). Spangenberg evades discussing the rendering of ‫ עד משיח נגיד‬with πόλιν κυρίῳ in 9:25 og, though he has discussed the differences in the translation of this verse. See Izak J.J. Spangenberg, “The Septuagint Translation of Daniel 9: Does it Reflect a Messianic Interpretation?” in The Septuagint and Messianism, ed. Michael Knibb, betl 145 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 431–442. For a different view, see Michael Segal, “Daniel 9:24–27: A Comparative Analysis of mt and the Greek Versions” (paper presented at the meeting of the Cambridge Septuagint Series, Cambridge, 19 May 2020).

198

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th they said to the king, “True, O king.” (v. 92) And the king said, “Here I see four men […].

They spoke in reply, “Surely, O king.” (v. 25) He answered, “But I see four men […].

The plausibility that the omitted text occurred between the Aramaic ‫ הלא‬and ‫ הא‬because of parablepsis suggests that the minus was present in the og’s Vorlage.195 The longer mt is supported by 1QDanb and 4QDand. Dan 7:23 mt

og

Th

‫ ]…[ ]…[ די תשנא מן כל‬ἥτις διοίσει παρὰ ‫ מלכותא ותאכל כל ארעא‬πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν […]. ‫]…[׃‬

[…] ἥτις ὑπερέξει πάσας τὰς βασιλείας καὶ καταφάγεται πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν […].

[…] which will be dif- […] which shall excel ferent from all the over the whole earth kingdoms; it will devour […]. the whole earth […].

[…] which shall surpass all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth […].

The minus most likely emerged as a haplography caused by the identical words ‫כל … כל‬/πας … πασαν in either the og’s Vorlage or inner Greek mss transmission.196

195 196

Montgomery, Daniel, 217. The minus was filled in in the Hexaplaric recension from Th-Dan (cf. the asterisked sign extant in the mss 88 and Syh).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 199

Dan 11:40–42 mt

og

Th

‫( ]…[ ובא בארצות‬v. 40) ‫( ובא‬v. 41) ‫ושטף ועבר׃‬ ‫בארץ הצבי ורבות יכשלו‬ ‫ואלה ימלטו מידו אדום‬ ‫ומואב וראשית בני עמון׃‬ ‫( וישלח ידו בארצות‬v. 42) ‫וארץ מצרים לא תהיה‬ ‫לפליטה׃‬

(v. 40) […] καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς χώραν Αἰγύπτου. (v. 41) [καὶ ἐπελεύσεται εἰς τὴν χώραν μου]88-Syh (v. 42) καὶ [ἐν χώρᾳ Αἰγύπτου]pap 967, 88-Syh οὐκ ἔσται ἐν αὐτῇ διασῳζόμενος.

(v. 40) […] καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν γῆν καὶ συντρίψει καὶ παρελεύσεται. (v. 41) καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν γῆν τοῦ σαβι, καὶ πολλοὶ ἀσθενήσουσιν· καὶ οὗτοι διασωθήσονται ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτοῦ, Εδωμ καὶ Μωαβ καὶ ἀρχὴ υἱῶν Αμμων. (v. 42) καὶ ἐκτενεῖ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ γῆ Αἰγύπτου οὐκ ἔσται εἰς σωτηρίαν.

(v. 40) […] He will invade lands, sweeping through them like a flood; (v. 41) he will invade the beautiful land, too, and many will fall, but these will escape his clutches: Edom, Moab, and the chief part of the Ammonites. (v. 42) He will lay his hands on lands; not even the land of Egypt will escape.

(v. 40) And he will advance into the country of Egypt. (v. 41) … (v. 42) And there will be no one that is delivered in it.

(v. 40) […] And he will advance into the land and will crush and will pass by. (v. 41) And he will advance into the land of Sabain, and many will fall weak, and these will come through safe from his hand: Edom and Moab and the rule of the sons of Ammon. (v. 42) And he will stretch out his hand against the land, and the land of Egypt will not be for saving.

There is no doubt that the og reading reflects a mechanical type of error in either its mss or Vorlage. However, the process of corruption is much more

200

chapter 3

complex than it seems at first. By excluding ἐν χώρᾳ Αἰγύπτου (v. 42 og) from his reconstruction, Munnich seemingly inclines toward the former alternative.197 However, the support of all available mss for the rejected reading mitigates such a proposal. First, it should be noted that the og’s underlying text differed from mt in an important aspect, which can be deduced from analyzing εἰς χώραν Αἰγύπτου in v. 40. The translator demonstrably arrived at this reading because of a shorter Vorlage due to a haplography between ‫( ובא בארץ‬v. 41) and ‫ובא בארצות‬ (v. 40). Consequently, its Hebrew text omitted the end of v. 40 and preserved only the beginning of v. 41, namely, ‫ובא בארץ הצבי‬. We have discussed elsewhere the problematic ‫ צבי‬for translation, and the solutions adopted by both the og and Th-Dan.198 Considering that the og has derived its meaning by contextual exegesis, it stands to reason that similar guesswork lies behind the equivalency ‫—צבי‬Αἰγύπτου, i.e., ‫ הצבי‬for ‫הנגב‬.199 We further maintain that, originally, the og provided a translation for vv. 41– 42, which it now lacks due to haplography within the og mss. It appears that a copyist errantly skipped over the text between (v. 41) εἰς χώραν Αἰγύπτου and (v. 42) ἐν (ταις) χωραις καὶ ἐν χώρᾳ Αἰγύπτου. This solution provides a coherent explanation for the attestation of Αἰγύπτου in both readings and does not discount ἐν χώρᾳ Αἰγύπτου from the putative original og. 2.2.2.3 Different Literary Editions The og minuses in Daniel 4–6 have been, by and large, discussed within the framework of the question of whether they indicate the superior or inferior status of the og’s Vorlage. The recently emerging opinion is that both mt and the og’s Vorlage of these chapters point to parallel editions, independently developed from a common textual source.200 197

198 199

200

Similarly, Collins (Daniel, 368) who comments on v. 40 that “pap 967 skips from here (i.e., lands) to the ‘lands’ in v. 42 (haplography).” Neither is it satisfactory to explain the minus with Montgomery (Daniel, 467–468), positing homoioteleuton between ‫ בארץ הצבי‬and ‫בארצות‬. See ch. 3 A § 5 (1‫)צבי־‬. The same shorter Vorlage is apparent behind the unasterisked reading καὶ ἐπελεύσεται εἰς τὴν χώραν μου in mss 88-Syh of v. 41. Both mss further fill in the long minus with the asterisked material και πολλαι σκανδαλιστησονται και αυται σωθησονται από χειρος (plur. Syh) αυτου εδομκαι μωαβ και κεφαλαιον υιωναμμων (42) και αποστελει χειρα αυτου εν ταις (γαις uterque cod.) γαιας. However, the asterisked text is not imported from Th but, presumably, from Aquila. Mongomery, Daniel, 468. An elaborate treatment of the long minuses in Daniel 4–6 it is beyond the scope of our research goal. For relevant literature on the topic, see Olariu, “Textual History of Daniel,” 523–525.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 201

Dan 4:11[14] mt ‫קרא בחיל וכן אמר גדו‬ ‫אילנא וקצצו ענפוהי אתרו‬ ‫עפיה ובדרו אנבה תנד‬ ‫חיותא מן תחתוהי וצפריא‬ ‫מן ענפוהי׃‬

He called loudly and said: ‘Hew down the tree, lop off its branches, Strip off its foliage, scatter its fruit. Let the beasts of the field flee from beneath it, And the birds from its branches.

og

Th

καὶ ἐφώνησε καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἐκκόψατε αὐτὸ καὶ καταφθείρατε αὐτό· προστέτακται γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑψίστου ἐκριζῶσαι καὶ ἀχρειῶσαι αὐτό.

καὶ ἐφώνησεν ἐν ἰσχύι καὶ οὕτως εἶπεν Ἐκκόψατε τὸ δένδρον καὶ ἐκτίλατε τοὺς κλάδους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκτινάξατε τὰ φύλλα αὐτοῦ καὶ διασκορπίσατε τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ· σαλευθήτωσαν τὰ θηρία ὑποκάτωθεν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ ὄρνεα ἀπὸ τῶν κλάδων αὐτοῦ·

And he called and said: ‘Cut it down, and destroy it, for it has been decreed by the Most High to uproot and render it useless.’

And he called mightily, and thus he said: ‘Cut down the tree, and pluck out its branches, and strip off its foliage, and scatter its fruit. Let the animals be shaken beneath it, and the birds from its branches.

The elements of mt marked in red, not represented in the og, pertain to the description of the greatness of the tree, sheltering the “beasts” and the “birds.” The description occurs for the first time in v. 9[12] wherein the og, mt, and ThDan all agree in mentioning both classes of animals. The motif also reappears in vv. 17[20]–18[21], but here the og mentions only the “birds.” It seems that mt underwent a more symmetric development, the motif consistently repeating on all three occasions. The og indicates a less carefully elaborated narrative.201 Th-Dan revises the og to align with mt. 201

Alternatively, in view of the og’s overall style, it seems possible that the minus reflects translational condensation (or elimination of repetitive information). For similar examples, see ch. 3 A § 2.2.1.2.

202

chapter 3

Dan 4:3[6]–6[9] mt

og

… ‫( ומני שים טעם‬v. 3) og=0 ‫( … חזוי חלמי די חזית‬v. 6) :‫ופשרה אמר‬

(v. 3) I gave an order … (v. 6) … tell me the meaning of my dream vision that I have seen.

Th (v. 3) καὶ δι᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐτέθη δόγμα … (v. 6) … ἄκουσον τὴν ὅρασιν τοῦ ἐνυπνίου, οὗ εἶδον, καὶ τὴν σύγκρισιν αὐτοῦ εἰπόν μοι. (v. 3) And a decree was established by me … (v. 6) … Hear the vision of the dream that I saw, and tell me its interpretation.

The minus extends over four verses, and this shorter version demonstrably witnesses the original form of the story.202 In mt, the supplemented material is a secondary interpolation developing the contest motif between Daniel and the wise men of Babylon.203

3

Linguistically Accurate Representation

In subsection A §2, “Quantitative Representation,” we documented Th-Dan’s tendency to bring og-Dan to align with mt word-for-word. The recensional techniques involved in the process of correcting the minuses and pluses were supplementation and elimination. This section investigates a further area of concern for a reviser, namely, the accurate representation of the source text. 202

203

Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 102–104; Charles, Daniel, 1929, 81–82; and Matthias Henze, The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4, JSJSup 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 26–27. However, Mongomery (Daniel, 247) argues that mt preserves the original form of the story in these verses while the og has secondarily omitted them. According to Satran, the answer to which form of the two textual traditions represents the original depends on one’s overall assessment of the character of the og. David Satran, “Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1985), 70–72.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 203

Theoretically, there are two types of linguistic inaccuracies which generate corrections: content and form. The former pertains to the imprecise transfer of meaning of a lexeme from the source text into the target language. The latter relates to the imperfect transfer of grammatical categories from the source language into the target language, e.g., verb for a verb, noun for a noun, etc. Because of space constraints and methodology,204 this section deals only with linguistic representation in content. It will be documented that the reviser replaces many og equivalents with renditions which approximate more precisely the meaning of the Semitic words. From the standpoint of the reviser, og-Dan’s deviations from a literal representation of the content of his Semitic Vorlage were tantamount to inaccuracies which demanded corrections. According to the degree of their literal inaccuracy, the og equivalents can be classified as either imprecise or erroneous. The former includes renditions which would pass as “acceptable” within a free translational framework. The latter inaccuracies generally underscore the limitation in knowledge or the struggle of the translator to render the meaning of the Semitic lexemes. In many such instances he has made use of different types of exegesis to single out his equivalents. Another distinct group is formed by og renditions that deviate in content from mt as the result of a different Vorlage. From the standpoint of the reviser, these were likewise perceived as inaccurate translations in need of recensional corrections. The data is generally presented in three-column charts. They place in parallel readings from mt, the og, and Th. The length of each reading is usually limited to a clause but may extend further in order to provide enough context that the differences between the texts may be easily noted. For the same purpose, an English translation follows each Semitic and Greek clause. The special notation […], before and/or after readings, indicates that the verse excerpts are preceded and/or succeeded by other clauses in the verse under discussion. The only exception to this general principle is the sub-section “Replacement of Imprecise Renderings.” There, for the sake of simplicity, the Semitic lexeme appears in the heading, followed by a two-columned chart that presents, in par-

204

In translational studies, the difficulty of transferring the full register of grammatical categories from a source into a target language is well known. The translator’s decisions are influenced by the grammatical system of the target language as well as of the translator’s literary taste. Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 75, 79, 169–172. In addition, Parry’s study (“The Character of the Greek Version of Daniel Attributed to Theodotion,” see ch. 1 § 1.4.2 [n. 232]; 1§ 2 [n. 301]) aims to tackle many of such grammatical categories (e.g., nouns, pronouns, verbs, transliterations, particles in Th-Dan) and, consequently, we attempt to avoid duplication.

204

chapter 3

allel, the equivalents in the og and Th-Dan. The equivalents are accompanied by short English definitions, affording comparison between the Semitic and Greek words. 3.1 Replacement of Imprecise Renderings The reviser looked for equivalents which, in his view, would represent more accurately the meaning of the parent text. That is to say, though many og equivalents can be assessed as “acceptable” within a dynamic translational framework, the reviser replaced them with literal renditions. The underlying assumption of the subsequent examples is that the og translator understood the source text. Beyond his free style and sensitivity to the target language, it is hardly possible to identify clear-cut linguistic principles that are ultimately responsible for his selection of equivalents that depart from a literal representation of the Semitic lexemes. 0‫( יבשה־‬dry land) og

Th

γῆ earth, land (Dan 2:10)

ξηρός dry, withered (Dan 2:10)

0‫( מלך־‬king) og

Th

κύριος lord (Dan 3:9)

βασιλεύς king (Dan 3:9)

0‫( ענה־‬to answer) og

Th

συνοράω to see, consider (Dan 3:14)

ἀποκρίνομαι to answer, reply (Dan 3:14)

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 205

0‫( נבוכדנצר־‬Nebuchadnezzar) og

Th

βασιλεύς king (Dan 3:26[93])

Ναβουχοδονοσορ Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:26[93])

0‫( רחץ־‬to trust) og

Th

ἐλπίζω to hope (Dan 3:28[95])

πείθω to believe; trust (Dan 3:28[95])

0‫( שׁמד־‬to destroy) og

Th

μιαίνω to defile, pollute (Dan 7:26)

ἀφανίζω to ruin, destroy (Dan 7:26)

0‫( פלח־‬to serve) og

Th

ὑποτάσσω to subject; to submit (Dan 7:27)

δουλεύω to serve as a slave (Dan 7:27)

‫( נגב‬south country, Negeb)

og

Th

Αἴγυπτος Egypt (Dan 11:5–6, 9, 11, 14– 15, 252X, 29, 40)

νότος south; south wind (Dan 11:5–6, 9, 11, 14–15, 252X, 29, 40)

206

chapter 3

The og translator demonstrably arrived at this interpretation influenced by the expected mentions of ‫“ מצרים‬Egypt” in vv. 8, 42, 43. The reviser replaced Αἴγυπτος with the literal νότος.205 ‫( מדינה‬province)

og

Th

πόλις city, town; city-state (Dan 11:24)

χώρα place, land, country (Dan 11:24)

3.2 Replacement of Erroneous Renderings The reviser replaces og-Dan equivalents which constitute obvious departures from the literal meaning of the Semitic lexemes. The original translator did not always grasp the meaning of the source text. The common denominator shared by the subsequent categories is the idiosyncrasy of exegesis. To circumvent problems, the translator at times applied contextual guesswork, producing erroneous readings. In other cases, he has (consciously) read the consonants of a Semitic word in a different manner (linguistic exegesis). Lastly, the og translator has generated readings that disclose his sensitivity toward theological exegesis. Generally speaking, the analysis of the erroneous renditions and their corrections underscore two aspects: (1) the og translator’s deviation from his Vorlage (either stemming from his lack of understanding or his consciously different construal of the sense of his Vorlage); (2) the reviser’s linguistically superior ability in decoding the meaning of the source text, as well as his adherence to the principle of a strict fidelity in representing its content. 3.2.1 Contextual Exegesis The reviser substitutes the translator’s erroneous renditions, stemming from contextual exegesis, with accurate ones. Dan 2:12 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואמר להובדה לכל‬προσέταξεν ἐξαγα‫ חכימי בבל׃‬γεῖν πάντας τοὺς σοφοὺς

τῆς Βαβυλωνίας· 205

Th […] εἶπεν ἀπολέσαι πάντας τοὺς σοφοὺς Βαβυλῶνος·

Νότος further revises the og hapax rendition μεσημβρίας “noon,” “south” for ‫ נגב‬in Dan 8:4, 9.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 207 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] and gave an order to do away with all the wise men of Babylon.

[…] ordered to bring forth all the savants of Babylonia.

[…] said to destroy all the sages of Babylon.

The imprecise rendering ἐξάγω “to lead away,” “to bring out” for 0‫“ אבד־‬to perish,” “to destroy” in Dan 2:12 most likely reflects contextual exegesis. Verse 12 records the reaction of the king at the end of the last encounter scene with the Chaldeans (vv. 2–11). According to the narrative flow in mt, the group witnesses both the king’s burst of fury and his extermination decree when they fail to tell the dream and its interpretation. In og-Dan, however, the sequence of events has been altered by the translator: the king first orders that the wise men be brought out, presumably, from the audience room; then, in their absence, he promulgates the extermination edict (v. 13).206 Th-Dan revised it with the literal ἀπόλλυμι “to destroy,” “to ruin.”207 Dan 2:29 mt

og

Th

‫ אנתה מלכא רעיונך על‬σύ, βασιλεῦ, κατακλιθεὶς ‫ משכבך סלקו מה די להוא‬ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης σου ἑώρα‫ אחרי דנה ]…[ ׃‬κας ὅσα δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐπ᾽

σὺ βασιλεῦ, οἱ διαλογισμοί σου ἐπὶ τῆς κοίτης σου ἀνέβησαν τί δεῖ γενέἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν […]. σθαι μετὰ ταῦτα […].

206

207

Our interpretation of προσέταξεν ἐξαγαγεῖν goes against nets’s unwarranted translation of the phrase with “ordered to bring forth” which creates ambiguity. Not only does nets suggest that the wise men were in king’s presence in v. 12 but also, according to nets, it is implied that somewhere between vv. 11 and 12 the wise men were dismissed and again summoned to receive their punishment. For a broader discussion of the exegetical problems of Daniel 2, see Michael Segal, “From Joseph to Daniel: The Literary Development of Daniel 2,” vt 59 (2009): 123–149. See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 (0‫)אבד־‬.

208

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

O king, the thoughts that came to your mind in your bed are about future events […].

You, O king, after you reclined upon your couch, saw everything that must happen at the end of the days […].

O king, your thoughts upon your bed ascended to what must happen after this […]

The reading ‫ רעיונך‬was not properly understood in og-Dan.208 The translator arrived at the equivalent κατακλίνω “to sit down” because of the term 0‫משׁכב־‬ “bed” in the immediate context. Furthermore, failing to notice the syntagmatic nature of the phrase ‫סלקו … רעיונך‬, he has further deviated from mt by rendering 0‫“ סלק־‬to come up” with ὁράω “to see” to fit contextually. The reviser corrected the erroneous renderings towards a literal representation of mt.209 Dan 6:1[5:31–6:1a] mt

og ‫( ודריוש מדיא קבל‬6:1) (5:31) καὶ Ξέρξης ὁ τῶν ‫ מלכותא כבר שנין שתין‬Μήδων βασλεὺς παρέ‫ ותרתין׃‬λαβε τὴν βασιλείαν.

(6:1a) Καὶ Δαρεῖος πλήρης ἡμερῶν καὶ ἔνδοξος ἐν γήρει […]. (6.1) and Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

208 209

(6.1) and Xerxes, who was king of the Medes, received the kingdom. And when Darius was full of days and esteemed in old age […].

Th (5:31) Καὶ Δαρεῖος ὁ Μῆδος παρέλαβεν τὴν βασιλείαν ὢν ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα δύο.

(6.1) And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being sixty-two years old

See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 (0‫)רעיון־‬. Both διαλογισμός and ἀναβαίνω are stereotyped equivalents for 0‫ רעיון־‬and 0‫סלק־‬, respectively. See n. above and ch. 3 A § 1.2.2.1 (ἀναβαίνω).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 209

The exegetical rationale behind the translation of ‫ דריוש‬with Ξέρξης is to avoid internal chronological contradiction. Since there Darius is identified in og-Dan 9:1 as the “son of Ahasuerus,” i.e., Ξέρξης, the translator assumed that Xerxes’s reign must precede Darius’s and, accordingly, inserted the change.210 Dan 8:10 mt

og

‫ ותגדל עד צבא השמים‬καὶ ὑψώθη ἕως τῶν ‫ ותפל ארצה מן הצבא ומן‬ἄστρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ‫ הכוכבים ותרמסם׃‬καὶ ἐρράχθη ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν

ἀπὸ τῶν ἄστρων καὶ ἀπὸ αὐτῶν κατεπατήθη.

It grew as high as the host of heaven and it hurled some stars of the [heavenly] host to the ground and trampled them.

And it was raised unto the stars of the sky. And it was thrown down upon the earth from the stars and was trodden upon by them.

Th ἐμεγαλύνθη ἕως τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄστρων, καὶ συνεπάτησεν αὐτά, It became great all the way up to the host of heaven. And it fell upon the earth from the host and from the stars and trampled them under foot,

Th-Dan replaces the inaccurate translation of ‫ ותרמסם‬in the base text. The phrase ‫ צבא השמים‬was understood in the og as a physical reference to the “stars of the sky.”211 The interpretation however created the hardly conceivable situation that “the stars” could be harmed by the earthly entity represented by the little horn (v. 9). The translator solved the exegetical tension by simply assuming an opposite scenario, disregarding mt.

210

211

For a recent analysis of this harmonization, see Segal, “Old Greek Version,” 408–409. Segal suggests that the secondary change occured in the og’s Vorlage, but here we rather interpret the change as a harmonistic alteration introduced by the translator. ‫“ צבא‬host” in the phrase ‫ צבא השמים‬occurs another seventeen times in mt and was translated with κόσμος “adornment” (Deut 4:19; 17:3); στρατιά “army” (1Kgs 22:19; Jer 8:2 [ἀστήρdoublet]; 19:13; Zeph 1:5; Neh 9:6; 2 Chr 33:3, 5); δύναμις “(military) force” (2Kgs 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5; 2 Chr 18:18). lxx=0: Isa 34:4; Jer 33[40]:22.

210

chapter 3

Dan 8:16 mt

og

Th

‫ ]…[ ]…[ גבריאל הבן להלז את‬ὁ ἄνθρωπος Ἐπὶ τὸ ‫ המראה׃‬πρόσταγμα ἐκεῖνο ἡ ὅρα-

[…] Γαβριηλ, συνέτισον ἐκεῖνον τὴν ὅρασιν.

σις. […] “Gabriel, make that man understand the vision.”

[…] the human: “The vision is for this ordinance.”

[…] “Gabriel, help this one understand the vision.”

The reviser replaces the erroneous πρόσταγμα with συνετίζω, which accurately renders ‫ בין‬hiphil “to make understand.” As the chart in the footnote shows, the end of og-Dan 8:16 gathers several textual oddities: double reading (ogA and ogB), different word division (ll. 2, 4 ogA vs. l. 4 mt), contextual rendering (l. 5 ogA), and transposition (ll. 2–3 ogA).212 Following Ziegler, who rightly rejected the double reading with pap 967, we hold that the reviser corrects the incongruous readings toward a better representation of his mt-like Vorlage.213

212

213

The doublet in og was erroneously recorded in ms 88 and Syh with obelus (καὶ ἀναβοήσας—fin.] ÷ 88-Syh). However, a comparison between Th-Dan and ogA and ogB shows that ogB is a verbatim copy from Th-Dan, suggesting that the Hexaplaric notation were corrupted during the transmission history. Equally, Ziegler (followed by Munnich) correctly preserved the transposition recorded in pap 967 as opposed to mss 88-Syh (ll. 2–3).

l.

mt

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

‫ויקרא‬ ‫ויאמר‬ ‫גבריאל‬ ‫הבן‬ ‫להלז‬ ‫את המראה׃‬

ogA

ogB

Th

καὶ ἀναβοήσας \ὁ ἄνθρωπος/ εἶπεν \Ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσταγμα ἐκεῖνο ἡ ὅρασις.

καὶ ἐκάλεσε

καὶ ἐκάλεσεν

καὶ εἶπεν Γαβριηλ, συνέτισον ἐκεῖνον τὴν ὅρασιν.

καὶ εἶπεν Γαβριηλ, συνέτισον ἐκεῖνον τὴν ὅρασιν.

Συνετίζω constitutes, by far, a better equivalent for the hiphil ptc. of ‫( בין‬see ch. 3 B §9.1.1 [‫—בין‬ὑποδείκνυμι]). Furthermore, the phrase ὁ ἄνθρωπος (…) Ἐπὶ reflects a different word division: ‫ גבר אל‬instead of ‫גבריאל‬. Th-Dan corrects it as well as the transposed words ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἶπεν to align with mt.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 211

Dan 10:1 mt

og

‫ בשנת שלוש לכורש מלך‬Εν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῷ πρώτῳ ‫ פרס דבר נגלה לדניאל ]…[׃‬Κύρου τοῦ βασιλέως Περ-

In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia, an oracle was revealed to Daniel […].

Th

σῶν πρόσταγμα ἐδείχθη τῷ Δανιηλ […].

Εν ἔτει τρίτῳ Κύρου βασιλέως Περσῶν λόγος ἀπεκαλύφθη τῷ Δανιηλ […].

In the first year of King Cyrus of the Persians a decree was shown to Daniel […].

In the third year of King Cyrus of the Persians a word was revealed to Daniel […].

The change of the dating from the “third” to the “first” in og-Dan most likely represents another deliberate attempt to solve the chronological tension with 1:21, which places the end of Daniel’s career at the “first” year of Cyrus.214 Dan 10:8 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ והודי נהפך עלי‬καὶ ἰδοὺ πνεῦμα ‫ למשחית ]…[׃‬ἐπεστράφη ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ εἰς

φθοράν […]. […] my vigor was destroyed […].

214

[…] and I saw a spirit turned toward me in order to corrupt […].

Th […] καὶ ἡ δόξα μου μετεστράφη εἰς διαφθοράν […]. […] and my glory was changed into decay […].

Driver, Daniel, 111; Montgomery, Daniel, 405; Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 262, 277; Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 13 (n. 1). However, whereas Pace Jeansonne (The og Translation of Daniel, 99–100) suggests here a mechanical error in copying the og, i.e., τω πρωτωι for τω τριτωι, Amara (“Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 289) points to a later editor for the change. Collins (Daniel, 372) and John E. Goldingay (Daniel, wbc 30 [Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1989], 275) present the alternatives of harmonization with 1:21 and corruption, without expressing preference for either.

212

chapter 3

‫“ הוד‬splendor” was translated in Dan 11:21 with δόξα “glory,” probably because the og translator understood the word. However, the difficult idiom ‫והודי נהפך‬ ‫ עלי‬in 10:8 has likely provided the translator with a reason to render contextually, arriving at the erroneous equivalent πνεῦμα, which was replaced by Th-Dan with δόξα.215

Dan 11:21 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ובא בשלוה והחזיק‬καὶ ἥξει ἐξάπινα, ‫ מלכות בחלקלקות׃‬κατισχύσει βασιλεὺς ἐν

[…] he will come in unawares and seize the kingdom through trickery.

Th

κληροδοσίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

[…] καὶ ἥξει ἐν εὐθηνίᾳ καὶ κατισχύσει βασιλείας ἐν ὀλισθρήμασιν.

[…] and he will come without warning, and the king will prevail by his lot.

[…] and he will come in prosperity and will overthrow the kingdom by slippery ways.

The reviser replaces ἐξάπινα “without warning” with the more accurate εὐθηνία “prosperity.” Considering the rarity of ‫שלוה‬, its meaning was likely obscure for the og translator whose rendering is tantamount to an erroneous guess.216 Dan 11:26 mt

og

‫ ואכלי פת בגו ישברוהו ]…[׃‬καὶ καταναλώσουσιν

αὐτὸν μέριμναι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀποστρέψουσιν αὐτόν […]. Those who eat of his food will ruin him. […].

215 216

And his worries will consume him and will bring him back. […].

Th καὶ φάγονται τὰ δέοντα αὐτοῦ καὶ συντρίψουσιν αὐτόν, […].

And they will devour his provisions and will break him. […].

See ch. 3 C § 13.2 (δόξα). The same contextual guessing technique is further employed in og-Dan 11:24 wherein ἐξάπινα again renders ‫שלוה‬. See ch. 3 B § 6.2 (‫)שׁלוה‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 213

The imprecise rendition ἀποστρέφω “to turn away” for an otherwise common root has invited the reviser’s literal correction to συντρίβω “to break.”217 3.2.2 Linguistic Exegesis The reviser corrects erroneous readings produced in the course of the og translator’s (mis)interpretation of the consonantal text. Generally speaking, these renditions are pseudo-variants.218 To cope with problematic Semitic words or phrases, the translator had recourse to linguistic exegesis, subtracting, interchanging, or switching the position of consonants within a word. The underlying assumption is that the translator had problems understanding the meaning of a word or of its surrounding context. 3.2.2.1 Different Vocalization The og translator sometimes arrived at erroneous readings by assuming a different vocalization of words. Dan 8:22 mt

og ‫ ונשב ֶרת ותעמדנה ארבע‬καὶ τὰ συντριβέντα καὶ ‫ תחתיה ]…[׃‬ἀναβάντα ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ

τέσσαρα κέρατα, […]. One was broken and four came in its stead— that [means]: […].

217

218

Th καὶ τοῦ συντριβέντος, οὗ ἔστησαν τέσσαρα ὑποκάτω κέρατα, […].

And as for the four And as for the crushed horns that were crushed one, where four horns and came up after it: arose underneath: […]. […].

Ἀποστρέφω constitutes a hapax equivalent in lxx. In Dan 8:25, the og uses ἀποδίδωμι “to give back” for 1‫שׁבר־‬, which is another hapax rendition that Th-Dan corrects with the more accurate συντρίβω. og-Dan likely reflects exegesis in 8:25 (see ch. 3 C §12.1.3.2 [Dan 8:25b]). As an alternative to our assessment above, the peculiar ἀποστρέφω may indicate either a different reading in its Vorlage or etymological exegesis, i.e., ‫ ישׁיבוהו‬instead of ‫ישׁברוהו‬. Explaining pseudo-variants, Tov writes: “They are variants insofar as the deviations can be retroverted relatively easily into Hebrew on the basis of Greek–Hebrew equivalents occurring elsewhere. They are non-variants insofar as the retroverted readings presumably were not found in the translator’s Vorlage, but existed only in his mind.” Text Critical Use of the Septuagint, 178.

214

chapter 3

In the interpretation section of Daniel 8, v. 22 parallels v. 8 of the vision. The def. fem. sing. ptc. ‫ הנשברת‬and the clause ‫ ותעמדנה ארבע תחתיה‬function as headings, aiming to return to features from the vision that are to be explained.219 og-Dan has mistakenly taken both phrases as forming a single clause, wherein the fem. sg. ptc. was interpreted attributively as determining ‫ ארבע‬as subject. Consequently, the translator described all four horns as being crushed, and not only the conspicuous horn of the he-goat. The imprecision was seemingly triggered by a different vocalization of the ptc. by the translator., i.e., ‫( ונשבר ֹת‬fem. pl.) vs. ‫( ונשב ֶרת‬fem. sg.). The reviser corrected the imprecisions toward a literal representation of the mt, but still shows dependence on the og, copying the explicating addition κέρατα. Dan 9:24 mt

og

Th

[‫ ולהֵתם‬Q] ‫תם‬ ֹ ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ולח‬καὶ τὰς ἀδικίας ‫ חטאות ]חטאת[ … ולחתם‬σπανίσαι … καὶ συντε‫ חזון ונביא ]…[׃‬λεσθῆναι τὸ ὅραμα […].

[…] καὶ τοῦ σφραγίσαι ἁμαρτίας … καὶ τοῦ σφραγίσαι ὅρασιν καὶ προφήτην […]

[…] to make iniquities scarce … and for the vision to be consummated […].

[…] and to seal sins … and to seal vision and prophet […].

[…] and that of sin complete … and prophetic vision ratified […].

Th-Dan substitutes both σπανίζω “to be scarce” and συντελέω “to finish” with σφραγίζω “to seal.”220 From the vantage point of the reviser, both og equivalents

219

220

As such, ‫ הנשברת‬resumes ‫ וכעצמו נשברה הקרן הגדולה‬while ‫ ותעמדנה ארבע תחתיה‬parallels ‫ ותעלנה חזות ארבע תחתיה לארבע רוחות השמים‬of v. 8. The use of headings is amply attested in the pesharim literature found at Qumran. Collins, Daniel, 339. It is less likely that v. 22b reflects a casus pendens clause as suggested by Montgomery (Daniel, 353), and who was rightly criticized by Charles (Daniel, 1929, 216), or that that the Hebrew “would be unintelligible without recourse to the underlying Aramaic” as Hartman and Di Lella (Daniel, 228) emphatically claim. Besides Daniel, ‫ חתם‬is attested twenty-three times and was rendered mainly with σφραγίζω (Deut 32:34; 1 Kgs 21[20]:8; Isa 8:16; 29:112X; Jer 32[39]:10–11, 44; Job 14:17; 24:16; Song 4:12; Esth 8:82X, 10; Neh 10:2) or with its derivates such as ἀποσφράγισμα “seal,” “signet” (Ezek 28:12); κατασφραγίζω “to seal” (Job 9:7; 37:7); and ἐπισφραγίζω “to seal” (Neh 10:1 [+

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 215

rendered ‫ חתם‬qal “to seal” inaccurately and required correction. Considering the adequate translation of ‫ חתם‬in og-Dan 12:4, 9, it is reasonable to assume that the og translator understood this root. Consequently, we should look for an explanation beside a lack of linguistic knowledge. The answer most likely resides in the translator’s different understanding of the vocalization of the consonantal text. Indeed, the use of σπανίζω and συντελέω for the root ‫חתם‬ would suggest a vocalization such as ‫ְלָהֵתם‬, being supported by the Qere in the case of the former.221 3.2.2.2 Etymological Exegesis Because of a different etymological derivation of Semitic lexemes by the og translator erroneous translations were created. Dan 2:30 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ורעיוני לבבך תנדע׃‬ἃ ὑπέλαβες τῇ καρ-

[…] and that you may know the thoughts of your mind.

Th

δίᾳ σου ἐν γνώσει.

[…] ἵνα τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς τῆς καρδίας σου γνῷς.

[…] what you pondered in your heart by knowledge […].

[…] in order that you may know the thoughts of your heart.

The og translator deviates from mt most likely because he did not grasp the meaning of 0‫ ַרְﬠיוֹן־‬. Taking the word as a verb, he further applied linguistic exegesis, reading the verb of the clause as ‫( מנדע‬Dan 2:21; 4:31[34], 33[36]; 5:12), i.e., assuming an interchange between ‫ ת‬and ‫מ‬. The prep. ἐν was added by necessity, though it could have been virtually presupposed as a haplography of ‫ ב‬in the stretch ‫לבבכבמנדע‬.222

221 222

‫)]על‬. In a single case ‫ חתם‬was etymologically exegeted as denoting ‫ חתת‬and rendered with ἐκφοβέω “to terrify” (Job 33:16). In addition, in Lev 15:3 it was rendered contextually with συνίστημι “to associate with.” lxx=0: Jer 32[39]:14; Esth 3:12. Montgomery, Daniel, 377. See ch. 3 A § 2.2.1.4 (Dan 9:24). See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 (0‫)רעיון־‬. Neither Montgomery (Daniel, 165) nor Collins (Daniel, 151) recognize the problem posed by 0‫ ַרְﬠיוֹן־‬for the og translator; hence they suggest less likely explanations.

216

chapter 3

Dan 2:31 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ צלמא דכן רב וזיוה יתיר‬καὶ ἦν ἡ εἰκὼν ἐκείνη ‫ קאם לקבלך ורוה דחיל׃‬μεγάλη σφόδρα, καὶ ἡ

πρόσοψις αὐτῆς ὑπερφερὴς ἑστήκει ἐναντίον σου, καὶ ἡ πρόσοψις τῆς εἰκόνος φοβερά· […] This statue, which was huge and its brightness surpassing, stood before you, and its appearance was awesome.

[…] And that image was exceedingly great. And its appearance, being extraordinary, stood in front of you, and the appearance of the image was frightening.

Th […] μεγάλη ἡ εἰκὼν ἐκείνη καὶ ἡ πρόσοψις αὐτῆς ὑπερφερής, ἑστῶσα πρὸ προσώπου σου, καὶ ἡ ὅρασις αὐτῆς φοβερά·

[…] That great image and its appearance was extraordinary. It was standing before you, and the sight of it was frightening.

The og translator’s recourse to the rare πρόσοψις “appearance”223 for both imported words 0‫“ זיו־‬radiance,” “brightness” and 0‫“ רו־‬appearance” (cf. Akkadian and Canaanite, respectively) may indicate his lack of familiarity with these words.224 Considering the graphic similarity of the letters and the use of the same equivalent for both words in Dan 2:31, it seems that the translator has etymologically levelled the two words. Apparently, 0‫ זיו־‬was interpreted by means of 0‫רו־‬, i.e., √‫ראה‬. The reviser distinguished between these two words, borrowing the imprecise og πρόσοψις for the former and employing the more precise ὅρασις “sight” for the latter. A similar maneuver is apparently at work in Dan 7:20:

223 224

Besides og-Dan, where it occurs three times, πρόσοψις occurs once more in 2Macc 6:18. In Th, πρόσοψις is confined only to Dan 2:31. We discussed 0‫ זיו־‬elsewhere (see ch. 3 B § 6.2). For a discussion of 0‫רו־‬, see Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1927), 184.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 217

mt

og

Th

‫ ]…[ ]…[ וחזוה רב מן חברתה׃‬καὶ ἡ πρόσοψις αὐτοῦ […] καὶ ἡ ὅρασις αὐτοῦ

[…] and which was more conspicuous than its fellows.

ὑπερέφερε τὰ ἄλλα.

μείζων τῶν λοιπῶν.

[…] and its looks surpassed the others,

[…] and its appearance was greater than the rest.

The translator was alert to the fact that 0‫“ חזו־‬vision” does not designate a night vision or dream (a meaning for which mt consistently reserves the spelling ‫)חזוי‬ but the external appearance of the “little horn.” Consequently, the spelling ‫וחזוה‬ in v. 20 is unique. Since the context required linguistic interpretation, ‫ וחזוה‬perhaps brought to the translator’s mind the graphically similar readings ‫ ורוה‬and ‫ וזיוה‬from 2:31. If so, the linguistic and contextual exegesis might explain the use of the rare πρόσοψις for 0‫ חזו־‬in the og. In Dan 7:20, the reviser substituted πρόσοψις with ὅρασις, his main equivalent for 0‫חזו־‬.225 Dan 9:25 mt

og

‫ ותדע ותשכל מן מצא דבר‬καὶ διανοηθήσῃ καὶ ‫ ]…[׃‬εὐφρανθήσῃ καὶ εὑρή-

Th καὶ γνώσῃ καὶ συνήσεις· ἀπὸ ἐξόδου λόγου […].

σεις προστάγματα […]. You must know and understand: From the issuance of the word […].

And you shall understand and will rejoice and will discover ordinances […].

And you shall know and shall understand: from the going forth of the word […].

Struggling to make sense of the phrase ‫מן מצא דבר‬, the og translator made recourse to etymological exegesis. He arrived at his translation καὶ εὑρήσεις

225

For the analysis of 0‫חזו־‬, see ch. 3 A § 3.2.2.2 (Dan 2:31).

218

chapter 3

(2nd. sg. fut. act. ind.) by virtually reading ‫ מצא‬as ‫ותמצא‬.226 Several maneuvers were applied: (1) ‫ מצא‬was interpreted as stemming from √‫ מצא‬instead of √‫( ;יצא‬2) the separable preposition ‫ מן‬was taken together with ‫ מצא‬but it was assumed for it (3) metathesis between ‫ מ‬and ‫ ן‬and their (virtual) interchange with the graphically similar letters ‫ ת‬and ‫ו‬, respectively. The og translator’s linguistic exegesis was apparently influenced by the chain of second person sg. masc. verbs ‫ ותדע ותשכל‬which precedes the phrase ‫ מן מצא דבר‬in the same verse.227 Dan 10:21 mt

og ‫ אבל אגיד לך את הרשום‬καὶ μάλα ὑποδείξω σοι ‫ בכתב אמת ]…[׃‬τὰ πρῶτα ἐν ἀπογραφῇ

ἀληθείας […]. However, I will tell you what is recorded in the book of truth […]

And the more I will explain to you the chief things that are in the register of truth […].

Th ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἀναγγελῶ σοι τὸ ἐντεταγμένον ἐν γραφῇ ἀληθείας […]. But I will tell you what is inscribed in the document of truth […]

For whatever reason, ‫ הרשום‬has been erroneously understood in og-Dan as ‫הרשׁנ)י(ם‬.228 Ἐντάσσω “to insert,” “to order” (Th) renders literally √‫ רשם‬in ThDan 5:24–25; 6:11[10].

226 227

228

The Hebrew retroversion is based on 1 Sam 13:22; Isa 10:4. All three maneuvers, i.e., different word division, metathesis, and interchange of similar letters are textually possible. The influence of the chain of verbs is further visible in v. 25 in the addition of εὐφρανθήσῃ “you will rejoice,” as well as in the translation of the inf. const. ‫ ולבנות‬into the 2nd per. fut. act. ind. οἰκοδομήσεις “you will build.” Montgomery, Daniel, 418; Pace Jeansonne, The og Translation of Daniel, 74. However, the alleged reconstruction is doubtful, considering that the og employs πρῶτος for ‫ראשון‬ “first,” “former” spelled with ‫ א‬as in Dan 8:21; 10:4, 12; 11:13, 29.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 219

Dan 11:24 mt

og

‫ בשלוה ובמשמני מדינה יבוא‬ἐξάπινα ἐρημώσει πόλιν ‫׃]…[ ]…[׃‬

He will invade the richest of provinces unawares […].

Without warning he will desolate a city […].

Th καὶ ἐν εὐθηνίᾳ καὶ ἐν πίοσιν χώραις […]. And by means of prosperity and fertile regions he will come […].

‫“ משׁמן‬fat” was apparently not understood by the translator who presumably turned to etymological exegesis, assuming for it √‫“ שׁמם‬to desolate,” instead of √‫שׁמן‬.229 The equivalent πίων “rich,” “fertile” corrects the og conjecture towards a literal translation of ‫משׁמן‬.230

Dan 11:27 mt

og ‫ ושניהם המלכים לבבם‬καὶ δύο βασιλεῖς μόνοι ‫ למרע ]…[׃‬δειπνήσουσιν […].

The minds of both kings And the two kings will will be bent on evil […]. dine alone […].

Th καὶ ἀμφότεροι οἱ βασιλεῖς, αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν εἰς πονηρίαν […]. And both kings—their hearts for evil […].

The form ‫למרע‬, i.e., ‫“ ל‬to” + ‫“ מרע‬evil,”231 most likely made the og translator deviate from mt. He left the difficult phrase untranslated, rendered ‫ לבדם‬instead of ‫לבבם‬, and added the explicating verb δειπνέω “to eat,” “to dine” probably influenced by the following phrase ‫על שלחן אחד‬. Th-Dan provides a literal translation. 229 230 231

Montgomery, Daniel, 453. Πίων occurs another eighteen times in the lxx and renders mainly √‫שׁמן‬, cf. Gen 29:20; Num 13:20; Isa 5:1; 17:4 (‫ ;)משׁמן‬Ezek 34:14; Mic 6:7; Psa 78[77]:31 (‫ ;)משׁמן‬1Chr 4:40. The verbal noun derivaes from √‫ רעע‬and constitutes a hapax in mt. halot, s.vv. “‫ רעע‬i,” “‫”ֵמ ֵר ַע‬.

220

chapter 3

Dan 11:35 mt

og

‫ ומן המשכילים יכשלו ]…[׃‬καὶ ἐκ τῶν συνιέντων

διανοηθήσονται […]. Some of the knowledge- And some of the intelable will fall […]. ligent will be minded […].

Th καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν συνιέντων ἀσθενήσουσιν […]. And some of the intelligent will become weak […].

Though it is attractive to explain the deviation as reflecting a variant reading in the parent text, i.e., ‫ישכלו‬,232 two important considerations point to a reading only in the mind of the translator: (1) the reconstructed reading ‫ ישכלו‬third person masc. pl. qal lacks linguistic plausibility, the root being expected in the hiphil stem, with the spelling ‫;ישכילו‬233 (2) the immediate context might explain what linguistically influenced the translator: assimilation with the preceding word, i.e. ‫ומן המשׂכילים יכשׁלו‬. The reviser replaces the erroneous rendition with ἀσθενέω “to be weak,” which is the main equivalent of ‫ כשׁל‬in mt.234 Dan 11:43 mt

og

‫ ומשל במכמני הזהב והכסף‬καὶ κρατήσει τοῦ τόπου ‫ ]…[ ׃‬τοῦ χρυσίου καὶ τοῦ

He will gain control over treasures of gold and silver […].

232

233

234

Th

τόπου τοῦ ἀργυρίου […].

καὶ κυριεύσει ἐν τοῖς ἀποκρύφοις τοῦ χρυσοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀργύρου […].

And he will seize the place of gold and the place of silver […].

And he will be lord with the secrets of gold and of silver […].

Driver, Daniel, 133; Montgomery, Daniel, 460. Collins’s reconstructed reading for διανοηθήσονται as ‫ נשׂכלו‬for ‫ נכשׁלו‬is problematic (if not it reflects a mechanical error in copying the mt ‫יכשׁלו‬, which further influenced his reconstruction). Collins, Daniel, 367. As a verb, ‫ שׂכל‬occurs sixty times and only in hiphil, excepting 1Sam 18:30, where it is attested in qal. Furthermore, the expectation for the form ‫ ישכילו‬is based on the fourteen out of fifteen cases where ‫ שׂכל‬hiphil imperfect occurs in plene spelling in mt. The short form is attested in Dan 9:25, i.e., ‫ַתְשֵׂכּל‬, where it has a modal aspect, i.e., jussive. See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 (‫)כשׁל‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 221

The hapax ‫“ מכמן‬hidden things,” “treasures,” was seemingly derived in ogDan from the root √‫כון‬. Both its derivates ‫“ מכון‬fixed place” and 4‫“ כן־‬place” were translated with τόπος “place” in og-Dan 8:11; 11:21, 38.235 The nominal use of the adj. ἀπόκρυφος “hidden [things]” renders ‫ מכמן‬literally in Th-Dan. 3.2.3 Theological Exegesis The og translator deliberately departed from the exact meaning of the source text to introduce, by means of the lexical choices, his theological agenda. From the standpoint of the reviser all these reworkings were erroneous and needed to be replaced with literal renderings. Dan 1:2 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואת הכלים הביא בית‬καὶ ἀπηρείσατο αὐτὰ ‫ אוצר אלהיו׃‬ἐν τῷ εἰδωλίῳ αὐτοῦ.

[…] he deposited the vessels in the treasury of his god.

[…] he deposited them in his idol temple.

Th […] καὶ τὰ σκεύη εἰσήνεγκεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον θησαυροῦ τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ. […] and brought the vessels into the house of the treasure of his god.

The og translator avoids a literal rendering of ‫“ אלהיו‬his god” since it might allow for the existence of other gods beside the God of Israel.236 Dan 2:11 mt

og

Th

‫]…[ ואחרן לא איתי די‬ ‫יחונה קדם מלכא להן אלהין‬ ‫די מדרהון עם בשרא לא‬ ‫איתוהי׃‬

[…] καὶ οὐδείς ἐστιν, ὃς δηλώσει ταῦτα τῷ βασιλεῖ, εἰ μή τις ἄγγελος, οὗ οὐκ ἔστι κατοικητήριον μετὰ πάσης σαρκός· ὅθεν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται γενέσθαι καθάπερ οἴει.

[…] καὶ ἕτερος οὐκ ἔστιν, ὃς ἀναγγελεῖ αὐτὸν ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ θεοί, ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ κατοικία μετὰ πάσης σαρκός.

235 236

Contra Mongomery, Daniel, 468, who posits a derivation from ‫ מכם‬as ‫מקם‬. Amara, “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 187.

222

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] there is no one who can tell it to the king except the gods whose abode is not among mortals.

[…] And there is no one who can disclose these things except some angel, whose habitation is not with any flesh; therefore, it is not possible that it happens, as you imagine.

[…] And there is no other who can tell it before the king but gods, whose dwelling is not with any flesh.

The phrase in red is part of the Chaldean’s reply to the king and reflects polytheistic language. og-Dan negates the capability of other gods to disclose secret revelation by rendering the pl. ‫ אלהין‬with sg. ἄγγελος.237 The alteration may further inform us about his perceived chain of revelation, which involved angels as intermediaries between God and humans.238 Th-Dan corrects toward the literal equivalent θεοι (pl.). Dan 2:35 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואבנא די מחת לצלמא‬καὶ ὁ λίθος ὁ πατάξας ‫ הות לטור רב ומלת כל‬τὴν εἰκόνα ἐγένετο ὄρος ‫ ארעא׃‬μέγα καὶ ἐπάταξε πᾶσαν

τὴν γῆν.

237

238

Th […] καὶ ὁ λίθος ὁ πατάξας τὴν εἰκόνα ἐγενήθη ὄρος μέγα καὶ ἐπλήρωσεν πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν.

Amara observes that the theological reason behind this change reflects rather the interest of the translator in the oneness of God. “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 178. Alternatively, since the translator did not systematically rework the polytheistic passages, we suggest that the rationale of this alteration aimed to downgrade the capabilities of the heathen gods. This conception could have been derived contextually (cf. Dan 7:16, 23; 8:15–19; 9:20–21; og-Sus 44/45). In Christian literature, the chain of revelation also involved angels, as is clearly stated in the opening verse of the book of Revelation: Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 223 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

[…] And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and it struck the whole earth.

[…] And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and it filled the whole earth.

The use of πατάσσω “to strike” in og-Dan 2:35 may reflect the translator’s theological view about the doom of the world. Πατάσσω has been used in the immediate context to translate twice 0‫“ מחא־‬to strike” in reference to the statue (vv. 34–35). Its exceptional employment for 0‫ מלא־‬in v. 35 equates exegetically the doom of the statue with the doom of the world. The translator seemingly attempted to say that the whole earth will be eventually “destroyed” by the big mountain and not “filled in.” The reviser substitutes the literal πληρόω “to fill,” “to fulfil” for the og’s πατάσσω.239 Dan 3:25[92] mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ורוה די רביעיא דמה‬καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ ‫ לבר אלהין׃‬τετάρτου ὁμοίωμα ἀγγέ-

Th […] καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ θεοῦ.

λου θεοῦ. […] and the fourth looks like a divine being.

[…] and the appearance of the fourth is the likeness of a divine angel.

[…] and the appearance of the fourth is like a divine son.

Whereas the king describes in v. 25[92] the mysterious entity with the language‫בר אלהין‬, he identifies it in v. 28[95] as being an “angel.” The translator

239

og-Dan employs once more πατάσσω within the context of v. 44 for 0‫“ דקק־‬to crush,” most likely as an exegetical link to vv. 34–35.

224

chapter 3

has presumably read the former in light of the latter, either to avoid the direct involvement of God Himself to save the youths, or to clear up polytheistic language, e.g., “a son of gods.”240 Dan 6:4[3]241 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ די רוח יתירא בה ]…[ ׃‬καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐν

αὐτῷ […]. […] by virtue of his […] and a holy spirit extraordinary spirit […]. was in him […].

Th […] ὅτι πνεῦμα περισσὸν ἐν αὐτῷ […]. […] because an excellent spirit was in him […].

0‫“ יתיר־‬exceeding” occurs twice in the phrase ‫“ רוח יתירא‬extraordinary spirit,” underscoring the special character of Daniel. Though it is difficult to precisely recover the intent of the translator, his rendering of the phrase with πνεῦμα ἅγιον “holy spirit” invites theological speculation. He had apparently in his mind the comparable phrase ‫ רוח אלהים‬and deemed it improper to depict this ‫ רוח‬as less than “holy.”242 Th-Dan corrects ἅγιος toward the stereotyped and literal equivalent περισσός.243

240

241 242

243

The latter alternative reflects a tradition attested by y. Šabb. 6:9–10, 8b. Here we are told that an angel struck the king on his mouth right after he has uttered the words “… is like a son of the gods” (v. 25[92]). The king retracted and produced the appropriate confession recorded in v. 28[95]. The tractate ends with a reflection based on the latter verse, “It is not written, ‘Who has sent his son,’ but rather, ‘Who has sent his angel.’” See further Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols. (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1910–1938), 4:329 and 6:417. The discussion above further applies to the phrase ‫ רוח יתירא‬in Dan 5:12. The syntagma πνεῦμα ἅγιον appears one more time elsewhere in the Pseudepigrapha evoking a wisdom motif. Depicting the future Davidic king, the composer of Pss Sol 17:37 writes that “he shall not weaken in his days, relying on his God; for God has made him strong in the holy spirit (πνεῦμα ἅγιον) and wise in the counsel of understanding with strength and righteousness.” See ch. 3 B § 6.2 (0‫)יתיר־‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 225

Dan 10:13 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ והנה מיכאל אחד‬καὶ ἰδοὺ [εἷς τῶν ‫ השרים הראשנים בא לעזרני‬ἀρχόντων τῶν πρώτων] ‫ ]…[׃‬εἷς τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων

ἐπῆλθε βοηθῆσαί μοι […].244 […] now Michael, a prince of the first rank, has come to my aid,

[…] Lo, one of the holy angels approached to help me […]

Th […] καὶ ἰδοὺ Μιχαηλ εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν πρώτων ἦλθεν βοηθῆσαί μοι […].

[…] And lo, Michael, one of the chief rulers, came to help me […]

The translator deviated from a literal translation, making clear that the entity referred to by the term ‫“ שר‬prince,” “chief” is not an ordinary man but an angelic celestial being.245 3.3 Different Vorlage The reviser substitutes og-Dan inaccurate equivalents which demonstrably stem from differing variant readings in its Semitic Vorlage. These are renditions that deviate in content from mt and are not the result of limitation in knowledge of the translator or his exegesis. However, we lack evidence whether the reviser was aware about a parallel Semitic text containing such variants or he had at his disposal only his mt-like Vorlage. In any case, having the latter as a reference text, the reviser corrected the og deviations, these being also interpreted as inaccurate translations. Dan 7:6 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ וארבעה ראשין לחיותא‬καὶ τέσσαρες κεφα‫ ושלטן יהיב לה׃‬λαὶ τῷ θηρίῳ, καὶ γλῶσσα

ἐδόθη αὐτῷ. 244 245

Th […] καὶ τέσσαρες κεφαλαὶ τῷ θηρίῳ, καὶ ἐξουσία ἐδόθη αὐτῇ.

For an informed account of this reconstruction, see Munnich, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, 57–58. The same theological input of the og translator is at stake in rendering ‫ שר‬with ἄγγελος in other passages that refer to Michael, i.e., Dan 10:21; 12:1.

226

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] the beast had four heads, and dominion was given to it.

[…] and the beast had four heads, and language was given to it.

[…] and the beast had four heads; and authority was given to it.

The reviser substitutes ἐξουσία for γλῶσσα in Dan 7:6, correcting the disparity toward his mt-like Vorlage. Γλῶσσα renders consistently 0‫“ לשן־‬language” in og-Dan 3:4, 7, 29[96]; 6:26[25]. Considering the probability that ‫ שלטן‬could develop erroneously into ‫לשן‬, i.e., metathesis between ‫ש‬/‫ ל‬and dropping of ‫ט‬, it stands to reason that the og’s divergence could go back to a deviating Semitic Vorlage.246 Dan 8:26 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואתה סתם החזון כי‬καὶ νῦν πεφραγμέ‫ לימים רבים׃‬νον τὸ ὅραμα, ἔτι γὰρ εἰς

[…] Now you keep the vision a secret, for it pertains to far-off days.

Th

ἡμέρας πολλάς.

[…] καὶ σὺ σφράγισον τὴν ὅρασιν, ὅτι εἰς ἡμέρας πολλάς.

[…] And now, the vision is closed, for it is yet for many days.

[…] And as for you, seal up the vision, because it is for many days.

Considering that og-Dan consistently renders ‫“ עתה‬now” with νῦν, it stands to reason that the interchange between the consonants ‫ א‬and ‫ ע‬took place in a Semitic Vorlage rather than in the mind of the translator.247

246

247

For a similar evaluation, see Mongomery, Daniel, 295; Collins, Daniel, 274; and Charles, Daniel, 1929, 166. The latter provides the insightful comment: “this corruption could not be explained on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original.” ‫ עתה‬was rendered with νῦν in Dan 9:15, 17; 10:20; 11:2. In 9:22 and 10:11, og-Dan employs the adverb ἄρτι for ‫עתה‬. In addition, νῦν also translates the Aramaic cognate ‫ כען‬in 2:23; 3:15. Furthermore, the context does not pose difficulties, nor would an intentional change entail exegetical significance. Cf. Pace Jeansonne, The og Translation of Daniel, 72–73.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 227

Dan 9:2a mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ אשר היה דבר יהוה אל‬ὅτε ἐγένετο ‫ ירמיה הנביא ]…[׃‬πρόσταγμα τῇ γῇ88-

Syh/κυρίουpap 967 ἐπὶ Ιερεμιαν τὸν προφήτην […]. […] according to the word of the lord that had come to Jeremiah the prophet, […].

Th […] ὃς ἐγενήθη λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ιερεμιαν τὸν προφήτην […].

[…] when the ordinance […] which became a of the Lord came to the word of the Lord to the prophet Ieremias […]. prophet Ieremias […].

There is no compelling reason to reject the og reading attested by mss 88-Syh; as the original one. Pap 967 is often contaminated with Th’s readings, while mss 88-Syh surprisingly differ from Th-Dan in the case under question, preserving an odd reading. Consequently, applying the criterion lectio difficilior praeferenda would suggest τῇ γῇ of mss 88-Syh as the preferred reading. The likely explanation for τῇ γῇ was put forth by Charles: it reflects an alteration of the purported original reference to God as ‫ אדני‬with ‫אדמה‬.248 The reviser has corrected the odd τῇ γῇ toward mt.249 Dan 9:2b mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ למלאות לחרבות‬ἐγεῖραι εἰς ἀνα‫ ירושלם שבעים שנה׃‬πλήρωσιν ὀνειδισμοῦ

Ιερουσαλημ […].

248

249

Th […] εἰς συμπλήρωσιν ἐρημώσεως Ιερουσαλημ […].

Charles, Daniel, 1929, 225. He points to Dan 1:2 as a comparable case where ‫ אדני‬was rendered by both with κύριος. For a differing explanation that is less likely in our opinion, see Montgomery, who posits that τῇ γῇ is the result of the “survival of the Tetragrammaton carried over, as it once was, into the Gr., in this case the only survival, misunderstood and read as τηγη.” Montgomery, Daniel, 361. See also his brief note “A Survival of the Tetragrammaton in Daniel,” jbl 40 (1921): 86. For the complete picture of the translation of ‫יהוה‬, see further ch. 3 A §1.1.1.1.

228

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] were to be the term of Jerusalem’s desolation—seventy years.

[…] for the fulfillment of the reproach of Ierousalem—seventy years.

[…] for the fulfilling of the desolation of Ierousalem—seventy years.

There are two indications that a change from ‫ חרבות‬to ‫( חרפת‬i.e., interchange between ‫ ב‬and ‫ )פ‬had occurred in the translator’s Vorlage: (1) ὀνειδισμός “disgrace,” “insult” renders consistently ‫“ חרפה‬reproach” in og-Dan 9:16; 11:182X; 12:2; (2) the analogous corruption in Jer 25:9 wherein the reading ‫לחרבות עולם‬ evolved into ‫—לחרפת עולם‬εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν αἰώνιον.250 Dan 9:22 mt

og

‫ ויבן וידבר עמי ויאמר ]…[׃‬καὶ προσῆλθε καὶ ἐλά-

λησε μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ εἶπεν […]. He made me underAnd he came and spoke stand by speaking to me with me and said, […]. and saying […].

Th καὶ συνέτισέν με καὶ ἐλάλησεν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ εἶπεν […]. And he instructed me and spoke with me and said, […].

Προσῆλθε points in og-Dan to a reading ‫ יבא‬instead of ‫ יבן‬and is further supported by the Peshitta. The retroverted Th-Dan reading ‫ יבינני‬agrees partly with mt ‫יבן‬. This reading agrees with the Vulgate. Though it is difficult to determine which stream of textual tradition preserves the original reading, we incline toward the latter based on two considerations:251 (1) in the context, the angel

250

251

The alternative options are to interpret the change as intentional, underscoring the reproach of Jerusalem during the seventy-year period prophesied by Jeremiah or as a mechanical misreading of the source text by the translator. This view goes against Montgomery’s (Daniel, 372), who contends that mt should be emended to follow og-Dan and the Peshitta. Montgomery rightly notes that the discussion

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 229

already reached Daniel in v. 21, making the second coming of the angel at the beginning of v. 22 redundant; (2) Prov 14:15, wherein ‫ בין‬was also translated with ἔρχομαι, could serve as an analogous case showing that the alteration ‫בוא » בין‬ may happen.252 Dan 10:6 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ וקול דבריו כקול המון׃‬καὶ φωνὴ λαλιᾶς

[…] and the sound of his speech was like the noise of a multitude.

Th

αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ φωνὴ θορύβου.

[…] καὶ ἡ φωνὴ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ ὡς φωνὴ ὄχλου.

[…] and the sound of his talking like the sound of a throng.

[…] and the sound of his words like the sound of a crowd.

Λαλιᾶς αὐτοῦ of og may be retroverted as ‫דברו‬, a reading which is found in 4QDanc: ‫וקול דברו כקול המון‬. Th-Dan slightly revises towards mt’s plural form. Dan 10:16 mt

og

‫ והנה כדמות בני אדם נגע על‬καὶ ἰδοὺ ὡς ὁμοίωσις χει‫ שפתי ]…[׃‬ρὸς ἀνθρώπου ἥψατό μου

Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, […].

252

Th

τῶν χειλέων· […].

καὶ ἰδοὺ ὡς ὁμοίωσις υἱοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἥψατο τῶν χειλέων μου· […].

And lo, as it were a likeness of a human hand touched my lips, […].

And lo, as it were a likeness of a son of man touched my lips, […].

on the reading ‫ יבן‬in v. 22 is dependent on the way ‫“ נגע‬to touch,” “to strike” is understood and translated in v. 21. However, considering the free use of equivalents in rendering ‫נגע‬ in both stems qal and hiphil (see ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 [‫)]נגע‬, we maintain that Montgomery’s reliance on og-Dan in this case is methodologically problematic. For an explanation of the difference between Th-Dan, which adds με, and mt, see ch. 4 §2 (Dan 9:22).

230

chapter 3

The og reading χειρὸς … ἥψατό reflects ‫יד … נגעה‬, is supported by 6QpapDan.253 mt’s ‫ בני אדם‬is attested by Codex Leningrad, while ‫ בן אדם‬is found in certain Hebrew mss, Th-Dan, and Vulgate. Th-Dan corrects. Dan 11:17 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ובת הנשים יתן לו‬καὶ θυγατέρα ἀνθρώ‫ להשחיתה ]…[׃‬που δώσει αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ

[…] but in order to destroy it … and give him a daughter in marriage; […].

Th

φθεῖραι αὐτήν […].

[…] καὶ θυγατέρα τῶν γυναικῶν δώσει αὐτῷ τοῦ διαφθεῖραι αὐτήν […].

[…] And in order to corrupt him, he will give him a daughter of man […].

[…] And he will give him a daughter of women in order to destroy her […].

Whereas Th-Dan’s reading γυναικῶν aligns with mt and the Vulgate, the og’s ἀνθρώπου is supported by 4QDanc (‫ )̊א ̊נשים‬and the Peshitta. The latter diverging textual traditions ostensibly stem from the corruption (or interchange?) of ‫ ה‬with ‫א‬. Two aspects suggest that the latter stream of tradition is secondary: (1) the translation of ‫ אנשׁים‬with singular masculine points to the problematic nature of the reading “daughter of men” that the translator attempted to solve; (2) it fails the test of linguistic plausibility, the phrase being attested only in singular constructions such as ‫( בת־אישׁ כנעני‬Gen 38:2) and ‫( ובת אישׁ כהן‬Lev 21:9) or in a plural one like ‫( ובנות אנשׁי העיר‬Gen 24:13). Dan 11:18 mt

og ‫ וישב ]וישם[ פניו לאיים‬καὶ δώσει τὸ πρόσωπον ‫ ]…[׃‬αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν

[…].

253

Th καὶ ἐπιστρέψει τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς νήσους […]

6QpapDan does not preserve the word ‫יד‬. However, considering that it attests the fem. ending for the word ‫נגעה‬, the editor rejected the mt reading ‫ בני אדם‬and reconstructed ‫]כדמות יד אדם נג[עה‬. Baillet, “Daniel,” 115.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 231 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

He will turn to the coastlands […].

And he will give his face And he will turn his to the sea […]. face to the islands […].

og-Dan agrees with ‫( וישם‬Qere) and with some Hebrew mss from the Cairo Genizah. It thus points to a different textual stream than Th-Dan, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta, which follow ‫( וישב‬Ketiv). It is difficult to determine which of the two textual traditions is original.254

4

Word-Order Representation

The reviser noted and further addressed another problem in the base text: the presence of numerous transpositions. Consequently, he systematically reorganized the displaced equivalents to conform the og to mt’s word order. As with stereotyping, quantitative representation, and linguistic accuracy, the reviser’s reason for such an endeavor is his propensity toward literalism. According to their scale, we distinguish below between minor and major transpositions. 4.1 Minor Transpositions A transposition is assessed as minor when the displacement of its equivalents occurs within the immediate context of a verse unit. The system we employ to mark the transpositions across mt, the og, and Th-Dan includes the following set of signs: the transposed word in the og is always bracketed between a reverse division slash (\) and a division slash (/); the expected position of a transposed word in the og is indicated by a reverse division slash in front of the word it should precede or with a division slash (/) after the word it should succeed; the reading under discussion is marked in all texts with the same text color. The first two examples are presented in a detailed fashion, elucidating our notation. 254

The phrase ‫ וישׁב פניו‬in v. 18 is supported internally by v. 19. Both the og and Th-Dan render it in v. 19 with καὶ ἐπιστρέψει τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ. On the other hand, the phrase ‫וישׁב‬ ‫ פניו‬is supported internally by v. 17, wherein was translated in the og with καὶ δώσει τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ while in Th with καὶ τάξει τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ. Consequently, it is difficult to determine precisely whether Ketiv or Qere reading was in v. 18 harmonized secondarily.

232

chapter 3

Dan 1:1 mt

og

Th

‫\ בשנת שלוש למלכות‬Ἐπὶ βασιλέως \τῆς Ιου‫ יהויקים מלך יהודה בא‬δαίας \Ιωακιμ/ \ἔτους ‫ נבוכדנאצר ]…[׃‬τρίτου/ παραγενόμενος

Ναβουχοδονοσορ […].

Ἐν ἔτει τρίτῳ τῆς βασιλείας Ιωακιμ βασιλέως Ιουδα ἦλθεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ […].

Starting with the very first verse of the book, the og transposes twice: (1) the dating year \ἔτους τρίτου/255 is displaced from its position before \Ἐπὶ and placed after Ιωακιμ;256 (2) \Ιωακιμ/ is transposed from before to after \τῆς Ιουδαίας. The reviser thus reconfigures the base text to conform to the mt word order. Dan 1:3 mt

og

Th

‫ ]…[ ]…[ להביא מבני ישראל‬ἀγαγεῖν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν ‫ ומזרע המלוכה ]…[׃‬υἱῶν τῶν μεγιστάνων τοῦ

Ισραηλ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ/ \βασιλικοῦ \γένους/ […].

255 256

[…] εἰσαγαγεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας Ισραηλ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς βασιλείας […].

See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.3 (‫)שׁנה‬. The dating formula ‫שׁנה‬/0‫־‬1‫ שׁנה־‬followed by a numeral (cardinal or ordinal) occurs nine times in Daniel 1–12 and was rendered in the Greek versions as follows:

og

Th

[Style 1] ἔτος “year” + num. (Dan 1:1; 7:1; 8:1; 9:1) [Style 2] ἐνιαυτός “year,” “period” + num. (Dan 10:1; 11:1) [Style 3] num. + ἔτος “year” (Dan 1:21; 2:1; 9:2)

[Style 1] ἔτος “year” + Numeral (Dan 1:1, 21; 2:1; 7:1; 8:1; 10:1; 11:1) [Style 2] Numeral + ἔτος “year” (Dan 9:1) Th-Dan=0: Dan 9:2

As the data of the chart indicate, Th-Dan revises the variation in both the word order and in the equivalent’s selection. The exceptional reading in Dan 9:1 clearly indicates the

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 233

The rendition \γένους/ was displaced in the og from between καὶ ἐκ τοῦ/ and \βασιλικοῦ. Dan 2:37 mt

og

‫ אנתה מלכא מלך מלכיא די‬σύ, βασιλεῦ βασιλεὺς ‫ אלה שמיא מלכותא חסנא‬βασιλέων, καὶ \σοὶ ἔδω‫ ותקפא ויקרא יהב לך׃‬κεν/ ὁ κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ ἰσχὺν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν/,

Th σύ, βασιλεῦ βασιλεὺς βασιλέων, ᾧ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ βασιλείαν ἰσχυρὰν καὶ κραταιὰν καὶ ἔντιμον ἔδωκεν,

Pap 967 preserves the presumed original og sequence257 deviating from mt which was apparently revised in ms 88 and Syh toward mt. Dan 2:46 mt ‫באדין מלכא נבוכדנצר נפל‬ ‫על אנפוהי ולדניאל סגד‬ ‫ומנחה וניחחין אמר לנסכה‬ ‫לה׃‬

257

og

Th

τότε \Ναβουχοδονοσορ/ ὁ βασιλεὺς/ πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον χαμαὶ \προσεκύνησε/ τῷ Δανιηλ/ καὶ \ἐπέταξε/ θυσίας καὶ σπονδὰς/ ἐπιτελέσαι αὐτῷ.

τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον καὶ τῷ Δανιηλ προσεκύνησεν καὶ μαναα καὶ εὐωδίας εἶπεν σπεῖσαι αὐτῷ.

reliance of the reviser on the og. Consequently, the shared reading functions as a significant agreement. Cf. Munnich’s edition.

234

chapter 3

Dan 3:16 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ נבוכדנצר לא חשחין‬Ναβουχοδονοσορ ‫ אנחנה על דנה פתגם‬Βασιλεῦ, οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν ‫\ להתבותך׃‬ἀποκριθῆναί σοι/ ἐπὶ τῇ

ἐπιταγῇ ταύτῃ/·

Th […] Ναβουχοδονοσορ Οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν ἡμεῖς περὶ τοῦ ῥήματος τούτου ἀποκριθῆναί σοι·

Th-Dan revises a transposition in one instance (i.e., ἀποκριθῆναί σοι) but retains the og’s word order (substantive, adjective) for ‫( דנה פתגם‬adjective, substantive). Dan 3:18 mt

og

‫ והן לא ידיע להוא לך ]…[׃‬καὶ τότε φανερόν \σοι

Th

\ἔσται/, […]

καὶ ἐὰν μή, γνωστὸν ἔστω σοι, […].

og

Th

Dan 3:30[97] mt

‫ באדין מלכא הצלח לשדרך‬οὕτως οὖν ὁ βασιλεὺς \τῷ ‫ מישך ועבד נגו במדינת‬Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδε‫ בבל׃‬ναγω \ἐξουσίαν δοὺς/ ἐφ᾽

ὅλης τῆς χώρας αὐτοῦ […].

ότε ὁ βασιλεὺς κατεύθυνεν τὸν Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ Βαβυλῶνος […].

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 235

Dan 4:2[5] mt

og

‫ חלם חזית וידחלנני והרהרין‬ἐνύπνιον εἶδον καὶ εὐλα‫ על משכבי וחזוי ראשי‬βήθην, καὶ φόβος μοι/ ‫ יבהלנני׃‬ἐπέπεσεν \ἐπὶ τῆς κοίτης

μου/.

Th ἐνύπνιον εἶδον, καὶ ἐφοβέρισέν με, καὶ ἐταράχθην ἐπὶ τῆς κοίτης μου, καὶ αἱ ὁράσεις τῆς κεφαλῆς μου συνετάραξάν με.

Dan 4:9[12] mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ובענפוהי ידרון צפרי‬καὶ \τὰ πετεινὰ ‫ שמיא ]…[׃‬τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ

\ἐνόσσευον/ τὰς νοσσιὰς ἑαυτῶν· […].

Th […] καὶ ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ κατῴκουν τὰ ὄρνεα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, […].

Dan 5:7 mt

og ‫ קרא מלכא בחיל ]…[׃‬καὶ \ὁ βασιλεὺς \ἐφώ-

Th

νησε/ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ […].

καὶ ἐβόησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ἰσχύι […].

og

Th

[…] Ὦ Δανιηλ, δύνῃ μοι/ \ὑποδεῖξαι/ τὸ σύγκριμα/ \τῆς γραφῆς/; καὶ \στολιῶ σε/ πορφύραν/ καὶ μανιάκην χρυσοῦν περιθήσω σοι, καὶ \ἕξεις ἐξουσίαν/ τοῦ τρίτου

[…] νῦν οὖν ἐὰν δυνηθῇς τὴν γραφὴν ἀναγνῶναι καὶ τὴν σύγκρισιν αὐτῆς γνωρίσαι μοι, πορφύραν ἐνδύσῃ, καὶ ὁ μανιάκης ὁ χρυσοῦς ἔσται ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλόν σου, καὶ τρί-

Dan 5:16 mt ‫]…[ כען הן תוכל כתבא‬ ‫למקרא ופשרה להודעתני‬ ‫ארגונא תלבש והמונכא די‬ ‫דהבא על צוארך ותלתא‬ ‫במלכותא תשלט׃‬

236

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

μέρους τῆς βασιλείας μου/.

τος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου ἄρξεις.

og

Th

Dan 6:7[6] mt

‫ אדין סרכיא ואחשדרפניא‬τότε \προσήλθοσαν/ οἱ ‫ אלן הרגשו על מלכא ]…[׃‬ἄνθρωποι ἐκεῖνοι/ […].

ότε οἱ τακτικοὶ καὶ οἱ σατράπαι παρέστησαν τῷ […].

Dan 7:14 mt

og

‫ ולה יהיב שלטן ויקר ומלכו‬καὶ \ἐδόθη/ αὐτῷ/ ἐξου‫ וכל עממיא אמיא ולשניא לה‬σία \βασιλική, καὶ πάντα ‫ יפלחון ]…[׃‬τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ

γένη \καὶ πᾶσα δόξα/ αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· […].

Th καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσιν· […].

It is likely that the translator first accidentally omitted ‫ ויקר‬in the phrase ‫שלטן‬ ‫ויקר ומלכו‬, leading him to interpret the first and last word in the string as ἐξουσία βασιλική “royal authority.”258 However, catching his mistake, he translated the word, its equivalent δόξα being now “misplaced” and adapted to the secondary context. These mishaps gave rise to the transposition.259 258

259

The reading quoted above reflects pap 967 and, hence, suggests a different alignment from catss and that implied by hrcs. This view also differs from that of Collins (Daniel, 275), who seemingly emends the mt, excluding ‫ ויקר‬as secondary. The asterisked reading καὶ τιμὴ βασιλική of ms 88 and Syh indicates that the transposed δόξα was perceived by Origen as minus and filled in based on Th. The assumption of Montgomery (Daniel, 305) that καὶ πᾶσα δόξα represents “a misplaced gloss,” is untenable. Our view is further corroborated by the fact that 0‫“ יקר־‬honor” was rendered with δόξα

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 237

4.2 Major Transpositions A transposition is assessed as major when the displacement regards a long segment of text and occurs outside the bounds of a single verse. mt-Dan 3:31–33/og-Dan 4:37c/Th-Dan 3:98–100 mt

og

Th

‫( נבוכדנצר מלכא לכל‬3:31) ‫עממיא אמיא ולשניא די‬ ‫דארין בכל ארעא שלמכון‬ ‫( אתיא ותמהיא‬32) ‫ישגא׃‬ ‫די עבד עמי אלהא עליא‬ (33) ‫שפר קדמי להחויה׃‬ ‫אתוהי כמה רברבין ותמהוהי‬ ‫כמה תקיפין מלכותה מלכות‬ ‫עלם ושלטנה עם דר ודר׃‬

(4:34c) Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεὺς πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι καὶ πάσαις ταῖς χώραις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς οἰκοῦσιν ἐν αὐταῖς· εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ. καὶ νῦν ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τὰς πράξεις, ἃς ἐποίησε μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας· ἔδοξε δέ μοι ἀποδεῖξαι ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς σοφισταῖς ὑμῶν ὅτι εἷ ἔστιν ὁ θεός, καὶ τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ μεγάλα, τὸ βασίλειον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ γενεῶν εἰς γενεάς. καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἐπιστολὰς περὶ πάντων τῶν γενηθέντων αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι τοῖς οὖσιν ὑπὸ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ.

(3:98) Ναβουχοδονοσορ ὁ βασιλεὺς πᾶσι τοῖς λαοῖς, φυλαῖς καὶ γλώσσαις τοῖς οἰκοῦσιν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη· (99) τὰ σημεῖα καὶ τὰ τέρατα, ἃ ἐποίησεν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος, ἤρεσεν ἐναντίον ἐμοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν (100) ὡς μεγάλα καὶ ἰσχυρά· ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ βασιλεία αἰώνιος, καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν.

The doxological verses at the beginning of Daniel 4 mt were secondarily260 transposed in the og to the end of the story (v. 34[37c] og). Considering that vv. 98–100 in Th-Dan closely resemble v. 34c in the og, the possibility exists that

260

in 2:37, while the free equivalent for the phrase ‫ ויקר שגיא‬in 2:6 is δοξάζω “to glorify,” “to extol.” For literature and a recent discussion which gives the grounds for treating the transposition secondarily, see Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 119.

238

chapter 3

the reviser’s base text included this major transposition, which he corrected toward his mt-like Vorlage. There are two other major transpositions which possibly were in the base text of the reviser. The first regards a long string of words transposed from ogDan 9:25 into v. 27 of the same chapter. The second is recorded in the earliest og manuscript—pap 967—wherein Daniel 7–8 are positioned before Daniel 5. Although the precise reason for these differences is still being discussed, Th-Dan has demonstrably reversed the arrangement of both transpositions to align with mt.

5

Transliterations261

Transliteration constitutes presumably the apex of literalness. The reviser found the technique aptly used in og-Dan and, probably, it was previously known to him from other sections of the lxx. The technique involves a sort of “a translational embarrassment,”262 “a counsel of despair,”263 exposing the translator’s “ignorance or doubt” in understanding the source text.264 However, this “embarrassment” represents only one side of the coin, the other being the translator’s high esteem for his Vorlage, which he does not alter.265 The case of ‫—מנחה‬μαναα, being a technical term, is probably different. In the context of a translation-revision theory, Rabin’s comment about transliteration is of significance: “The interesting feature is that the revisors of the lxx, who were apparently so much closer to the headwaters of Palestinian tradition, did not eliminate this feature, but on the contrary increased its quantity.”266 The analysis of the transliterated words in the Greek versions of Daniel confirms this observation: Th-Dan adopts og’s transliterations in every single

261

262

263 264 265 266

The relevant studies that have tackled the issue of the transliterated words in the Greek versions of Daniel—to a lesser or greater extent—are chronologically those of Schmitt, Stammt der sogennante “θ”–Text, 56–59; Tov, “Transliterations of Hebrew Words,” 78–92; McCrystall, “Studies in the Old Greek,” 72–76; and McLay, og and Th Versions, 236–238. Cf. Martin Flashar’s terminology “Verlegenheitsübersetzung” employed in discussing Ps 7:14 (“Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter,” zaw 32 (1912): 81–116 [94]). See further, Chaim Rabin, “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint,” Text 6 (1968): 1–26 (24–25). Tov, “Transliterations of Hebrew Words,” 83. Swete, Introduction, 324. In this respect, Swete notes: “To the same spirit of loyalty may be ascribed in part the disposition to transliterate words which present unusual difficulty.” Ibid., 324. Rabin, “Translation Process,” 24.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 239

instance,267 and further adds cases when og is perceived as not being precise enough or as contextually guessing. We proceed to substantiate the latter tendency by discussing the relevant examples. ‫( פרתמים‬noble)

og

Th

ἐπίλεκτος chosen, picked (Dan 1:3)

φορθομμιν [transliteration] (Dan 1:3)

‫ פרתמים‬constitutes a Persian loanword, i.e. prtwm, deriving its meaning form the Old Iranian fratama “first.”268 Its precise meaning was obscure for the og translator, who probably arrived at the equivalent ἐπίλεκτος by presupposing the virtual reading ‫ מבחרים‬or ‫)מ(חמדים‬.269 Considering that ‫ פרתמים‬was contextually rendered with ἔνδοξος “honored” in Esth 1:3; 6:9, ἐπίλεκτος could similarly constitute a contextual guess in og-Dan. The reviser sensed the imprecision of the og equivalent and made recourse to the extreme technique of transliteration to deal with the difficult source text. ‫( מלצר‬guard)

og

Th

Αβιεσδρι Ashbenaz (Dan 1:11, 16)

Αμελσαδ [transliteration] (Dan 1:11, 16)

The linguistic knowledge of both the og translator and Th-Dan reviser was challenged by the Akkadian loanword ‫( מלצר‬i.e. maṣṣāru < manṣāru “guard”).270 To circumvent the problem, og-Dan interpreted ‫ מלצר‬in vv. 11, 16 as being one and the same person as the chief officer of v. 3 (identified as ‫)אשפנז‬. Indeed,

267 268 269

270

See the studies cited above at n. 261. halot, s.v. “‫ ;”ַפּ ְרְתִּמים‬Driver, Daniel, 6; Mongomery, Daniel, 21, 125. Our inference is based on two factors: (1) the use of ἐπίλεκτος in lxx, which occurs other sixteen times and renders mainly ‫( מבחר‬Exod 15:4; Ezek 23:7; 24:5; Joel 4:5); ‫( חמד‬Ezek 23:12, 23); and ‫( מחמד‬Joel 4:5); (2) the plausibility of interchanges of similar letters, which frequently happens in cases of etymological exegesis. halot, s.v. “‫ֶמְלָצר‬, ‫ֶמְלַצר‬.”

240

chapter 3

og levels ‫ אשפנז‬and ‫ מלצר‬with Αβιεσδρι in vv. 3, 11, and 16. The reviser was presumably dissatisfied by the exegetical touch in the og and maintained the distinction between ‫ אשפנז‬and ‫מלצר‬. The former was more precisely transliterated as Ασφανεζ. In order to circumvent the lexical problem, the latter Semitic word was unexpectedly transliterated as well. The reviser’s recourse to transliteration informs us about his working principle—it is preferable to use transliteration to “freeze” the source text in the target language and not to turn to guesses.271 0‫( מנחה־‬offering) og

Th

θυσία (θύω) sacrifice (Dan 2:46)

μαναα [transliteration] (Dan 2:46)

The cultic actions commended by Nebuchadnezzar to thank Daniel for interpreting the dream in ch. 2 have puzzled both Jewish and Christian interpreters.272 The first attempt to solve the exegetical problem seemingly appears in Th-Dan, with the transliteration of 0‫ מנחה־‬as μαναα, and not with the use of δῶρα in Aquila or Symmachus as it is often suggested.273 Considering that the reviser understood the term, as can be deduced from translation of the cog-

271

272

273

The goal of the og’s strategy of equating ‫ מלצר‬with ‫ אשפנז‬was explained by Segal as to solve an interpretative tension within Daniel 1 (especially v. 9). Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 19–22. Amara has seen the tension as theological in nature. Dalia Amara, “Theological Corrections in the Various Versions of the Book of Daniel,” Beer-Sheva 18 (2005): 61–76 (70–73). Our suggestion emphasizes the linguistic nature of the issues involved that has ultimately led to the textual leveling between ‫ מלצר‬and ‫אשפנז‬. The ancient exegetes either denied that Daniel accepted the cultic actions or explained that the king, by his actions, in fact worshiped the God of Daniel. See Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 4:328 and 6:415; Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 33. Modern interpreters mainly followed the latter approach, e.g., André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, trans. David Pellauer (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979), 53–54; Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 150–151; Godingay, Daniel, 52; Collins, Daniel, 171–172. While Montgomery (Daniel, 181–182) notices that the equivalent δῶρα of both Aquila and Symmachus is an “evasion” from rendering the technical use of 0‫מנחה־‬, he fails to observe that the transliteration maneuver of Th-Dan is of the same kind. Lacocque (Daniel, 53) maintains the same judgment about the employment of δωρα in Aquila and Symmachus. However, this suggestion is mitigated by the fact that Aquila employs δωρον as the main equivalent for ‫ מנחה‬throughout his recension (as well as in Dan 9:27). Joseph Reider and Nigel Turner, An Index to Aquila, VTSup 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 63.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 241

nate ‫ מנחה‬in Dan 9:21, 27,274 it stands to reason that its deliberate transcription in Dan 2:46 involves exegetical reasons. According to the modern lexica, ‫ מנחה‬has the basic meaning of “gift,” and appears in both non-sacral and cultic contexts.275 In the former, it is offered “as an expression of respect, thanksgiving, homage, friendship, dependence,” whereas in the latter, it refers to food offerings to God. The exegetical technique of transliterating ‫ מנחה‬with μαναα when it occurs in non-sacral contexts is reflected in Thackeray’s βδ section of Kingdoms, cf. 2 Kgs 8:8–9; 2 Kgs 17:3–4; 20:12.276 The same exegetical procedure is at work in Dan 2:46 with the purpose of exonerating Daniel from receiving liturgical sacrifices, i.e., θυσία (og).277 0‫( עיר־‬watcher) og

Th

+ 0‫—קדישׁ־‬ἄγγελος messenger, angel (Dan 4:10[13], 20[23]) og=0: Dan 4:14[17]

ιρ [transliteration] (Dan 4:10[13], 14[17], 20[23])

The translators presumably failed to recognize either the root √‫“ עור‬to raise oneself,” “to awake”278 or the word ‫“ ציר‬emissary,” “messenger”279 behind the hapax 0‫עיר־‬. If they had, the insurmountable problem would have been to find a place for the new celestial beings within the accepted cosmogony of the time.

274 275 276

277

278 279

Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 62 (No. 33). halot, s.v “‫ ;”ִמ ְנָחה‬bdb, s.v. “‫ ;”ִמ ְנָחה‬dch 5, s.v. “‫ִמ ְנָחה‬.” ‫ מנחה‬appears over 200 times in mt and θυσία constitutes its main equivalent (followed then by δῶρον which is the preferred equivalent for non-cultic contexts). Besides the instances listed above, μαναα transliterates ‫ מנחה‬on another twelve occasions, denoting food sacrifice, cf. 2 Chr 7:7; Neh 13:9; Jer 17:26; 41[48]:5; Ezek 45:25; 46:5, 7, 11, 142X, 15, 20. Apparently, the equivalent, which originated for linguistic and exegetical reasons, has further penetrated the stock of lxx legitimate lexical choices. The presence of the same exegetical technique in both Th-Dan and Thackeray’s βδ section shows a sort of dependence, though it is difficult to ascertain who influenced whom. Alternatively, it could also indicate the hand of the same reviser/translator (Thackeray’s proposal, see ch. 1 § 1.2.3.1) or an independent transliteration (Tov, “Transliterations,” 79; and probably Schmitt, Stammt der sogennante “θ”–Text, 34). The lexica suggest a Hebrew cognate for 0‫עיר־‬, i.e., the proper noun ‫“ ער‬watchful,” the oldest son of Judah. halot, s.vv. “‫ ֵﬠר‬ii,” “‫ ;”ִﬠיר‬bdb, s.v. “‫ִﬠיר‬.” This etymology was proposed by Murray who built upon a suggestion by Mitchell Dahood. Robert Murray, “The Origin of Aramaic ʿîr, Angel,” Or 53 (1984): 303–317.

242

chapter 3

By applying contextual exegesis, the og translator inferred that the new category is one and the same with angels. His exegesis is likely influenced by the epexegetic use of 0‫ קדישׁ־‬in the phrase ‫ עיר וקדישׁ‬in vv. 10[13], 20[23].280 This suggestion is supported by other examples of the equivalency ‫–קדושׁ‬ἄγγελος, i.e., Job 5:1; 36:14 and the employment of the adj. ‫ קדושׁ‬in Dan 8:13 with reference to the angels. By means of transliteration, the reviser corrected the og toward mt, leaving readers to deal with and untangle the mystery surrounding 0‫עיר־‬.281 ‫( אבל‬canal, watercourse)

og

Th

πύλη gate, door (Dan 8:2–3, 6)

Ουβαλ [transliteration] (Dan 8:2–3, 6)

‫ אבל‬seemingly constitutes a phonetic variation of ‫“ יובל‬stream,” cf. Jer 17:8 (and probably similar to ‫ ָיָבל‬as attested in Isa 30:25; 44:4).282 In rendering the peculiar word, the og translator has interpreted it etymologically, in light of (the Aramaic) ‫“ אבול‬gate.”283 This maneuver has further affected the representation of the prep. ‫ על‬in v. 2 where we find πρός instead of the expected ἐπί, probably to avoid the odd reading “on the gate.” The interpretation is further reflected in the Vulgate (i.e., super portam), and the Peshitta (both with the revised prep. “on” in v. 2). The reviser deemed it better to transliterate than to make a contextual guess.284

280 281

282 283

284

In v. 14[17], it occurs in pl. in parallel lines: ‫ בגזרת עירין פתגמא‬/ ‫“ ומאמר קדישׁין שׁאלתא‬this sentence is decreed by the Watchers / this verdict is commanded by the Holy Ones.” The term played an important part in later apocryphal compositions, such as the “Book of the Watchers” (1 Enoch 1–36); Jubilees 4:22; 7:21; 10:15; Testament of Reuben 5:6–7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 1QApGen; etc. See Collins, Daniel, 224–226; Klaus Koch, Daniel, bkat 22/6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), 421–422; Montgomery, Daniel, 231–232, 234. Montgomery, Daniel, 327–328; Charles, Daniel, 1929, 198–199; and Leroy Waterman, “A Note on Daniel 8:2,” jbl 66.3 (1947): 319–320 (319). According to Hartman and Di Lella (Daniel, 224), ‫ אבול‬represents a foreign importation from the Akkadian abullu “city gate,” and is attested in Mishnaic Hebrew, Targumic Aramaic, and Syriac. The presence of the prep. ἐπί before Ουβαλ lowers the probability that the reviser understood the term as a proper noun (contra McLay, og and Th Versions, 237). It also counters the proposal that ‫“ אבול‬gate” was the original reading which, by the scribal misplacement of ‫ו‬, had developed into ‫( אובל‬v. 2). Charles, Daniel, 1929, 199; Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel,

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 243

1‫( צבי־‬beauty) og

Th

[1] βορρᾶς north (Dan 8:9) [2] θέλησις will, desire; prayer (Dan 11:16, 45) [3] og=0: Dan 11:41285

[1] δύναμις power, strength, capability; authority; (military) force (Dan 8:9) [2] σαβι [transliteration] (Dan 11:16, 41, 45)

The study of the translation technique applied in rendering the problematic 1‫ צבי־‬in lxx convincingly suggests a sort of guesswork “tradition” underlies it. To avoid embarrassment, the translators had recourse to extreme maneuvers such as (1) etymological exegesis;286 (2) contextual guess;287 (3) paraphrase;288 (4) different word division;289 and (5) translation omission.290 The same “tra-

285

286 287

288

289

290

224. However, the explanation is construed assuming the plene spelling of the word in v. 2 and ignoring its defective writing in vv. 3, 6. Furthermore, the transliteration of ‫ אולי‬in og with Ωλαμ in vv. 2, 16 (cf. pap 967) presupposes that the Hebrew was understood as ‫אולם‬ “portico” by the translator (McCristall, “Studies in the Old Greek,” 75–76). Consequently, the peculiar rendering τῇ πύλῃ Ωλαμ arrived at by etymological exegesis has little to commend it for establishing the original reading, except confirming the mt. For a linguistic refutation of the explanation above, see Waterman, “Note on Daniel 8:2,” 319–320. We follow the reconstructed text by Munnich which discards the reading καὶ ἐπελεύσεται εἰς τὴν χώραν μου (cf. Rahlfs) as being a secondary (Hexaplaric?) addition in ms 88 and Syh in light of mt. Though other studies follow Rahlfs’s reconstruction (e.g., McLay’s; Schmitt’s), the picture does not change much. The deduction that can be made based on the latter reading is that the og translator has omitted a rendering for 1‫ְצִבי־‬, perhaps on purpose. The presupposed roots were ‫“ יצב‬to set up” (2 Sam 1:19); ‫“ צבה‬to wish for” [Aramaic] (Isa 4:2; 24:16; 28:4–5); and 1‫“ צוף־‬honeycomb” (Ezek 20:6, 15). E.g., 1‫ צבי־‬was probably rendered with θεός “God” Jer 3:19 under the influence of the word ‫צבאות‬, i.e ‫—צבי צבאות‬θεοῦ παντοκράτορος. 1‫ צבי־‬was further contextally rendered with ἐκλεκτός “elect,” “chosen” (Ezek 7:20; 25:9); and ἔνδοξος “honored,” “glorious” (Isa 23:9). Isa 13:19 reads: ‫“ והיתה בבל צבי ממלכות תפארת גאון כשדים‬And Babylon, glory of kingdoms, Proud splendor of the Chaldeans, (…)”; καὶ ἔσται Βαβυλών, ἣ καλεῖται ἔνδοξος ὑπὸ βασιλέως Χαλδαίων (…) “And Babylon, which is called glorious by the king of the Chaldeans (…).” The wording ‫ תפארת גאון‬was left untranslated, suggesting that 1‫ ְצִבי־‬was translated under its influence. The use of ἀνίστημι “to raise up” in Ezek 26:20 reflects a different word division: ‫—ונתתי צבי‬ ἀνασταθῇς (= ‫)ותתיצבי‬. However, it is difficult to precisely determine whether the reading reflects a virtual or actual Vorlage. Considering the problematic nature of 1‫צבי־‬, we opt for the former alternative. Isa 28:1.

244

chapter 3

dition” is visible in Daniel. Both the og and Th-Dan apply in 8:9 contextual, etymological derivation. The former derived βορρᾶς from ‫צפון‬, influenced by the immediate context wherein the points of direction are listed: ‫ותגדל יתר‬ ‫אל הנגב ואל המזרח ואל הצבי‬.291 The latter read 1‫ צבי־‬as ‫צבא‬, most likely based on the succeeding clause ‫ ותגדל עד צבא השׁמים‬of v. 10. However, the reviser desisted from his guesswork in Daniel 11, probably realizing the fallacy of applying the same procedure in the phrases ‫( בארץ הצבי‬vv. 16, 41) and ‫להר‬ ‫( צבי קדשׁ‬v. 45). In contrast, the og translator applied etymological derivation once more, presupposing the Aramaic root ‫“ צבה‬to wish for,” cf. Dan 4:14[17]; 7:19. ‫( מעוז‬strength, stronghold)

og

Th

[1] ἐνισχύω to strengthen (Dan 11:1) [2] ἰσχύς strength, might (Dan 11:7) [3] πολύς much, many; (adv) more (Dan 11:10) [4] κατισχύω to overcome, strengthen (Dan 11:19) [5] φόβος fear, terror; reverence (Dan 11:31)

[1] ἰσχύς strength, might (Dan 11:1) [2] ὑποστήριγμα support (Dan 11:7) [3] ἰσχύς strength, might (Dan 11:10, 19) [4] δυναστεία power, sovereignty; dynasty (Dan 11:31) [5] μαωζιν [transliteration] (Dan 11:38) [6] καταφυγή refuge (Dan 11:39)

[6] ἰσχυρός strong, mighty (Dan 11:38, 39)

The lexica define ‫ מעוז‬as a by-form from √‫עוז‬,292 designating “a place or means of safety, protection.”293 It appears that both the og and Th-Dan struggled to determine its etymology, presupposing instead √‫“ עזז‬to be strong.” This view is corroborated by the variegated, contextual equivalents, derived mainly from

291 292 293

Another alternative is to assume harmonization with v. 4 of the same chapter: ‫ראיתי את‬ ‫האיל מנגח ימה וצפונה ונגבה‬. Carl Schultz, “‫עוז‬,” twot 2:652. bdb, s.v. “‫ָמעוֹז‬,” distinguishes between the literal sense, i.e., “place of safety,” and the figurative one in reference to either God, i.e., “refuge,” or humans, i.e., “protection.” Similarly, halot, s.v. “‫ָמעוֹז‬,” defines the word as “mountain stronghold,” “place of refuge.”

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 245

ἰσχύς in both og-Dan294 and Th-Dan.295 The reviser’s doubt regarding its meaning is evident in Dan 11:38 where, probably considering the presence of God’s name in the phrase ‫ולאלה מעזים‬, he transliterated ‫ מעוז‬as a precaution so that he would not misrepresent something about God, e.g., a quality, a name, title, etc.296 ‫( אפדן‬palace)

og

Th

τότε then (Dan 11:45)

εφαδανω [transliteration] (Dan 11:45)

The hapax ‫ אפדן‬is a loanword from Old Persian apadāna. It has probably penetrated the Hebrew via Neo-Babylonian appadānu and then passed into Jewish Aramaic of Babylonian tradition.297 The og translator seemingly applied etymological exegesis, presupposing the Aramaic adv. ‫אדין‬, cf. Dan 2:15, 17, 192X, 25, 48; 3:24[91]; 5:9; etc. Respectful of the original reading ‫אפדנו‬, the reviser transliterated it, contextually determining that it may designate a geographical location.298

294

295

296

297 298

‫ מעוז‬appears six other times in Daniel 11. In v. 1, the translator employed ἐνισχύω “to strengthen,” probably reading it as a causative verb derived from √‫עזז‬. He also read it as a verb in v. 11, cf. κατισχύω “to overcome,” “to strengthen.” The same derivation is visible in other two instances where he uses the noun ἰσχύς “strength,” “might” (v. 7) and the adj. ἰσχυρός “strong,” “mighty” (v. 39). The equivalent πολύς “much,” “many” reflects a different contextual, etymology, i.e., ‫מעוד‬. Lastly, the use of φόβος “fear,” “terror,” “reverence” constitutes a dynamic rendition within the phrase ‫—המקדש מעזים‬τὸ ἅγιον τοῦ φόβου (v. 31). Th-Dan has employed the noun ἰσχύς three times (vv. 1, 10, 19). Both ὑποστήριγμα “support” (v. 7) and δυναστεία “power,” “sovereignty” (v. 31) represent contextual renditions, presupposing together with ἰσχύς the etymological derivation from √‫עזז‬. The rendition καταφυγή “refuge” in v. 39 renders accurately ‫מעוז‬. However, a better guess was afforded by the presence of the word 1‫“ מבצר־‬fortress” in the phrase ‫—למבצרי מעזים‬τοῖς ὀχυρώμασιν τῶν καταφυγῶν. The practice of transliterating ‫ מעוז‬is further attested in Jud 6:26, apparently also as a translation of embarrassment. The lxx-Jud has a double reading in this verse, the transliteration representing most likely the original one: ‫—על ראש המעוז הזה‬ἐπὶ τῆς κορυφῆς τοῦ ὄρους Μαωζ τούτου. halot, s.v. “‫ ;”ַאֶפּ ֶדן‬Montgomery, Daniel, 21; Charles, Daniel, 1929, 322. The nature of the clause ‫( ויטע אהלי אפדנו בין ימים להר צבי קדש‬v. 45a) invited locative conjectures of the reviser regarding ‫אפדן‬. He interpreted the highlighted phrase as an

246

chapter 3

3‫( בד־‬linen [?]) og

Th

βύσσινος made of fine linen (Dan 10:5; 12:6–7)

βαδδιν [transliteration] (Dan 10:5; 12:6–7)

The transliteration of 3‫ בד־‬is seemingly another way of saying “unknown,” “doubtful etymology,” much like its assessment in the modern lexica.299 The lxx attests two streams of traditions in understanding 3‫בד־‬. The first understands the word as referring to the material of the clothes, i.e., λινοῦς “linen,” “made of linen,” and reflects the translational tradition in the books of Pentateuch.300 The second stream interprets 3‫ בד־‬as a type of clothing, i.e., ποδήρης “foot-length (robe);” στολή “clothing,” “robe,”301 and originates with lxx-Ezek. Of course, there are also mistranslations of the problematic term.302 In tackling the problematic word, the reviser’s technique reveals a candid approach, which was followed by the Old Latin.303 This way of translating perhaps also indicates caution in selecting terms to describe the heavenly being of Dan 10:5–6.

299 300 301

302

303

apposition, specifying the placement of the alleged location ‫אפדן‬. However, when doing so, he followed the og translator in interpreting the construct form ‫ אהלי‬as a noun with a 3rd masc. suff.: ‫“ אהלו‬his tent,” i.e., interchange of ‫י‬/‫( ו‬cf. also the Peshitta and Vulgate). Furthermore, Aquila and the Vulgate follow Th’s exegesis of ‫ אפדן‬as a proper noun of place. halot, s.v. “‫ ַבּד‬iii”; bdb, s.v. “‫ַבּד‬, ‫ ;”ָבּד‬Louis Goldberg, “‫ַבּד‬,” twot 1:90. Exod 28:42; Lev 6:32X; 16:44X, 23, 32. lxx=0: Exod 39:28. Ποδήρης translates 3‫ בד־‬in Ezek 9:2–3, 11, while στολή renders it in Ezek 10:2, 6–7. The reason for the change of equivalents in these chapters is unclear, considering they translate the same word that describes the outfit of the same celestial being. In 1 Sam 2:18 it is difficult to precisely ascertain whether the transliteration βαρ attests a variant reading, i.e., ‫—בר‬interchange ‫ד‬/‫ר‬, or was erroneously transliterated into Greek. In either case, it appears that the meaning of the term was obscured. It seems probable that the omission of 3‫ בד־‬in 1 Sam 22:18 constitutes a further translational maneuver instead of guessing. The translator had recourse to etymological exegesis in 2Sam 6:14, deriving its equivalent from √‫ברר‬, cf. ἔξαλλος “special,” “distinguishing.” Montgomery, Daniel, 409. The attestation of βαδδιν only in the Theodotionic materials of Ezek 9:2, 11; 10:2 led Schmitt (Stammt der sogennante “θ”–Text, 58–59) to allow for a point of contact between Th-Dan and the readings attributed to Theodotion elsewhere. However, he explains that this is because Th-Dan was subjected to further revision by the historical Theodotion. See further McLay, og and Th Versions, 238.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 247

B

Recensional Techniques

Section A established the reviser’s tendency to maximize consistency. That is to say, the various recensional processes discussed demonstrated the goal of the reviser to adjust the base text to faithfully represent his source text. It is natural to think that this tendency indicates the attitude of the reviser toward the underlying Semitic text. Section B is designed to complement Section A, assessing the reviser’s attitude toward his Greek base text. That attitude can be deduced from the reviser’s treatment of the first-found equivalents for Semitic lexemes in og-Dan; from his simultaneous retention and revision of the og renderings; from his intentional use of immediate, larger, or remote og contexts to single out equivalents; and from his employment of standard and synonymous equivalents.

6

Treatment of First-Found Equivalents

First-found equivalents are those og-Dan renditions which render the first occurrence of a given Semitic word in mt-Dan. The subsequent examples are grouped according to the reviser’s treatment of the first-found equivalents in og-Dan. Constantly consulting the base text, the most natural option for a reviser was to adopt the og rendition as in category § 5.1. The same tendency is further visible in the cases culled in category § 5.2. However, here the reviser has subsequently departed from the og equivalent. Category § 5.3 presents two more complex examples displaying the opposite approach: the reviser first rejects the first-found og equivalent but subsequently adopts it. Lastly, category §5.4 presents cases that combine the treatment seen in categories § 5.1 and §5.3: the first-found og equivalent was adopted by the reviser and used subsequently for the Semitic word, except in its last occurrence, wherein a second significant equivalent was adopted from the og. As will be detailed below, the combined treatments of first-found og renditions reveal important aspects regarding the mechanics of a recensional process. The subsequent examples which illustrate the treatment of first-found equivalents share two other important features: (1) they are significant agreements. This is to say that the agreements between og-Dan and Th-Dan in these instances are anchored in lexical choices which can hardly be explained as coincidences; they are rather the result of borrowings from og-Dan by the proposed reviser of Th-Dan; (2) all types of examples simultaneously document the reviser’s tendency to maximize stereotyping. This observation confirms the second criterion of the working hypothesis, convincingly indicating that one of

248

chapter 3

the reviser’s objectives was to consistently maintain, as much as possible, the same equivalent for a Semitic word in each of its occurrences. Each example starts with the Semitic word(s) under investigation placed in the heading. The chart then presents both the og- and Th-Dan equivalents in a two-column chart. 6.1 Retained and Employed Subsequently The reviser has retained the first-found og equivalent and consistently employed it afterwards, whereas the og switched to different equivalents. The examples are listed in progressive order: the opening ones are those in which the first-found (significant) og equivalent was further maintained once, and then those where it was maintained twice, thrice, etc. We maintain that each of these examples unequivocally attests the same phenomenon. 2‫( גאל־‬to pollute, to defile) og

Th

[1] ἀλισγέω to pollute, contaminate (Dan 1:81º) [2] συμμολύνομαι to defile oneself (Dan 1:82º)

[1] ἀλισγέω to pollute, contaminate (Dan 1:82X)

Ἀλισγέω forms a significant agreement between the og and Th-Dan.304 The reviser employs the equivalent again in the same verse for the sake of consistency, replacing the hapax συμμολύνομαι.305

304 305

Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 55–56 (No. 23). The contention that ἀλισγέω in og-Dan 1:81º reflects a later correction toward Th’s reading (McLay, og and Th Versions, 39, 53, 245) is untenable and inconsistent. If the assumed og reading in the first instance of 2‫ גאל־‬is the hapax ἀλι(ε)σθη (< ἁλίζω “to recruit”), why would a later editor not also correct the hapax συμμολύνομαι towards Th in the same verse? The fact that pap 967 has the reading ἀλεισθη is most likely due to a copying error. We agree with Ziegler’s decision to read ἀλισγεθη. Besides, variation of equivalents is characteristic of og-Dan, and the assumption of a conjectural hapax which is an erroneous reading for a term that the og demonstrates its understanding of (by using συμμολύνομαι for 2‫)גאל־‬ casts doubt on McLay’s judgement.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 249 ‫( חזות‬visibility)

og

Th

[1] κύτος hollow, jar, urn (Dan 4:8[11]) [2] ὅρασις sight; vision (Dan 4:17[20])

[1] κύτος hollow, jar, urn (Dan 4:8[11], 17[20])

The significant equivalent κύτος was adopted in 4:8[11] and once more employed in Th-Dan in the same chapter.306 2‫שׁל־‬ ֶ ֹ‫מ‬/‫ ממשׁל‬+ 2‫( משׁל־‬to exercise authority) og

Th

[1] κυριεύω to rule over + κυριεία power, authority (Dan 11:3) [2] δυναστεύω to rule, dominate + κυριεία power, authority (Dan 11:4) [3] δυναστεύω to rule, dominate + δυνάστης ruler, king, official (Dan 11:5)

[1] κυριεύω to rule over + κυριεία power, authority (Dan 11:3–5)

The rare κυριεία renders the rare ‫ ממשׁל‬and 2‫מֶשׁל־‬ ֹ in 11: 3–5.307 Since the shared rendition is significant, the most likely explanation is that the reviser has adopted the first-found equivalent from og-Dan and further applied it consistently for ‫ממשׁל‬.308

306 307

308

Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 49–50 (No. 12). Κυριείας occurs two times in the lxx outside og-Dan: once it renders 2‫“ משׁל־‬to rile” (Isa 40:10) and once it appears in 1 Macc 8:24. Similarly, ‫ ממשׁל‬occurs once more in 1Chr 26:6 and was rendered in the lxx with πρωτότοκος “firstborn.” 2‫מֶשׁל־‬ ֹ occurs once in Zech 9:10 having κατάρχω “to lead,” “to govern” as its equivalent. Both equivalents of the rare Hebrew words appear to be contextual. The reviser’s dependence on the og can therefore be explained as a mechanical maneuver to adopt the og’s first found equivalent to circumvent difficult language. The mt features in v. 4 the word 2‫מֶשׁל־‬ ֹ , i.e., ‫כמשׁלו‬. The fact that both versions translate the phrase with κατὰ τὴν κυριείαν αὐτοῦ might suggest that the actual reading in their Vorlagen was ‫כממשׁלו‬, wherein the letter ‫ מ‬was once omitted because of haplography. If this is the case, the mt may support emendation based on the joint attestation of the Greek versions.

250

chapter 3

0‫( זן־‬kind) og

Th

[1] γένος kind (Dan 3:5) [2] ἦχος sound, noise (Dan 3:7, 10, 15)

[1] γένος kind (Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15)

The fact that 0‫ זן־‬constitutes a Persian loanword, i.e., zana,309 may hint at the reason for the reviser’s dependence on the first-found og-Dan equivalent.310 ‫( נגד‬to tell, declare)

og

Th

[1] ἀναγγέλλω to report, announce, recount (Dan 2:2) [2] ὑποδείκνυμι to show, inform (Dan 9:23; 10:21; 11:2)

[1] ἀναγγέλλω to report, announce, recount (Dan 2:2; 9:23; 10:21; 11:2)

The first-found equivalent in Dan 2:2 was consistently retained to correct the rare equivalent ὑποδείκνυμι in Dan 9:23; 10:21; 11:2.311

309

310

311

Samuel R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 9th ed., International Theological Library (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913), 501; Montgomery, Daniel, 21; halot, s.v. “‫ ַזן‬.” 0‫ ַזן־‬has further penetrated the Hebrew stock of words, being attested three times. The lxx renders it twice etymologically, deriving its meaning from ‫( זה‬cf. οὗτος; Ps 144[143]:132X). In the other instance, it was rendered with γένος (2Chr 16:14). Considering its frequent usage, it can be further argued that γένος stems from the og stock of equivalents. Whereas Th-Dan restricts its use only to 0‫זן־‬, in the og γένος renders three other words. See ch. 3 A § 1.2.1.1 (γένος). See ch. 3 B § 9.1.2 (‫—נגד‬ὑποδείκνυμι). In view of the mechanical tendencies of the reviser to broadly borrow the first equivalents found in og-Dan, McLay’s effort to demonstrate that ἀναγγέλλω constitutes a corrupted reading is flimsy. McLay, og and Th Versions, 88– 91, 108–109; “It’s a Question of Influence,” 245.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 251

0‫( פחה־‬governor) og

Th

[1] τοπάρχης governor; regional ruler (Dan 3:2) [2] ἀρχιπατριώτης family head (Dan 3:27[94]) og=0: Dan 3:3; 6:8[7]

[1] τοπάρχης governor; regional ruler (Dan 3:2–3, 27[94]; 6:8[7])

Considering the various equivalents employed to translate the Hebrew cognate ‫פחה‬, it stands to reason that the translators approximated its meaning contextually in the target language.312 The variety perhaps stems from the character of ‫ פחה‬as imported from Akkadian, i.e., pī/āḫātu,313 whose precise meaning was seemingly obscured to the Alexandrian translators. Th-Dan adopts the firstfound equivalent and makes use of it consistently. ‫( רצון‬favor)

og

Th

[1] θέλω to want, will (Dan 8:4) [2] βούλομαι to will, want (Dan 11:3) [3] θέλημα will, desire (Dan 11:16, 36)

[1] θέλημα will, desire (Dan 8:4; 11:3, 16, 36)

Two significant aspects indicate og-Dan’s influence on the reviser’s decision to employ θέλημα: (1) ‫ רצון‬has rarely been rendered with θέλημα in the remainder of the lxx;314 and (2) θέλω as an equivalent for ‫ רצון‬is attested only once 312

313 314

‫ פחה‬was rendered with τοπάρχης two more times: 2Kgs 18:24; Isa 36:9. The other equivalents include σατράπης “satrap” (1 Kgs 10:15; 20[21]:24; 2Chr 9:14); ἡγεμών “governor,” “leader,” “chief” (Jer 51[28]:23, 28; Ezek 23:6, 12, 23; Mal 1:8); φυλή “tribe” (Hag 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21); ἄρχων “ruler” (Esth 3:12; 8:9; Neh 5:141º); ἔπαρχος “commander,” “governor,” “prefect” (Ezra 8:36; Neh 2:7, 9); and βία “violence” (Neh 5:142º, 15, 18). lxx=0: Jer 51[28]:57; Esth 9:3; Neh 3:7; 12:26. Besides og/Th-Dan, τοπάρχης occurs only nine times rendering ‫“ פקיד‬overseer” (Gen 41:34) and ‫( פחה‬see above); mt=0: 1 Esd 3:2, 14; 4:47–49; Esth 13:1[B.1]. halot, s.v. “‫ֶפָּחה‬.” Like the words ‫היכל‬, ‫סרים‬, and ‫ספר‬, Montgomery (Daniel, 20) describes ‫ פחה‬as an “ancient borrowing.” Θέλημα occurs forty-four times in the lxx and renders ‫ רצון‬on only seven occasions: Pss

252

chapter 3

(1 Chr 28:4). Consequently, it stands to reason that the reviser has followed the first-found lexical choice in the og while at the same time correcting its grammatical form, i.e., from verb to noun. 0‫( שׁבח־‬to praise) og

Th

[1] αἰνέω to praise (Dan 2:23; 4:31[34], [1] αἰνέω to praise (Dan 2:23; 5:23) 34[37]; 5:4, 23) [2] ἀνθομολογέομαι to confess openly, sing praise, give thanks (Dan 4:34[37]) [3] εὐλογέω to bless (Dan 5:4) og=0: 4:31[34]

The Hebrew cognate 1‫ שׁבח־‬occurs rarely in mt and represents an Aramaism.315 0‫ שׁבח־‬was likely translated contextually in og-Dan, considering its variegated renditions. Furthermore, the shared equivalent αἰνέω in 2:23 is unique within the lxx and suggests that Th-Dan needed to depend on the former in its selection of an equivalent.316 Th-Dan consistently maintained this equivalent. ‫( חיל‬strength)

og

Th

[1] δύναμις power, strength; (military) force (Dan 11:7 cf. Ra: 88-Syh) [2] ὄχλος crowd (Dan 11:10, 13, 252X) [3] παρέρχομαι to pass by, pass away (Dan 11:26)

[1] δύναμις power; (military) force (Dan 11:7, 10, 13, 252X, 26)

315 316

30[29]:6, 8; 40[39]:9; 103[102]:21; 143[142]:10; 145[144]:19; Esth 1:8. However, it mainly renders ‫“ חפץ‬delight”: 2 Sam 23:5; 1 Kgs 5:22–24; 9:11; Isa 44:28; 48:14; 58:3, 13; Mal 1:10; Pss 1:2; 16[15]:3; 107[106]:30; Job 21:21; Eccl 5:3; 12:1, 10; 2 Chr 9:12. halot, s.v. “‫ שׁבח‬i.” mt-Dan contains all five Aramaic occurrences, while 1‫ שׁבח־‬further appears eight times in mt (see n. below). 1‫ שׁבח־‬was rendered in piel with ἐπαινέω “to praise” (Pss 63[62]:4; 117[116]:1; 145[144]:4; 147:12[1]; Eccl 4:2; 8:15), while in hithpael with ἐγκαυχάομαι “to pride oneself in,” “to glory in,” “to exult” (Pss 106[105]:47); and καυχάομαι “to boast,” “to glory” (1Chr 16:35).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 253

Considering the cherished Th-Dan equivalent ἰσχύς “strength,” “might” for 0‫חיל־‬,317 the adoption of δύναμις for ‫ חיל‬throughout Daniel 11 appears to be influenced by the first-found rendition in the og in this chapter.318 0‫( רבה־‬to be great) og

Th

[1] μεγαλύνω to enlarge, magnify, boast, grow (Dan 2:48) [2] φυτεύω to plant (Dan 4:17[20] cf. catss ≠ hrcs=0) [3] ὑψόω to lift up; to exalt (Dan 4:19[22]1º) og=0: Dan 4:8[11], 19[22]2º, 30[33]

[1] μεγαλύνω to enlarge, magnify, boast, grow (Dan 2:48; 4:8[11], 17[20], 19[22]2X, 30[33])

Considering that μεγαλύνω features the traits of a significant agreement,319 the reviser relies on og-Dan to single out an acceptable equivalent for 0‫רבה־‬. As the chart below shows, he further switched to πληθύνω in rendering 1‫ רבה־‬probably also because of the switch in equivalents in the base text:

317 318

319

See ch. 3 C § 13.1.3.2 (0‫)חיל־‬. There are several aspects which simultaneously argue that the mss 88-Syh preserves the preferable reading in Dan 11:7, namely δύναμις. Considering both that og-Dan has offered a reliable, dynamic translation of this verse in general (in contrast with v. 26) and that the translator demonstrably understood the Hebrew term, it is reasonably to reject Munnich’s reconstruction of the corrupted pap 967 with the rare reading ἀργία “idleness,” which occurs only five times (Exod 21:19; Eccl 10:18; Wis 13:13; Sir 33:28; Isa 1:13) and which further complicates the translation. Furthermore, og-Dan has already used δύναμις for 0‫חיל־‬ in 3:202º while Th-Dan’s change of the equivalent in Daniel 11 matches the mechanics of the recensional process highlighted in this category. Μεγαλύνω appears about eighty times in the lxx, while 1‫ רבה־‬about 178 times. However, the former renders the latter only twice (Gen 43:34 and Ps 104[103]:24).

254

chapter 3

1‫( רבה־‬to be many, great)320 og

Th

[1] πληθύνω to multiply (Dan 11:39) [2] πίμπλημι to fill, fulfill (Dan 12:4)

[1] πληθύνω to multiply (Dan 11:39; 12:4)

1‫תחת־‬/0‫( תחות־‬under, instead of) og

Th

[1] ὑποκάτω under, beneath (Dan 4:9[12]) [2] ὑπό (+ acc.) under (Dan 7:27; 9:12) [3] κατόπισθεν (+gen.) after, behind (Dan 8:8) [4] ὀπίσω (+gen.) after (Dan 8:22) og=0: Dan 4:11[14], 18[21]

[1] ὑποκάτω under, beneath (Dan 4:9[12], 18[21]; 7:27; 8:8, 22; 9:12) [2] ὑποκάτωθεν from beneath (Dan 4:11[14])

Whereas 0‫ תחות־‬always refers to a position beneath an object and hence signifying “under” (Dan 4:9[12], 18[21]; 7:27), its Hebrew cognate 1‫ תחת־‬has two meanings: “under” (9:12) and “instead of” (8:8, 22). If working independently, Th-Dan had to decide among at least three frequent og equivalents: the second- and third-most-used equivalents ὑπό321 and ὑποκάτω,322 both covering the meaning of “under,” and the main equivalent ἀντί which covers the meaning 320

321

322

Furthermore, the adoption of πληθύνω is in synchrony with the reviser’s tendency toward standardization. Πληθύνω occurs about 200 times and stereotypically renders 1‫ רבה־‬and its other derivates throughout the lxx: Gen 1:222X, 28; 3:162X; 7:17–18; 8:17; Lev 25:16; 26:9; Num 33:54; Deut 1:10; 7:13, 22; 8:132X; 13:18; 17:162X, 172X; 28: 63; Judg 9:29; 16:24; 1Sam 1:12; 7:2; etc. Gen 16:9; 18:4, 8; 24:2, 9; 35:4, 8; 41:35; 47:29; Exod 17:12; 21:20; 23:5; 24:4, 10; 25:352X; 27:5; 32:19; Lev 22:27, 32; Num 5:19, 20, 29; 6:18; Deut 3:17; 4:11, 49; Josh 4:9; 11:3, 17; 12:3; 13:5; 24:26; Judg 3:30; 4:5; 6:11, 19; 1 Sam 14:2; 21:4, 5, 9; 22:6; 31:13; 2 Sam 18:9; 22:39; 1Kgs 5:17; 8:6; 13:14; 19:4, 5; Isa 3:6; 57:5; Ezek 20:37; 32:27; Pss 10:7[9:28]; 18[17]:10; 18[17]:39, 48; 47[46]:4; 66[65]:17; 91[90]:4; 106[105]:42; 140[139]:4; 144[143]:2; Job 9:13; 20:12; 20:12*; 28:24; 30:7; 40:21; 41:3, 22; Ruth 2:12; Song 2:6; 4:11; 8:3, 5; Eccl 1:3, 9, 13, 14; 2:3, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22; 3:1, 16; 4:1, 3, 7, 15; 5:12, 17; 6:1, 12; 7:6; 8:9, 152X, 17; 9:3, 6, 92X, 11, 13; 10:5; Lam 3:34; 1Chr 10:12. Ὑποκάτω renders 1‫ תחת־‬sixty times in Gen 7:19; 21:15; Lev 15:10; Num 16:31; 22:27; Deut 2:25; 4:19; 12:2; 28:23; Josh 7:21, 22; Jud 1:7; 2 Sam 2:23; 18:9; 22:10, 37, 40, 48; 1Kgs 7:44[30]; 14:24;

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 255

of “instead of.”323 The choice of the less frequent ὑποκάτω in Th-Dan 4:9[12] presumably was influenced by the first-found equivalent in og-Dan. Furthermore, the reviser’s stereotyping tendency led him to employ ὑποκάτω in cases where ἀντί would have conveyed more accurately the meaning of 1‫“ תחת־‬instead of,”324 and to employ ὑποκάτωθεν to render the locution 0‫ מן־‬+ 0‫תחות־‬.325 6.2 Retained but Replaced Subsequently The reviser was not always satisfied with the first-found og equivalent for a Semitic lexeme. The following examples indicate that after he had first accepted the og equivalent, he looked for other renditions. Many such renditions were drawn from the lxx outside of Daniel, but in some cases, he chose new renditions. These other renditions were then systematically applied to the Semitic lexemes. For his part, the og translator had in some cases consistently maintained his first equivalent. These examples are listed first and are followed by those in which the og translator used varying renditions.

323

324

325

2 Kgs 9:13; 16:4, 17; 17:10; Isa 14:11; Jer 2:20; 3:16, 13; 38[45]:12; 52:20; Ezek 1:23; 6:13; 10:2, 20; 17:6, 23; 24:5; 31:6; Hos 4:13; Amos 2:13; Obad 1:7; Jonah 4:5; Mic 4:42X; Zech 3:102X; Mal 3:21; Pss 8:7; 18[17]:37, 40; 45[44]:6; Job 26:8*; 28:5*; 36:16*; 37:3*; Neh 2:14; 1Chr 17:1; 2Chr 4:15; 5:7; 28:4. Gen 2:21; 4:25; 22:13; 30:2, 15; 36:33–39; 44:4, 43; Exod 21:23, 244X, 253X, 26–27, 36, 372X; 29:30; Lev 6:15; 14:42; 24:18, 203X; Num 3:12, 412X, 452X; 8:16, 18; 25:13; 32:14; Deut 2:12, 21–23; 10:6; 22:29; 28:47, 62; Josh 2:14; 5:7; Judg 15:2; 1 Sam 2:20; 25:21; 26:21; 2Sam 10:1; 16:8, 12; 17:25; 19:1, 14, 22; 1 Kgs 1:30, 35; 2:352X; 3:7; 5:15, 19; 8:20; 11:43; 14:27, 31; 15:8, 24; 16:6, 10, 28; 19:6; 20[21]:24, 39, 422X; 21[20]:6; 22:40, 51; 2 Kgs 3:27; 8:15, 24; 10:24, 35; 12:22; 13:9, 24; 14:16, 21, 29; 15:7, 10, 22, 25, 30, 38; 16:20; 17:24; 19:37; 20:21; 21:18, 24, 26; 22:17; 23:30, 34; 24:6, 17; Isa 3:244X; 37:38; 53:12; 55:132X; 60:174X; 61:32X; Jer 18:20; 22:11; 28[35]:13; 29[36]:26; 37[44]:1; 50[27]:7; Ezek 4:15; 36:34; Hab 3:7; Zeph 2:10; Pss 35[34]:12; 38[37]:21; 45[44]:17; 109[108]:4, 52X; Job 16:4; 28:15*; 31:402X; 36:20*; Prov 11:8; 17:13; Eccl 4:15; Esth 2:4; 1Chr 1:44–50; 4:41; 5:22; 19:1; 29:28; 2 Chr 1:8; 6:10; 9:31; 12:10, 16; 13:23; 17:1; 21:1, 12; 22:1; 24:27; 26:1, 23; 27:9; 28:27; 32:33; 33:20, 25; 34:25; 36:1, 8. The use of 1‫ תחת־‬in Dan 8:8, 22 would properly require the use of αντι “instead of.” However, og-Dan’s equivalents rather underscore temporal sequence, i.e., first the collapse of the little horn and then the rise of other three. In tune with his literalistic goal, Th-Dan’s reviser rejects κατόπισθεν and ὀπίσω—both hapax renditions of 1‫ תחת־‬in the lxx—and further uses the adopted equivalent ὑποκάτω. Consequently, Th’s translation refers to the location from where the other three horns sprout, i.e., under it [the little horn]. The locution ‫“ מן‬from” + 1‫“ תחת־‬under,” “instead of” was rendered fifteen times with ὑποκάτωθεν (Deut 9:14; Judg 7:8; 1 Kgs 7:24[11], 29[16]; 2 Kgs 8:20, 22; 13:5; 14:27; 17:7; Ezek 1:8; 47:1; Amos 2:9; Zech 6:12; Job 18:16*; 26:5*); thirteen times with ὑποκάτω (Gen 1:7, 9; 6:17; Exod 20:4; 24:42X; Deut 4:18; 5:8; 1 Sam 7:11; 1 Kgs 4:12; 7:30[17]; Ezek 46:23; Lam 3:66); seven times with κάτω “down,” “below,” “under” (Gen 35:8; Exod 20:4; Deut 4:39; 5:8; Josh 2:11; 1Kgs 8:23; Isa 51:6); five times with ἐκ “of,” “out of,” “from” (Exod 6:7; 10:23; 18:102X; Deut 7:24); four times each ἀπό “from,” “by,” “since” (Exod 6:6; 2 Chr 21:8, 102X) and ὑπό (Exod 30:4; Deut 33:27; Judg 3:16; Prov 22:27); three times with the locution ἐκ + ὑπό (Exod 17:14; Deut 25:19;

256

chapter 3 ‫( ילד‬child)

og

Th

[1] νεανίσκος young man (Dan 1:4, 10 cf. Mu ≠ Ra: 88 [νεανίας], 13, 15, 17)

[1] νεανίσκος young man (Dan 1:4) [2] παιδάριον child, boy (Dan 1:10, 13, 15, 17)

The change of equivalent from νεανίσκος to παιδάριον can be explained as owing to the reviser’s tendency to prioritize main lxx equivalents.326 ‫( צלח‬to prosper, succeed, rush)

og

Th

[1] εὐοδόω to prosper (Dan 8:12, 24–25; [1] εὐοδόω to prosper (Dan 8:12) 11:27, 36) [2] κατευθύνω to direct, keep straight, guide, prosper (Dan 8:24–25; 11:27, 36)

Presumably, the reviser mechanically copied εὐοδόω in Dan 8:12, where it marks og-Dan’s first rendering of ‫ צלח‬in the Hebrew section. The subsequent change to κατευθύνω was seemingly motivated because of stereotyping: Since he had already reserved κατευθύνω for the cognate root in the Aramaic section, the reviser retained this preferred equivalent.327

326

327

29:19); and once with κάτωθεν “below,” “under” (Isa 14:9). In view of these statistics, Th-Dan has employed the main lxx equivalent to render the Aramaic locution. We have discussed elsewhere the significance of the shared equivalent νεανίσκος: Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 102–103 (No. 102). Παιδάριον constitutes one of the two main equivalents for ‫ ילד‬in the lxx. The complete range of renditions employed to render ‫ ילד‬include: παιδίον (Gen 21:8, 14–16; 30:26; 32:23; 33:1–2, 5, 13; 44:20; Exod 2:3, 6–10; 21:4, 22; 1 Sam 1:2; 2 Sam 6:23; 12:15; 1 Kgs 3:25; Isa 8:18; 9:5; 11:7; Jer 31[38]:20; Job 21:11; 39:3; Ruth 4:16; Lam 4:10); παιδάριον (Gen 33:14; 37:30; 42:22; 2 Sam 12:18–19, 21–22; 1Kgs 12:8, 10, 14; 17:21–22; 2 Kgs 4:18, 26, 34; Joel 4:3; Zech 8:5; 2 Chr 10:8, 10); τέκνον (Gen 33:6–7; Isa 2:6; 29:23; 57:4– 5; Hos 1:2; Neh 12:43); νεανίσκος (Gen 4:23; Eccl 4:15; Ezra 10:1); ἄρσην (Exod 1:17–18); αὐτός (1 Kgs 17:23); παῖς (2 Kgs 2:24; Eccl 4:13); υἱός (2 Kgs 4:1; Ruth 1:5); νεοσσός (Job 38:41); νέος (2 Chr 10:14). lxx=0: 1 Kgs 14:12. 0‫ צלח־‬occurs twice in the Aramaic section and was rendered in Th-Dan with κατευθύνω (Dan 3:30[97]; 6:29[28]). In the former instance og-Dan has rendered periphrastically with δίδωμι + ἐξουσία while in the latter with καθίστημι.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 257

√‫( ישׁר‬to be right) og

Th

[1] συνθήκη agreement, covenant (Dan [1] συνθήκη agreement, covenant (Dan 11:6, 17) 11:6) [2] εὐθύς straight (adj.); immediately (adv.) (Dan 11:17)

The root ‫ ישׁר‬occurs twice in mt-Dan as part of the peculiar phrase ‫ עשׂה‬+ √‫ישׁר‬ “to reach an agreement.”328 Whereas the reviser retained the rare συνθήκη in 11:6,329 he aimed toward a more literal rendering in v. 17.330 0‫( זיו־‬radiance, brightness) og

Th

[1] πρόσοψις appearance (Dan 2:31) [2] δόξα glory (Dan 4:33[36]) [3] ὅρασις sight; vision (Dan 5:6) [4] ἕξις habit, use, practice (Dan 7:28) og=0: Dan 5:9, 10

[1] πρόσοψις appearance (Dan 2:31) [2] μορφή form, appearance (Dan 4:33[36]; 5:6, 9, 10; 7:28)

328 329

330

halot, s.v. “‫ֵמיָשׁ ִרים‬.” Συνθήκη occurs rarely in the lxx and mainly in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha: 1Macc 10:26; 2 Macc 12:1; 13:25; 14:20, 26–27; Wis 1:16; 12:21; Sol 8:10. It further renders the Hebrew 2‫“ חזה־‬pact,” “agreement” (Isa 28:15) and 1‫“ מסכה־‬molten image” (Isa 30:1). The fact that the rare phrase is confined to mt-Dan in these verses probably explains the reviser’s dependence on the og. og-Dan has probably rendered the phrase in v. 17 in light of the one in v. 6. Both contexts cluster the phrase and the marriage motif as part of the agreement. However, it appears that the change of lexical choice in Th-Dan v. 17 reflects his tendencies towards literalness and standard renditions. Since in v. 17 the mt attests ‫( ישׁרים‬from ‫[ ָיָשׁר‬adj.] “straight,” “right”) and not ‫( מישׁרים‬as in v. 6), the reviser has looked for a different rendition to distinguish between the readings. √‫ ישׁר‬occurs more than 200 times while √εὐθύς hits over 220 times. Significantly, the derivates of the latter render √‫ ישׁר‬most of the time, cf. ‫—מישׁרים‬ εὐθύς (Isa 26:7; 33:15; Pss 58[57]:2); ‫—מישׁרים‬εὐθύτης (Pss 9:9; 17[16]:2; 75[74]:3; 96[95]:10; 98[97]:9; 99[98]:4; Song 1:4; 7:10); etc.

258

chapter 3

The reviser’s dependence on the og in Dan 2:31 has most likely to do with the nature of the term 0‫זיו־‬. As a loan word from Akkadian, i.e., zīmu(m),331 it seemingly posed problems in translation. Furthermore, πρόσοψις appears two more times in og-Dan, rendering 0‫“ רו־‬appearance” (Dan 2:31) and 0‫“ חזו־‬vision” (Dan 7:20). Outside Daniel, the term occurs only a single time (2 Macc 6:18). Consequently, considering the rareness of πρόσοψις and the difficult 0‫זיו־‬, we argue that πρόσοψις stems from og-Dan and the reviser relied on the first og lexical choice.332 He subsequently adopted μορφή, probably also under the influence of the og.333 0‫( קטיל־‬to slay) og

Th

[1] ἀποκτείνω to kill (Dan 2:131º) [2] συναπόλλυμι to perish together (Dan 2:132º) [3] ἐξάγω to lead away, bring out (Dan 2:14) [4] ἀποτυμπανίζω to bludgeon to death (Dan 7:11) og=0: Dan 3:22; 5:19, 30

[1] ἀποκτείνω to kill (Dan 2:131º) [2] ἀναιρέω to destroy, carry off, kill (Dan 2:132º, 14; 5:19, 30; 7:11) Th=0: Dan 3:22

We have commented elsewhere about the significance of the shared equivalent in Dan 2:131º.334 Subsequently, the reviser, for whatever reason, had recourse to ἀναιρέω as his stereotyped equivalent.335 0‫( יתיר־‬exceeding) og

Th

[1] ὑπερφερής surpassing (Dan 2:31) [2] ὑπὲρ τὸ πρότερον ἑπταπλασίως (Dan 3:22)

[1] ὑπερφερής surpassing (Dan 2:31) [2] περισσός more, remaining, exces-

331 332 333 334 335

halot, s.v. “‫זיו‬.” We have argued elsewhere that πρόσοψις is a significant equivalent: Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 52 (No. 18). See ch. 3 B § 8.2 (μορφή). Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 92 (No. 67). For a possible explanation, see the discussion of the example at the n. above.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 259 (cont.)

og

Th

[3] ἅγιος holy (Dan 5:12; 6:4[3]) [4] ὑπερφέρω to surpass (Dan 7:7) [5] + 0‫—דחל־‬ὑπέρφοβος very terrifying (Dan 7:19) og=0: Dan 4:33[36]; 5:14

sive, to the full (Dan 3:22; 4:33[36]; 5:12, 14; 6:4[3]; 7:7, 19)

Ὑπερφερής constitutes a significant equivalent (hapax legomenon) shared between the og and Th-Dan in Dan 2:31.336 The reviser subsequently coined his own stereotyped rendition, which contrasts with og-Dan’s free renderings.337 ‫( שׁלוה‬prosperity, tranquility)

og

Th

[1] δόλος deceit (Dan 8:25) [2] ἐξάπινα suddenly (Dan 11:21, 24)

[1] δόλος deceit (Dan 8:25) [2] εὐθηνία prosperity (Dan 11:21, 24)

Th-Dan retained δόλος in 8:25 due to exegetical reasons but subsequently corrected the erroneous ἐξάπινα to a more appropriate equivalent.338 ‫( בקשׁ‬to seek)

og

Th

[1] ἀξιόω to count worthy, esteem; think, deem; make claim (Dan 1:8)

[1] ἀξιόω to count worthy, esteem; think, deem; make claim (Dan 1:8)

336 337

338

Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 40–41 (No. 4). Περισσός is absent from the og. However, it is attested nineteen times in the lxx, wherein it consistently translates ‫יתר‬: Exod 10:5; Num 4:26; 1Sam 30:9; 2Kgs 25:11; Prov 14:23; Eccl 2:15; 6:11; 7:16; 12:9, 11; Sir 3:23; Ezek 48:15, 18, 21, 23; mt=0: 1Macc 9:22; 2Macc 12:44; Sol 4:2. Outside of Daniel, ‫ שׁלוה‬occurs five times, and its meaning has been deduced erroneously thrice in the lxx (Jer 22:21; Prov 1:32; 17:1). In the other two instances, the lxx renders it with εὐθηνία (Ezek 16:49; Ps 122[121]:7). See ch. 3 A § 3.2.1 (Dan 11:21).

260

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[2] ζητέω to seek, inquire (Dan 1:20; 8:15) [3] εὑρίσκω to find (Dan 9:3)

[2] ζητέω to seek, inquire (Dan 1:20; 8:15) [3] ἐκζητέω to search earnestly (Dan 9:3)

After maintaining ἀξιόω in Dan 1:8, Th-Dan also depends on og-Dan in changing its equivalent to ζητέω. The further use of the by-form ἐκζητέω in Dan 9:3 reveals a stereotyping tendency. 6.3 Rejected but Adopted Subsequently The reviser at times rejects the first-found og equivalent but then changes his mind and makes use of it. 0‫( שׁנה־‬to change)339 og

Th

[1] ἀλλοιόω to change, alter, reject, alienate (Dan 2:9, 21; 3:19, 27[94]; 4:13[16]; 5:6; 6:9[8]) [2] ἀθετέω to reject; to rebel against (Dan 3:28[95]) [3] αἴρω to take up (Dan 6:18[17]) og=0: Dan 5:9, 10; 6:16[15]

[1] παρέρχομαι to pass by, pass away (Dan 2:9) [2] ἀλλοιόω to change, alter, reject, alienate (Dan 2:21; 3:19, 27[94], 28[95]; 4:13[16]; 5:6, 9, 10; 6:9[8], 18[17]) [3] παραλλάσσω to change (Dan 6:16[15])

0‫ שׁנה־‬occurs twelve times in Dan 1–6 and was consistently rendered in ogDan with ἀλλοιόω.340 The reviser rejects in Dan 2:9 the first-found equivalent,

339 340

This discussion of 0‫ שׁנה־‬is confined to Daniel 2–6. For its analysis in Daniel 7, see ch. 3 C § 13.1.3.2 (0‫)שׁנה־‬. The equivalent constitutes a cherished word in the og. Out of its thirty-seven occurrences in the lxx, the og attests it fourteen times: Dan 2:9, 21; 3:19, 27[94]; 4:13[16], 16[19], 30[33b], 34[37]; 5:6; 6:9[8], 13[12]; 7:25. og-Dan is followed by Sirach wherein the term appears

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 261

seemingly looking to coin his own rendition.341 However, he decides to adopt ἀλλοιόω subsequently. ‫( מראה‬appearance)342

og

Th

[1] + 1‫ טוב־‬pleasant, good—εὐειδής (εὖ, εἶδος) beautiful in form (Dan 1:4) [2] ὄψις face (Dan 1:131º, 15) og=0: Dan 1:132º

[1] ὄψις face (Dan 1:4) [2] ἰδέα (εἶδος) form; countenance (Dan 1:132X, 15)

The change of equivalents in Th-Dan from the standard ὄψις toward the rare word ἰδέα is intriguing.343 However, a closer look at the first-found equivalent for ‫ מראה‬in og-Dan provides a clue. The translator has freely condensed the phrase ‫ טובי מראה‬to a single word—the hapax compound εὐειδής. Significantly, Th’s equivalent ἰδέα shares its root with og’s εὐειδής, suggesting that the reviser has made use of a reworked form of it after its rejection in v. 4.344

341

342 343

344

ten times: Sir 12:18; 13:25; 25:17; 27:11; 33:8, 11; 36:5; 38:27; 40:5. See further 1Sam 21:14; 2Kgs 25:29; Jdt 10:7; 1 Macc 1:26; 11:12; Pss 34[33]:1; 45[44]:1; 60[59]:1; 69[68]:1; 73[72]:21; 80[79]:1; 109[108]:24; Mal 3:6; Lam 4:1. There are no apparent contextual reasons in Dan 2:9 for the reviser to reject ἀλλοιόω. The phrases καιρός ἀλλοιόω and ἀλλοιόω καιρός are attested in both og-Dan (2:9, 21; 4:34[37]; 7:25) and Th-Dan (2:21; 4:20[23]; 7:25), referring to God and humans as agents of changing time. Outside Daniel, the phrases occur once (Sir 33:8). The discussion here is confined to the translation of ‫ מראה‬in Daniel 1. Ἰδέα is attested five times in Gen 5:3 (‫“ דמות‬likeness”); 2 Macc 3:16; 4 Macc 1:14, 18; LetJer 1:62. Ὄψις occurs seventy-five times in the lxx and mainly translates ‫מראה‬: Gen 24:16; 26:7; 29:17; 39:6; 41:21; Lev 13:3–4, 20, 25, 30–32, 34; 14:37; 1 Sam 16:7; Ezek 1:13; 10:9–10; 23:15; 41:21; Joel 2:4; Song 2:142X. The most likely reason for the reviser’s decision to discontinue ὄψις starting with v. 13 pertains to style. The fact that v. 13 clusters four times √‫—ראה‬twice as a verb and twice as a noun—may have made the reviser want to avoid repeatedly employing the equivalents ὁράω and ὄψις. The solution he adopted was to refine the first-found og-Dan equivalent, i.e., from εἶδος to ἰδέα. og-Dan has worked in v. 13 in the opposite direction: it employed the standard ὄψις for the nouns but rendered the verb with two different equivalents, i.e., φαίνω “to appear,” “to shine” and θέλω “to want,” “to will.” Th-Dan consistently employs twice in this verse ὁράω which was introduced as an equivalent for the verb in v. 10.

262

chapter 3

6.4

Retained and Employed Subsequently, Except for Its Last Occurrence The reviser retains the first-found og equivalent for a Semitic lexeme and maintains it, except for its last occurrence. In the last instance, he again depends on the og for the equivalent’s selection. ‫פתבג‬/‫( פת־בג‬portion)

og

Th

[1] τράπεζα table (Dan 1:5) [2] δεῖπνον dinner, supper (Dan 1:8, 13, 15–16) [3] μέριμνα care, anxiety (Dan 11:26)

[1] τράπεζα table (Dan 1:5, 8, 13, 15) [2] δεῖπνον dinner, supper (Dan 1:16) [3] δεῖ it is necessary (Dan 11:26)

‫( פת־בג‬also spelled ‫ )פתבג‬is confined only to mt-Dan, representing a Persian loan word, i.e., patibaga.345 Its meaning was demonstrably obscure to ogDan’s translator, who rendered it contextually. Consequently, he used for the first time the unique rendition τράπεζα (v. 5) and subsequently the rare lxx word δεῖπνον (vv. 8, 13, 15–16).346 The attestation of both terms in Th-Daniel 1— which clearly features all the qualities of significant agreements—indicates the dependence of the reviser on the og in selecting his equivalents.347 The reviser therefore adopted the first-found imprecise τράπεζα in v. 5 and further maintained it in vv. 8, 13, and 15 for consistency. That Th-Dan relied on the og becomes evident in v. 16. Since the first-found equivalent τράπεζα would not suit the context, the reviser adopted the other og equivalent δεῖπνον.348 345

346

347 348

halot, s.v. “‫ַפּת־ַבּג‬.” According to Amara, ‫ פת־בג‬has also “entered into Greek as ποτίβαζις but it appears that none of the translators knew of it.” “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 18 (n. 48). Δεῖπνον appears in og-Daniel 1 four times, whereas elsewhere it is attested only once in 4 Macc 3:9. Besides its adoption in Th-Dan 1:16, the rare equivalent is employed once more in 5:1, where it renders 0‫לחם־‬. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 46–49 (No. 11). The mt-Dan 1:16 reads: ‫ויהי המלצר נשׂא את פתבגם ויין משׁתיהם ונתן להם זרענים‬. If the text of Th-Dan maintained τράπεζα as the equivalent for ‫פתבג‬, it would have read: καὶ ἐγένετο Αμελσαδ ἀναιρούμενος τὴν τράπεζαν αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν οἶνον τοῦ πόματος αὐτῶν καὶ ἐδίδου αὐτοῖς σπέρματα “And there was Hamelsad withholding their table and the wine of their drink, and he would give them seeds.” Consequently, it stands to reason that the reviser abandoned τράπεζα and adopted δεῖπνον from og-Dan to solve the problem. See also Amara, “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 18 (n. 47).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 263

0‫( יציב־‬certain) og

Th

[1] ἀλήθεια [noun] truth, truthfulness, faithfulness (Dan 2:8) [2] ἀκριβής [adj.] strict, precise, exact (Dan 2:45; 6:13[12]) [3] ἀκρίβεια [noun] accuracy; precise meaning (Dan 7:16) og=0: Dan 3:24[91]

[1] ἀλήθεια [noun] truth, truthfulness, faithfulness (Dan 2:8) [2] ἀληθινός [adj.] true, genuine (Dan 2:45; 6:13[12]) [3] ἀληθῶς [adv.] truly (Dan 3:24[91]) [4] ἀκρίβεια [noun] accuracy; precise meaning (Dan 7:16)

The adj. 0‫ יציב־‬occurs five times and only in mt-Dan. Any correlation with the Hebrew cognate root ‫ יצב‬could not prove helpful because of its different meaning “to stand,” “to present oneself.”349 Consequently, Th-Dan has most likely relied on the first-found equivalent for 0‫ יציב־‬in og-Dan 2:8 because it fit contextually. In the subsequent instances, whereas og-Dan translator preferred ἀκριβής, the reviser stereotypically maintained ἀλήθεια, adapting its grammatical category to either adj. (Dan 2:45; 6:13[12]) or adv. (Dan 3:24[91]). Significantly, in the final occurrence of the adj. 0‫ יציב־‬in Dan 7:16 the reviser clearly demonstrates dependence on the og by adopting its rare word ἀκρίβεια.350

7

Partly Maintained—Partly Revised Equivalents

The reviser’s attitude toward his base text is visible in the way he partly maintained and partly revised og-Dan’s equivalents. That is to say he simultaneously demonstrates revising activity and dependence on the og’s lexical choices. As in the previous sub-section, the examples adduced below fulfill both the crite-

349 350

halot, s.v. “‫יצב‬.” The root appears forty-eight times as a verb and only in hithpael stem. Both shared renditions ἀλήθεια and ἀκρίβεια are significant equivalents. The former constitutes a hapax equivalent while the latter a rare, shared word. The noun ἀκρίβεια occurs only another three times in Wis 12:21; Sir 16:25; 42:4. The adj. ἀκριβής occurs also rarely: four times in Sir 18:29; 19:25; 31:24; 32:3 and once in Esth 4:5. Th-Dan 7:16 employs ἀκρίβεια twice more, but its second appearance there represents a plus, and it is difficult to ascertain whether it reflects an explicating addition or a later expansionistic harmonization within the same verse.

264

chapter 3

ria of distinctive agreements and revising tendency. When og-Dan and Th-Dan partly agree with each other, they feature significant agreements in rare words or rare equivalents. When they partly disagree, it is in those aspects in which Th-Dan’s tends to represent the source text more literally, e.g., quantitative representation, linguistically accurate representation. 0‫ שׁלו־‬+ 0‫( אמר־‬to blaspheme) og

Th

βλασφημέω to verbally abuse, blaspheme (Dan 3:29 [96])

λέγω + βλασφημία to speak abusive speech, blasphemy (Dan 3:29 [96])

We have argued elsewhere that 0‫ שׁלו־‬presumably posed problems in translation, and that the use of βλασφημία in Th indicates lexical dependence on og.351 Here, the reviser’s tendency toward a word-for-word representation is visible in the way he quantitatively refined the og rendering to align with mt. 0‫ נפק־‬+ 0‫( דת־‬to issue a decree) og

Th

δογματίζω to ordain; to teach; to obey regulations (Dan 2:13)

δόγμα decree + ἐξέρχομαι to come out, go out (Dan 2:13)

Both δογματίζω and δόγμα are rare words in the og.352 Furthermore, Dan 2:13 constitutes the first instance in which 0‫ דת־‬has been rendered in og and, presumably, Th has been influenced in its lexical selection.353 However, the reviser

351 352

353

Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 61–62 (No. 32). Δογματίζω and δόγμα occur five times each beside og/Th-Dan, and predominantly in the Apocrypha, cf. 1 Esd 6:33; Esth 3:9; 2 Macc 10:8; 15:36; 3Macc 4:11; and 3Macc 1:3; 4Macc 4:23–24, 26; 10:2, respectively. 0‫ דת־‬appears once more before v. 13, namely, in v. 9. However, both versions avoid literal renderings, most likely because the idiomatic phrase ‫ חדה היא דתכון ומלה‬posed problems for translation. In v. 15, og has freely employed once more δογματίζω and Th has revised it with γνώμη. These observations imply that the presence of δόγμα in v. 13 could hardly be coincidental.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 265

aimed to correct the free rendering καὶ ἐδογματίσθη for ‫ ודתא נפקת‬with the word-for-word translation καὶ τὸ δόγμα ἐξῆλθεν.354 0‫ שׁנה־‬+ 0‫( הוה־‬to be different) og

Th

διαφέρω to be better, to differ (Dan 7:19)

εἰμί to be + διάφορος different, superior; unlike (Dan 7:19)

Διαφέρω constitutes the og’s main equivalent for 0‫ שׁנה־‬in Daniel 7, suggesting that the reviser’s διάφορος stems from the og. In v. 19, to literally represent his Semitic Vorlage, the reviser shows both dependence on and reworking of the og equivalent διαφέρω.355 0‫( יכל־‬to be able) og

Th

εἰμί to be + δυνατὸς (adj.) possible, strong, able (Dan 3:17)

δυνατὸς (adj.) possible, strong, able (Dan 3:17)

Considering the agreement between the og and Th-Dan in the rare equivalent δυνατὸς instead of the expected δύναμαι,356 it is reasonable to infer that the reviser has retained δυνατὸς while discarding εἰμί because of quantitative concerns in rendering mt.

354

355

356

Subsequent to v. 13, the reviser has favored δόγμα, making use of it another eleven times: thrice for 0‫( דת־‬6:9[8], 13[12], 16[15]); six times for 0‫“ טעם־‬decree” (3:10, 12, 29[96]; 4:3[6]); 6:14[13], 27[26]; once each for 0‫“ אסר־‬injunction” (6:10[9]) and ‫“ כתב‬writing” (6:11[10]). For further discussion, see Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 60–61 (No. 31). For the significance of the case in question in determining the common basis, see Olariu’s detailed discussion. Ibid., 64–67. For the analysis of 0‫ שׁנה־‬in Daniel 7, see ch. 3 B §6.3 (0‫)שׁנה־‬. Both og and Th-Dan have δύναμαι as their main equivalent for 0‫יכל־‬: the former employs it four times in 2:10, 47; 3:29[96]; 5:162º, while the latter eight times in 2:10, 47; 3:29[96]; 4:15[18], 34[37]; 5:162X; 6:21[20]). For the complete statistics regarding 0‫יכל־‬, see Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 102 (No. 82).

266

chapter 3 ‫( בין‬to understand)

og

Th

διανοέομαι (διά, νοῦς) to intend, plan, understand (Dan 9:231º)

ἐννοέω (ἐν, νούς) to consider, understand, intend (Dan 9:231º)

Th-Dan consistently eliminates the compound derivates from νοῦς,357 excepting both Dan 1:4 wherein the reviser borrows from the larger context and Dan 9:231º wherein he partly reworks og-Dan’s equivalent according to his aims.358 0‫ גבר־‬+ 0‫( חיל־‬strong man) og

Th

ἰσχυρότατος (ἰσχύς) [superlative] very strong (Dan 3:20)

ἰσχυρός (ἰσχύς) [positive degree] strong (Dan 3:20)

The departure of Th-Dan from literal representation in regard to the phrase ‫ ולגברין גברי חיל די בחילה‬stems from the difficulty of this collocation. Notwithstanding the complication, and as the chart in the note below shows,359 Th-Dan succeeded twice in keeping his register of equivalents: ἰσχύς “strength,” “might”

357

358

359

See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.3 (‫)בין‬. However, the use of compound derivates from νοῦς is not new in the lxx. An analysis of the translation technique used with ‫ בין‬shows that Greek derivates from νοῦς occur frequently as equivalents for all its verbal stems. In niphal, ‫ בין‬was rendered with νοέω “to understand” (2 Sam 12:19) and νοήμων “thoughtful” (Prov 1:5); in qal with νοέω “to understand” (Prov 19:252º; 20:24; 23:12º; 28:51º; 29:19); νοητῶς “thoughtfully” (Prov 23:11º); and νοήμων “thoughtful” (Prov 28:11); in hiphil with κατανοέω “to understand” (Isa 57:1) and νοέω “to understand” (Prov 1:2, 6; 8:51º); and in hithpolel with νοέω “to understand” (Jer 2:10; 23:20); νουθετέω “to warn, admonish” (Job 23:15; 37:14; 38:18). Ἐννοέω is attested only in this instance in Th-Dan (like διανοέομαι in 1:4), suggesting ogDan’s influence on the reviser’s lexical selection. It occurs another eight times in the lxx, once in og-Dan 11:33 where it renders 1‫ ;שׂכל־‬and further in Jdt 9:5; 1Macc 2:61; 4Macc 1:24; Job 1:5; Sir 14:21; Isa 41:20; Bar 2:16. Apparently, the “excuse” to rely on og-Dan emerges from the double clustering of ‫ בין‬in the imperative of both qal and hiphil in the context. The same technique was observed in dealing with a cluster of sapiential words in Dan 1:4 (see ch. 3 B § 8.2 [διανοέομαι]). The alignment of Th-Dan in this chart differs from catss:

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 267

for 0‫ חיל־‬in l. 3 and ἀνήρ “man” for 0‫ גבר־‬in l. 1. The stereotypical usage of these equivalents throughout Th-Dan suggests that in l. 2 the reviser followed og-Dan in rendering ‫ גברי חיל‬with the single equivalent ἰσχυροὺς,360 with the caveat that he found it necessary to shift from the superlative to the positive form of the adjective. ‫[ עמד‬hiphil] (to set up)

og

Th

συνάγω (σύν, ἄγω) to gather, bring together; compile (Dan 11:13)

ἄγω bring, lead, go, celebrate (Dan 11:13)

Both renditions are unique equivalents in the lxx.361 This points to the og’s influence on Th-Dan, which slightly revised the og rendition from συνάγω toward ἄγω, presumably to distinguish from the use of συνάγω for ‫“ אסף‬to gather” in the immediate context.362 ‫( סלח‬to forgive)

og

Th

ἱλατεύω (ἵλεως) to be gracious (Dan 9:18)

ἱλάσκομαι (ἵλεως) to be merciful, pardon, be propitious (Dan 9:19)

360 361 362

l.

mt

og

Th

1 2 3 4

‫ולגברין‬ ‫גברי חיל‬ ‫די בחילה‬ ‫אמר לכפתה ]…[׃‬

καὶ ἄνδρας ἰσχυροτάτους τῶν ἐν τῇ δυνάμει ἐπέταξε συμποδίσαντας […].

καὶ ἄνδρας ἰσχυροὺς ἰσχύι εἶπεν πεδήσαντας […].

See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.2 (0‫ ;)גבר־‬C § 13.1.3.2 (0‫)חיל־‬. This is the only occasion when Th-Dan or og-Dan employs the adj. ἰσχυρός for either 0‫ חיל־‬or 0‫ גבר־‬or for both. For a detailed analysis of the translation technique of ‫עמד‬, see ch. 3 C §12.2.2. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 83 (No. 58). Beside Dan 11:13, Th-Dan has also employed ἄγω in 9:24 to render ‫ בוא‬hiphil “to bring.” Considering that συνάγω has been employed for ‫ אסף‬in 11:10, it seems probable that in v. 13 the term was revised toward the more general rendition ἄγω.

268

chapter 3

The translation of ‫ סלח‬with a verb derived from ἵλεως occurs rarely in the lxx, which favored the periphrastic construction ἵλεως + εἰμί or the word ἀφαιρέω.363 The reviser has presumably reworked the hapax ἱλατεύω toward ἱλάσκομαι, the latter being a more frequent equivalent in particular translational units.364 1‫( שׂכל־‬to be wise, understand) og

Th

διανοέομαι (διά, νοῦς) to intend, plan, understand (Dan 12:10)

νοήμων (νοῦς) understanding, thoughtful (Dan 12:10)

Considering that compound derivates from νοῦς are specific to the og-Dan stock of equivalents (i.e., διανοέομαι in Dan 9:13, 25; ἐννοέω in Dan 11:33),365 ThDan’s νοήμων in 12:10 is best seen as a partly reworked rendition influenced by the og. The reviser’s reliance on the og was due to the clustering of the synonymous roots ‫ בין‬and 1‫ שׂכל־‬thrice in the sentence ‫ולא יבינו כל רשעים והמשכלים‬ ‫יבינו‬, both of which have συνίημι as their main equivalent in Th-Dan.366 In the context in question, to differentiate between the two roots, the reviser has partly-retained and partly-revised the og rendition. 0‫( יצב־‬to make certain) og

Th

ἐξακριβάζομαι (ἐκ, ἀκριβής) to inquire exactly (Dan 7:19)

ἀκριβῶς (ἀκριβής) diligently, precisely, accurately (Dan 7:19)

363

364 365 366

The construction ἵλεως + εἰμί “to be merciful” appears in Num 14:20; 1Kgs 8:30, 34, 36, 39, 50; Jer 5:1; 31[38]:34; 36[43]:3; 50[27]:20; 2 Chr 6:21, 25, 27, 39; 7:14, while ἀφαιρέω (ἀπό, αἱρέω) “to take away” is attested in Exod 34:9; Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 26; 19:22. ‫ סלח‬was further rendered with ἀφίημι “to forgive,” “to permit” (Num 14:19; 15:25–26; Isa 55:7); καθαρίζω “to cleanse” (Num 30:6, 9, 13); εὐιλατεύω “to be merciful” (Deut 29:19); ἵλεως + γένομαι “to be merciful” (Jer 5:7; Amos 7:2); μιμνῄσκομαι “to remember” (Jer 33[40]:8 [i.e. ‫;)]זכר‬ εὐιλατεύω “to be merciful” (Ps 103[102]:3). lxx=0: Num 15:28. Ἱλάσκομαι “to be merciful” appears six times in the lxx: 2Kgs 5:182X; 24:4; Ps 25[24]:11; Lam 3:42; 2 Chr 6:30. See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.3 (1‫)שׂכל־‬. See n. above and ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.3 (‫)בין‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 269

We have elsewhere argued the significance of the equivalents ἀλήθεια and ἀκρίβεια for 0‫יציב־‬.367 This adjective occurs five times, but the verb 0‫ יצב־‬occurs only once (7:19). Considering Th-Dan’s dependence on the og in rendering 0‫ יציב־‬and the rare occurrence of ἐξακριβάζομαι and ἀκριβῶς, it stands to reason that the reviser partly adopted and partly adapted the og’s rendition in v. 19.368 0‫( מרט־‬to pluck out) og

Th

τίλλω to pluck (Dan 7:4)

ἐκτίλλω to pluck (Dan 7:4)

0‫ מרט־‬constitutes a hapax in the Aramaic, for which the og has employed the rare τίλλω.369 Its Hebrew cognate ‫“ מרט‬to make smooth,” “to polish” occurs fourteen times. Considering the various contextual guesses, it appears that it created problems for translators.370 Consequently, it is likely that Th has relied on the og in its lexical choice, which it partly revised toward its synonymous equivalent ἐκτίλλω. By doing this, the reviser not only employed a rendering attested more times in the lxx,371 but also created an exegetical link in his translation between Daniel 4 and 7. Remarkably, ἐκτίλλω occurs previously in og-Dan 4:11[14], 20[23] in relation to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the big tree. Exegetically, Dan 7:4 refers back to his conversion experience as reported in Daniel 4.372

367 368 369 370

371

372

See ch. 3 B § 6.4 (0‫)יציב־‬. Each equivalent occurs twice in the lxx: ἐξακριβάζομαι is attested in Num 23:10; Job 28:3*, while the adverb ἀκριβῶς in Deut 19:18; Wis 19:18. In addition to the context in question, τίλλω occurs three times and renders ‫ מרט‬in Ezra 9:3; Isa 18:7. mt=0: Sol 13:3. ‫ מרט‬is translated with the following equivalents: μαδάω “to lose hair,” “to become bald” (Lev 13:40–41; Ezek 29:18; Neh 13:25); ἄρδην “completely,” “utterly” (1Kgs 7:45[31]); ξένος “stranger” (Isa 18:2); τίλλω, “to pluck” (Isa 18:7; Ezra 9:3); ῥάπισμα “stroke” (Isa 50:6); θυμόω “to be angry” (Ezek 21:14); ἕτοιμος “ready” (Ezek 21:15, 162X); σπάω, “to draw out,” “to draw in” (Ezek 21:33). Ἐκτίλλω occurs eight times and renders: ‫“ חתה‬to take,” “to snatch” (Ps 52[51]:7); ‫“ נתשׁ‬to uproot” (Jer 24:6; 42[49]:10; 45:4[51:34]); and ‫“ עקר‬to uproot” (Eccl 3:2). mt=0: Sir 10:15; 40:16 [‫ ;]?נדך‬Sol 14:4. For the allusion of Dan 7:4 to Daniel 4, see Collins, Daniel, 297; and Montgomery, Daniel, 286–287. Ἐκτίλλω occurs once more in Th-Dan 11:4 wherein it renders ‫“ נתשׁ‬to uproot.”

270 8

chapter 3

Th-Dan’s Use of the og Context for Selecting Its Equivalents

The reviser’s attitude regarding the base text is also discernible in the way he has searched the og context. To single out lexical choices, he intentionally scrutinized the immediate as well as the wider og translational units. These inferences are drawn based on rare equivalents shared between Th-Dan and the og. In order to present as clearly as possible the og’s context that presumably inspired the reviser’s selection of equivalents, the heading of each example in this section, as a rule, lists the Greek equivalent under discussion. In a few cases, the heading lists the Hebrew lexeme, e.g., ‫“ תמיד‬continually.” The two columns then present the Hebrew or the Greek counterparts within their contextual references. 8.1 Immediate Context The recensional practice of seeking equivalents in the surrounding context of the base text is expected, especially since the reviser may have easily recalled similar wording in the Semitic source text. This awareness presumably caused him to search the preceding and following context, comparing the way the wording was handled by the og translator. We refer to a context as immediate when the reviser’s search for an equivalent entailed the scrutiny of a single chapter, e.g., looking a few verses ahead or behind in the same chapter. A similar practice was observed by Greenspoon while commenting on Theodotion’s revising technique in Josh 5:2: Often Th.’s aim in revising the og was to standardize the translation of various words or phrases. We suggest that Th. had before him a text which contained the og for v 2. Noticing that the same phrase occurred in the (Hebrew of the) next verse and perhaps not feeling completely satisfied with the og at v 2, Th. may have read ahead to the Greek of v 3. He apparently preferred the og rendering of ‫ חרבות צרים‬there and introduced that into his text for v 2. In this manner Th. revised one passage in the og through the use of another og passage.373 The examples below are ordered according to the range of the immediate context: if the equivalent was singled out in the same verse, the example will be presented first; if it was singled out within a one-verse range, either ahead or behind, will be presented second, etc. 373

Greenspoon, Textual Studies, 62–63.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 271 ‫( תמיד‬continually)

og

Th

αἰών age, eternity (Dan 8:11) θυσία sacrifice (Dan 8:11–13) θυσία sacrifice (Dan 8:12–13; 11:31; 12:11) ἐνδελεχισμός continuity (Dan 11:31; 12:11)

Grappling with ‫ הרים התמיד‬in Dan 8:11, the og-Dan translator exegetes the phrase as purportedly denoting ‫ הרי התמיד‬as it emerges from τὰ ὄρη τὰ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος. However, starting with v. 12, the translator conceives the unique equivalent θυσία which he then uses stereotypically. Substantiating evidence from the use of the unique θυσία for ‫ תמיד‬only in vv. 11–13374 and its correction toward the more precise ἐνδελεχισμός in Th-Dan 11:31 and 12:11,375 indicates the reviser’s examination of og-Dan’s immediate context of 8:12–13 to derive his equivalent in v. 11. ῥάσσω (to strike) og

Th

‫ נפל‬to fall (Dan 8:10) ‫ שלך‬to throw, fling, cast (Dan 8:11)

‫[ רום‬hophal] to be withdrawn (Dan 8:11)

Ῥάσσω occurs only in v. 11 in Th-Dan and agrees with the Qere reading ‫הוּ ַרם‬.376 The term occurs rarely outside the version of Daniel.377 Furthermore, it represents the only deviation from rendering ‫ רום‬with ὑψόω “to lift up,” “to exalt” in

374 375 376

377

For the significance of this agreement, see Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 71–72 (No. 42). See ch. 3 B § 11 (ἐνδελεχισμός). hrcs, s.v. “ῥάσσω,” implies a different alignment in Th-Dan, namely, ῥάσσω—‫שלך‬. However, we consider the catss alignment to be more precise and it is followed here. See also Michael Segal, “Old Greek and Theodotion to Daniel 8” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the sbl, San Diego, CA, 22–25 Nov. 2014), 11. Ῥάσσω occurs another five times and renders ‫“ שגב‬to be exalted” (Isa 9:10 [catss implies a derivation from Arabic?]), ‫“ רטש‬to dash in pieces” (Isa 13:16), and ‫“ נטש‬to forsake” (Jer 23:33, 39 [likely etymological derivation from ‫)]רטש‬. mt=0: Jdt 9:8.

272

chapter 3

Th-Dan.378 These facts suggest that the reviser borrowed it from the immediate og context of either v. 10 or v. 11.379 ἐπιστήμη (knowledge, skill, art) og

Th

‫ מדע‬knowledge (Dan 1:17) → 0‫ ידע־‬to know + ‫ בינה‬understanding

‫ בינה‬understanding (Dan 1:20)

(Dan 2:21); Sus 62b

Corroborating evidence from the translation technique of both the og and Th-Dan suggests that the exceptional use of ἐπιστήμη in Dan 1:20 by Th was influenced by the immediate context of the og. Ἐπιστήμη is the only glaring deviation from Th’s pattern of rendering ‫בינה‬,380 and moreover the data indicate that the Greek word is characteristic of og-Dan.381 0‫( אזדא־‬definite, irrefutable382) og

Th

og=0: Dan 2:5 ἀφίστημι to withdraw, remove, depart, leave (Dan 2:8)

ἀφίστημι to withdraw, remove, depart, leave (Dan 2:5, 8)

378 379

380 381

382

Dan 11:12, 36; 12:7. The og also employs ὑψόω in the first and last instances while in 11:36 uses παροργίζω “to make angry.” Of the two verses, the best candidate is v. 11, which conflates double readings that apparently were present in the og, base text of the reviser. According to Segal (“Old Greek and Theodotion to Daniel 8,” 10), ῥάσσω in v. 11 represents the original translation which has been adopted in Th-Dan. For the translation technique involved in rendering both ‫ בינה‬and the verbal root ‫“ בין‬to understand,” see ch. 3 B § 9.1.1 (‫—בינה‬διάνοια); A § 1.1.1.3 (‫)בין‬. In light of the fact that ἐπιστήμη occurs in og-Dan before and after v. 20, it could have theoretically been present in the mind of the reviser as he searched for an equivalent for ‫בינה‬ other than παιδεια. Similarly, the adj. ἐπιστήμων “understanding” occurs three times—only in og-Dan—and distributed before and after Th-Dan 1:20: 1‫( שׂכל־‬Dan 1:4); mt=0: Dan 5:11; 6:4[3]. Therefore, either 1:4 or 1:17 or both could have constituted the proximity from where Th-Dan drew its equivalent. halot, s.v. “‫אזד‬.”

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 273

The chart below shows the conflated nature of og-Dan 2:8 which points to double translations:

l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

mt

Pap 967

‫]…[ כל קבל די‬ ‫חזיתון‬ ‫די‬ ‫אזדא‬ ‫מני‬ ‫מלתא׃‬

καθάπερ οὖν προστέταχα,

88-Syh

ogMu

Th

καθάπερ ἑωράκατε ὅτι ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸ πρᾶγμα· ÷ καθάπερ οὖν προστέταχα, οὕτως ἔσται· /.

καθάπερ

καθότι εἴδετε ὅτι ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸ ῥῆμα·

οὖν προστέταχα

οὕτως ἔσται·

It is likely that the proposed original og reading καθάπερ οὖν προστέταχα οὕτως ἔσται attracted the attention of a copyist because of its imprecise nature. The problem apparently stemmed from the difficult word 0‫אזדא־‬, which was imported from Old Persian azdā.383 To cope with the difficulty, the og translator contextually assumed that the phrase ‫ די אזדא מני מלתא‬refers to the act of issuing a command, while ‫ חזיתון‬was translated with οὕτως ἔσται, a free adaptation to the new context. Noticing the imprecise translation, a later Greek copyist introduced a double translation which was preserved in mss 88-Syh (ll. 1–6). The new rendering more closely reflected the mt-like Vorlage but still betrayed his guesswork regarding 0‫אזדא־‬.384 It was this conflated text that stood in front of the reviser who, to render 0‫ אזדא־‬in v. 5, scrutinized the immediate context and borrowed ἀφίστημι from the og doublet of v. 8.385 383 384 385

Ibid. See further Montgomery, Daniel, 21, 145; Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 138; Driver, Daniel, 17–18; etc. The equivalent ἀφίστημι seemingly suggests that the Greek translator has etymologically derived from the Aramaic ‫“ אזל‬to go.” Montgomery, Daniel, 147–148. Though Amara noted the double reading in Dan 2:8, she did not recognize that the doublet attested in ll. 1–6 of mss 88-Syh preceded Th-Dan’s version. “Old Greek Version of Daniel,” 253–254. That the reviser has reworked the og is visible in the way he corrected καθάπερ, ἑωράκατε, and τὸ πρᾶγμα with καθότι, εἴδετε, and τὸ ῥῆμα, respectively. The fact that mss 88-Syh enclose καθάπερ οὖν προστέταχα, οὕτως ἔσται with obelus and metobelus

274

chapter 3

συντρίβω (to crush, to break) og

Th

‫ שׁטף‬to overflow, rinse (Dan 11:22)

‫ שׁטף‬to overflow, rinse (Dan 11:40)

Synopses of translation technique for √‫ שׁטף‬and συντρίβω can be consulted at ch. 3 A §1.1.2.2 and §1.2.1.2, respectively. Several facts emerge from these synopses: (1) √‫ שׁטף‬was consistently represented in Th-Dan with -κλύζω derivates except in 11:40; (2) συντρίβω regularly renders √‫ שׁבר‬in Th-Dan except in 11:40; (3) the translation of ‫ שׁטף‬with συντρίβω is limited to only the Greek versions of Daniel. The og employs συντρίβω twice for the same root in 11:22 while Th-Dan uses it once in v. 40. The borrowing from v. 22 og into v. 40 Th was triggered by og-Dan’s lack of an equivalent for ‫ שׁטף‬in v. 40. This situation apparently led to the reviser searching the immediate context and being influenced by the og rendition in v. 22. 0‫( דקק־‬to crush) og

Th

[1] καταλέω to grind (Dan 2:34) [2] γίνομαι to become + λεπτός (λεπίς) small (Dan 2:35) [3] ἐκκόπτω to cut off, cut down, destroy (Dan 2:402º) [4] πατάσσω to strike (Dan 2:44) [5] συναλοάω to grind into powder (Dan 2:45) [6] θλάω to crush, bruise (Dan 6:25[24]) [7] κοπανίζω to grind (Dan 7:7)

[1] λεπτύνω (λεπίς) to crush, grind to powder (Dan 2:34, 35, 402X, 44, 45; 6:25[24]; 7:7, 19) [2] κατακόπτω to cut, cut down, cut in pieces (Dan 7:23)

suggests that the original reading was perceived as a plus over against mt. The absence in pap 967 of οὕτως ἔσται can be explained as due to parablepsis between the words of the reading marked in red. Whether the absence of the long string of words of ll. 1–6 was secondarily omitted in pap 967 because of haplography (McLay, “A Collation of Variants,” 126) or not does not bear on our interpretation of the data suggested above.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 275 (cont.)

og

Th

[8] καταλεαίνω to grind down (Dan 7:23) og=0: Dan 2:401º; 7:19

og-Dan’s equivalents in 2:34–35 evoke the remote context of the golden calf incident in which both καταλέω and λεπτός were employed.386 Considering both the immediate context of v. 35 in which λεπτός appears and the fact that λεπτός and λεπτύνω derive from λεπίς “flake,” “scale,” it may be judged that Th-Dan’s stereotyped rendition was likely inspired by og-Dan. A comparable mechanical process further explains the presence of κατακόπτω in Th-Dan 7:23.387 8.2 Wider Context The cases below suggest the possibility that the reviser may have been inspired by the wider og-Dan contexts. Whether in the previous category we referred to the immediate context as one-chapter range only, by wider context we refer to the tendency of the reviser to consult ahead or behind all other chapters in ogDan. This recensional technique is expected, given the tendency of a reviser to consult the base text whenever he recalls similar language in the source text.388

386

387

388

Besides the comparable contexts which deal with idols, there are further striking translational techniques which tie both passages together. The equivalent καταλέω occurs only in Dan 2:34; Exod 32:20; Deut 9:21, the last passage retelling the story of Exod 32:20. Furthermore, λεπτός renders the root ‫ דקק‬in both Exod 32:20 and Deut 9:21. Th-Dan uses the compound κατακόπτω (κατά, κόπτω) free of exegetical rationales: the term was consistently employed in both the vision and the interpretation within the framework of Daniel 7 (vv. 7, 19). Since κατακόπτω is confined in Th-Dan to 7:23, and compound derivates from κόπτω in og-Dan were twice used previously in 2:402º and 7:7, the possibility once more presents itself that the reviser has consulted the context of og-Dan more often than generally acknowledged. Theodotion’s use of the wider context of lxx-Exod is hinted by O’Connell (Theodotionic Revision, 12–16). Discussing Exod 32:25, he observes that the root ‫“ פרע‬to let go,” “to neglect,” “to uncover” occurs thrice in this book: twice in 32:25 and once in 5:4. The fact that Th-Exod and lxx-Exod agree with each other in twice rendering ‫ פרע‬with διασκεδάζω “to scatter” in 32:25, led O’Connell to conclude that Theodotion relies on lxx-Exod.

276

chapter 3

As in the previous category, the examples below are organized according to the scale of the wider context: if an equivalent was singled out within the range of a chapter before or following, the example will be presented first; if it was singled out within a two-chapter range, it will be presented second, etc. μάγος (wise man, magician) og

Th

‫אשׁף‬/0‫ אשׁף־‬conjurer (Dan 2:2, 10)

‫אשׁף‬/0‫ אשׁף־‬conjurer (Dan 1:20; 2:2, 10,

27; 4:4[7]; 5:7, 11, 15)

Μάγος constitutes a significant agreement between the og and Th-Dan389 and may further support our inference regarding the broader use of the og context in the lexical choices in Th-Dan. The reviser presumably employed og-Dan 2:2, 10 to determine an adequate equivalent for ‫ אשׁף‬in 1:20.390 μορφή (form, appearance) og

Th

0‫ צלם־‬image (Dan 3:19)

0‫ זיו־‬countenance (Dan 4:33[36]; 5:6, 9, 10; 7:28) → 0‫—זיו־‬πρόσοψις appearance (Dan 2:31)

389

390

Furthermore, when considering that Th-Exod 5:4 also uses διασκεδάζω while the lxx uses a different equivalent (i.e., διαστρέφω “to turn,” “to pervert”), he suggests that Theodotion corrected the base text in view of the wider context of 32:25. In the Greek ot, the use of the word μάγος is restricted to og-Dan and Th-Dan. We have therefore argued elsewhere about the significance of the shared rendition in 2:2, 10. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 42–43 (No. 8). The use of μάγος in Th-Dan 1:20 could be explained as owing to the occurrence there of ‫ אשׁף‬together with ‫“ חרטם‬magician.” While the og has rendered them freely with σοφιστής and φιλόσοφος, Th has revised the latter with the standard equivalent ἐπαοιδός (Exod 7:11; 22; 8:3, 14, 15). However, ‫ אשׁף‬has triggered the need for Th-Dan to look for a new equivalent. Consequently, Th made use of the immediate context of 2:2 where, again, these two terms occur jointly. See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 (‫אשׁף‬/0‫)אשׁף־‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 277

Apparently dissatisfied by the first-found equivalent for 0‫ זיו־‬in og-Dan 2:31, the reviser preferred μορφή to πρόσοψις,391 after he came across the former in Dan 3:19. Not only the rarity of μορφή in the lxx corpus392 but also the nature of its use in Dan 3:19 endorses the contextual dependence of Th-Dan on ogDan.393 θεωρέω (to see, observe) og

Th

0‫ חזה־‬to see + 0‫ הוה־‬to be, become (Dan 4:10[13]; 7:2, 4, 6–7, 9, 11, 13) 0‫ חזה־‬to see (Dan 3:27[94]) ‫ ראה‬to see (Dan 8:15) mt=0: 3:24[91]; Sus 37

0‫ חזה־‬to see + 0‫ הוה־‬to be, become (Dan 2:31, 34; 4:7[10], 10[13]; 7:2, 4, 6–7, 9, 11, 13, 21) 0‫ חזה־‬to see (Dan 3:27[94]; 5:5) mt=0: Sus 8, 20

The paraphrastic construction ‫ חזה הוית‬belongs to the technical language of the book, marking (successive) visionary scenes of the same dream or vision.394 As a consequence, the og has coined θεωρέω to linguistically carry a comparable function in the target language. However, the og did not apply θεωρέω in Daniel 2—possibly because of a theological rationale395—while the reviser was quick to notice and correct the inconsistency, importing θεωρέω from the larger context into vv. 31, 34. The unique use of the equivalent further supports this assumption.396

391 392

393

394 395

396

See ch. 3 B § 6.2 (0‫)זיו־‬. Outside og/Th-Dan, μορφή occurs only six other times, rendering three distinct Hebrew words: ‫“ תאר‬form” (Judg 8:18); ‫“ תמונה‬form” (Job 4:16); ‫“ תבנית‬pattern,” “form” (Isa 44:131º); mt=0: Tob 1:13; 4 Macc 15:4; Wis 18:1. For the exegetical use of μορφή in Dan 3:19, see ch. 3 C §13.1.3.2 (0‫)צלם־‬. It seems that the reviser borrowed μορφή since it served to distinguish between the use of 0‫ זיו־‬to refer to objects (translated with πρόσοψις in Dan 2:31) and the other instances wherein it refers to humans. The linguistic pattern itself, i.e., participle + verb “to be,” expresses “continuance of action.” Montgomery, Daniel, 165. It is possible that the og’s use of ὁράω “to see,” “to perceive” instead of θεωρέω in Dan 2:31, 34 purposefully implies that Nebuchadnezzar cannot “see” things that only the seer Daniel can “see.” The same implication is seemingly found in Dan 5:5 regarding Belshazzar, wherein the og again employs ὁράω while Th has θεωρέω for 0‫חזה־‬. Θεωρέω appears forty-one times outside Daniel, which employs the word at a higher frequency than any other book: twelve times in og-Dan and sixteen times in Th-Dan. In the

278

chapter 3 ‫( אמת‬truth)

og

Th

ἀληθής true, honest, genuine (Dan 10:1) δικαιοσύνη righteousness, justice (Dan 8:12; 9:13) ἀλήθεια truth, truthfulness, faithfulness (Dan 8:26; 10:21; 11:2)

ἀληθής true, honest, genuine (Dan 8:26) δικαιοσύνη righteousness, justice (Dan 8:12) ἀλήθεια truth, truthfulness, faithfulness (Dan 9:13; 10:21; 11:2) ἀληθινός true (Dan 10:1)

The word ἀληθής occurs only once in each of the Greek versions, translating in both instances ‫אמת‬. Furthermore, since it constitutes a rare equivalent in the lxx,397 it raises the possibility of Th-Dan’s dependence on the og. Searching the larger context of og-Dan for an equivalent, the reviser remembered ἀληθής in og-Dan 10:1, where ‫ אמת‬was also used attributively.398 In Th-Dan 10:1, however, the reviser abandoned ἀληθής, giving precedence to the more frequent equivalent ἀληθινός.399

397

398

399

lxx, it predominantly occurs in Apocrypha, i.e. 1 Esd 4:19, 24, 29, 31; Jdt 10:10; Tob 1:17; 11:16; 12:19; 1 Macc 4:20; 13:29; 2 Macc 3:17; 7:17; 9:23; 3 Macc 1:27; 3:8; 6:17; 4Macc 14:13; 15:19; 17:7, 14; Wis 6:12; 13:5; 16:7; 17:6; 19:7–8; Sir 42:22. Θεωρέω stereotypically renders √‫( ראה‬Josh 8:20; Judg 13:19–20; Pss 22[21]:8; 31[30]:12; 50[49]:18; 64[63]:9; 66[65]:18; 68[67]:25; 73[72]:3; Prov 15:30; Eccl 7:11), excepting ‫“ חזה‬to see” (Ps 27[26]:4) and ‫“ זמם‬to purpose” (Prov 31:16). Furthermore, the condensed translation features the og style, arguing that the equivalency 0‫ חזה־‬+ 0‫ הוה־‬emerges from the og. Schmitt, Stammt der sogennante “θ”–Text, 54. Ἀληθής occurs nineteen times in the lxx outside og-Dan, rendering ‫ אמת‬only in three instances such as Deut 13:15; Isa 43:9; Neh 7:2. Whereas ἀληθής lacks a Hebrew correspondent in Jdt 11:10; 4 Macc 5:10; Odes 7:27; Wis 1:6; 2:17; 6:17; 12:27; 15:1, it has rendered in the reminder ‫“ כון‬to be firm” (Gen 41:32; Job 42:7–8); ‫“ צדיק‬righteous” (Isa 41:26); ‫“ צדק‬righteousness” (Prov 1:3); ‫“ קשׁט‬truth” (Prov 22:21); ‫“ תושׁיה‬wisdom,” “success” (Job 5:12); and ‫“ חכם‬wise” (Job 17:10). Out of the six occurrences of ‫ אמת‬in mt-Dan, it is used only twice attributively: in the phrases ‫“ ומראה הערב והבקר אשׁר נאמר אמת הוא‬the vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true” (Dan 8:26 niv) and ‫“ ואמת הדבר‬that oracle was true” (Dan 10:1). Presumably, the special syntactical function of ‫ אמת‬has triggered the reviser’s scrutiny of the larger og-Dan context. Indeed, ἀληθινός occurs more frequently in the lxx, i.e., forty-three times (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Deut 25:15; 32:4; 2 Sam 7:28; 1 Kgs 10:6; 17:24; 2 Chr 9:5; 15:3; 1Esd 8:86; Tob 3:2, 5; 3Macc 2:11; 6:18; Pss 19[18]:10; 86[85]:15; Odes 2:4; 7:27, 31; Prov 12:19; Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; 4:7, 12; 6:25; 8:6, 21; 17:8; 27:17; Zech 8:3; Isa 25:1; 38:3; 57:18; 59:4; 65:2, 16; Jer 2:21; Dan 3:27, 31). In contradis-

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 279 ‫( רדם‬to sleep soundly)

og

Th

κοιμάομαι to sleep (Dan 8:18) πίπτω to fall (Dan 10:9)

πίπτω to fall (Dan 8:18) κατανύσσομαι to stab; to slumber (Dan 10:9)

Outside of mt-Dan, ‫ רדם‬occurs five times and has challenged the translators.400 og-Dan renders it contextually in 8:18, suggesting that the prophet’s response to the angel’s speech was to sleep: καὶ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐκοιμήθην ἐπὶ πρόσωπον χαμαί “And while he spoke with me, I slept facedown on the ground.” In 8:18 the reviser looked for a better equivalent and, thus, for a better interpretation of the prophet’s reaction to the angelic being. Taking recourse to the wider context, he was inspired by the second contextual guess in og-Dan 10:9, which described Daniel as “falling” to the ground in the angel’s proximity.401 διανοέομαι (to understand) og

Th

‫ בין‬to understand (Dan 8:5, 17, 23, 27; 9:2; 10:1, 11–12; 11:30; 12:8, 101º)

‫ בין‬to understand (Dan 1:4)

The list of inner qualities describing participants in the king’s program is profuse with sapiential language: ‫( ומשׂכילים בכל חכמה וידעי דעת ומביני מדע‬Dan 1:4). Expectedly, the reviser struggled to follow his word-for-word agenda, though he remarkably produced a literal and consistent revision of the phrase, excepting the use of διανοέομαι for ‫בין‬: καὶ συνιέντας ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ γιγνώσκοντας γνῶ-

400

401

tinction to ἀληθής which renders ‫ אמת‬only three times, ἀληθινός translates it eleven times: Exod 34:6; 2 Sam 7:28; 1 Kgs 10:6; 17:24; Jer 2:21; Zech 8:3; Pss 19[18]:10; 86[85]:15; Prov 12:19; 2 Chr 9:5; 15:3. This challenge is reflected in the multiple equivalents and their contextual approximation in rendering ‫רדם‬: ἀποσκαρίζω “to struggle” (Judg 4:21); ῥέγχω “to snore” (Jonah 1:5–6); νυστάζω “to become sleepy, drowsy” (Ps 76[75]:7); γίνομαι + ἀνεμόφθορος “to be blasted by the wind” (Prov 10:5). For an explanation for Th-Dan’s variation of equivalents for ‫רדם‬, see ch. 3 C §13.1.3.1 (1‫)אלם־‬.

280

chapter 3

σιν καὶ διανοουμένους φρόνησιν (Th-Dan).402 In light of the fact that διανοέομαι is both a hapax significant agreement and the main equivalent of ‫ בין‬in ogDan, its use here indicates the reviser’s referral to the larger context of og-Dan in making lexical choices.403 The recourse to this technique was apparently conditioned by the context: since the reviser has already used συνίημι (ptc.) to render 1‫( שׂכל־‬ptc.), it stands to reason that he looked in the context for a different equivalent to represent ‫( בין‬ptc.).404

9

Standardization vis-à-vis lxx Vocabulary

In the previous subsection we elucidated by means of unique and rare equivalents the reviser’s tendency to search for equivalents in og-Dan’s immediate and wider context, and even in remote passages in the lxx. The technique reveals the reviser’s high regard for the base text as a source of inspiration for his choices of equivalents. In this sub-section, we further contend that the same attitude is visible in the way the reviser corrected many peculiar og renditions toward standard lxx equivalents.405 Through this recensional technique he also accomplishes his desire to maintain, as much as possible, the same register of equivalents in his revision as is found in the other parts of the lxx. The categories below show the systematic recensional work of replacing unique and rare renditions and hapax and rare Greek vocabulary that the reviser found in the base text. 9.1 Substitution of Rare Renditions with Standard Equivalents The og frequently employs unique and rare lxx equivalents for Semitic lexemes. In contrast, Th-Dan tends to replace such renditions with standard lxx 402

403 404

405

og-Dan translates the phrase freely, condensing terms and showing little interest in standardization and consistency: καὶ ἐπιστήμονας ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ γραμματικοὺς καὶ συνετοὺς καὶ σοφοὺς. See ch. 3 A § 2.2.1.2 (Dan 1:4). For the significance of διανοέομαι, see ch. 3 B § 7 (‫ ;)בין‬for the employed equivalents for ‫בין‬ in both Th-Dan and og-Dan, see ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.3 (‫)בין‬. The reviser perhaps used a similar technique to single out the equivalent φρόνησις “wisdom” for ‫ ַמ ָדּע‬in Dan 1:4. He seemingly found φρόνησις in Dan 1:17, assuming that its presence there is not tantamount to a double reading in the og. We refer to a rendition as “standard” when, outside og-Dan, it stands as the main equivalent for a Semitic lexeme in the remainder of the lxx. Most of the time, a standard equivalent could also be referred to as the stereotyped lxx equivalent. Since we have mainly discussed stereotyping within the framework of Th-Dan’s revision, we prefer to employ the terms “standard” and “standardization” to describe the reviser’s effort to level og-Dan’s equivalents against the background of the remainder of the lxx.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 281

ones. The unique og-Dan equivalents for mt lexemes are noted in the heading. The chart then presents the location where the equivalency appears in the og, while the standard Th-Dan equivalent is presented in the right-hand column. The same organizing principle is used in presenting the rare equivalents, with the addition of a new line that specifies the rareness of the mt—og-Dan’s equivalency. The examples are listed in sequential order. 9.1.1

Unique lxx Equivalents 0‫( דקק־‬to crush)—ἐκκόπτω (to cut off, destroy)

og

Th

Dan 2:402º

λεπτύνω to crush, grind to powder (Dan 2:402º)

Ἐκκόπτω appears about fifty times in the lxx but it renders √‫ דקק‬only once (Dan 2:202º). The reviser replaced ἐκκόπτω with λεπτύνω, presumably because of the former’s uniqueness. The latter constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ דקק‬in the lxx.406 0‫( זרע־‬seed)—γένεσις (family, race) og

Th

Dan 2:43

σπέρμα seed, offspring (Dan 2:43)

Σπέρμα constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ זרע‬in the lxx.407 406

407

‫ דקק‬occurs thirteen times in mt and was primarily rendered with derivates of λεπίς: six times λεπτύνω (2 Sam 22:43; 2 Kgs 23:6, 15; Mic 4:13; 2 Chr 34:4; Isa 41:15); and four times λεπτός “small” (Exod 30:36; 32:20; Deut 9:21; 2 Chr 34:7). In two other instances, ‫ דקק‬was apparently rendered contextually with βιβρώσκω “to eat” (Isa 28:281º) and καταπατέω “to trample on,” “to oppress” (Isa 28:282º). lxx=0: 2 Chr 15:16. Γένος appears over 100 times in the lxx but it renders ‫ זרע‬only in the instances above. ‫זרע‬ occurs 229 times, having σπέρμα as its standard equivalent, cf. Gen 1:112X, 122X, 292X; 3:152X; 4:25; 7:3; 8:22; 9:9; 12:7; 13:15, 162X; 15:3, 5, 13, 18; 16:10; 17:72X, 8–10, 12, 19; 19:32, 34; 21:12–13; 22:172X, 18; 24:7, 60; 26:3, 43X, 24; 28:4, 13, 142X; 32:13; 35:12; 38:8, 92X; 46:6–7; 47:19, 23–24; 48:4, 11, 19; Exod 16:31; 28:43; 32:132X; 33:1; Lev 11:37–38; 15:16–18, 32; 18:20–21; 19:20; 20:2–4; 21:15,

282

chapter 3

0‫( דקק־‬to crush)—πατάσσω (to strike) og

Th

Dan 2:44

λεπτύνω (λεπίς) to crush, grind to powder (Dan 2:44)

See further ch. 3 B §8.1 (0‫)דקק־‬.408 ‫( בין‬to understand)—διανοέομαι (to understand)

og

Th

Dan 8:5, 17, 23, 27; 9:2; 10:11–12; 11:30; 12:8, 101º

συνίημι to understand, to think about (Dan 8:5, 17, 23, 27; 9:2; 12:8, 101º)

There is no doubt that og-Dan preferred διανοέομαι: not only are most of its occurrences in the lxx found in this book,409 it is also employed to translate words stemming from several roots.410 In contrast, the reviser replaces it with the main lxx equivalent συνίημι.411

408

409

410 411

21; 22:3, 42X, 13; 26:16; 27:30; Num 5:13, 28; 11:7; 14:24; 17:5; 18:19; 24:7; 25:13; Deut 1:8; 4:37; 10:15; 11:9; 14:22; 22:9; 28:38, 46, 59; 30:6, 19; 31:21; 34:4; Josh 24:3; 1Sam 1:11; 2:20; 8:15; 20:422X; 24:22; 2 Sam 4:8; 7:12; 22:51; 1 Kgs 2:332X; 11:14; 18:32; 2Kgs 5:27; 11:1; 17:20; 25:25; Isa 1:4; 14:20; 23:3; 30:23; 41:8; 43:5; 44:3; 45:19, 25; 48:19; 53:10; 54:3; 55:102X; 57:3–4; 59:21; 61:92X; 65:9, 23; 66:22; Jer 7:15; 22:30; 23:8; 31[38]:272X; 35[42]:7, 9; 46[26]:27; Ezek 17:5, 13; 20:5; 43:19; 44:22; Mal 2:15; Pss 18[17]:51; 21[20]:11; 22[21]:242X, 31; 25[24]:13; 37[36]:25–26, 28; 69[68]:37; 89[88]:5, 30, 37; 102[101]:29; 105[104]:6; 106[105]:27; 112[111]:2; 126[125]:6; Job 5:25; Ruth 4:12; Eccl 11:6; Esth 9:27; Ezra 2:59; 9:2; Neh 7:61; 9:8; 1 Chr 16:13; 17:11; 2Chr 20:7; 22:10. Πατάσσω appears 400 times in the lxx, but it renders ‫ דקק‬only in Dan 2:44. On the translation of ‫ דקק‬in the lxx, see the analysis of 0‫—דקק־‬ἐκκόπτω above. For the translation of 0‫ דקק־‬in og/Th-Dan, see ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.2 (0‫)דקק־‬. Διανοέομαι occurs fifty-five times in the lxx: twenty-one times in og-Dan (Dan 8:5, 15, 17, 23, 27; 9:2, 13, 23–25; 10:12X, 11–12; 11:24–25, 30, 35; 12:8, 102X) and thirty-four in the remainder of the lxx (Gen 6:5–6; 8:21; Exod 31:4; 2 Sam 21:16; 2 Chr 2:13; 11:22; Jdt 9:5, 9; 3Macc 1:2, 22; Ps 73[72]:8; Sir 3:22, 29; 6:37; 14:21; 16:20, 232X; 17:6; 21:17; 27:12; 31:15; 38:33; 39:1, 7, 12, 32; 42:18; 51:18; Zech 8:14–15; Jer 7:31; 19:5). In og-Dan, διανοέομαι represents the main equivalent for both ‫ בין‬and 1‫שׂכל־‬, and the only rendition for ‫“ חשׁב‬to think” (Dan 11:24–25). See ch. 3 A §1.1.1.3 (‫בין‬, 1‫)שׂכל־‬. Συνίημι constitutes the main equivalent for qal and hiphil verbal groups: ‫ בין‬qal (Deut 32:7; Isa 6:9–10; 43:10; Jer 9:11[12]; Hos 14:101º; Ps 5:2; 19[18]:13; 28[27]:5; 49[48]:21; 50[49]:22;

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 283 ‫( נגע‬to touch [qal])—προσεγγίζω (to draw near to)

og

Th

Dan 9:21

ἅπτω to touch (Dan 9:21)

Th-Dan replaces the hapax equivalent with the standard lxx equivalent ἅπτω.412 ‫( בינה‬understanding)—διάνοια (mind, thought, intention)

og

Th

Dan 9:22

σύνεσις understanding, intelligence (Dan 9:22)

Σύνεσις constitutes the main equivalent of ‫ בינה‬in the lxx.413

412

413

58[57]:10; 73[72]:17; 82[81]:5; 92[91]:7; 94[93]:7–8; 139[138]:2; Job 15:9; 36:29*; Ezra 8:15; Neh 8:8; 13:7; Prov 2:5, 9; 21:29 [= qere]; 28:52º; 29:7); ‫ בין‬hiphil (1Kgs 3:9; Hos 4:14; Mic 4:12; Ps 33[32]:15; Ezra 8:16; Neh 8:2–3, 12; 10:29; 1 Chr 25:7; 2Chr 26:5; 34:12; Prov 2:5; 8:9). Ἅπτω is the stereotyped rendering of ‫ נגע‬in qal throughout the lxx: Gen 3:3; 20:6; 26:11; 32:26, 33; Exod 19:12–13; 29:37; 30:29; Lev 5:2–3; 6:11, 20; 7:19, 21; 11:8, 24, 26–27, 31, 36, 39; 12:4; 15:5, 7, 10–12, 19, 21–23, 27; 22:4–6; Num 4:15; 16:26; 19:11, 13, 16, 18, 21–22; 31:19; Deut 14:8; Josh 9:19; Judg 6:21; 1 Sam 10:26; 2 Sam 5:8; 14:10; 1 Kgs 6:273X; 19:5, 7; 2Kgs 13:21; Isa 6:72X; 52:11; Jer 4:10, 18; 12:14; 48[31]:32; Ezek 17:10; Mic 1:9; Hag 2:12–13; Zech 2:122X; Ps 104[103]:32; 105[104]:15; 144[143]:5; Job 1:11, 19; 2:5; 4:5; 5:19; 19:21; Prov 6:29; Ruth 2:9; Lam 4:14–15; 1Chr 16:22. In addition, ‫ נגע‬qal was also rendered with compound derivates from ἅπτω: ἐφάπτω (ἐπί, ἅπτω) “to reach” (Amos 9:5); ἀφάπτω “to hang upon” (Judg 20:34); ἅπτομαι “to touch” (Judg 20: 41; 1 Sam 6:9); συνάπτω (σύν, ἅπτω) “to join” (Isa 16:8). The only exceptions are βδελύσσω “to make detestable” (Gen 26:19); κοπιάω “to toil” (2Sam 23:7); ἐγγίζω “to come near” (Jer 51[28]:9; Jonah 3:6); μίσγω “to mingle” (Hos 4:2); παύω “to cease, stop” (Job 6:7); φθάνω “to come before” (Ezra 3:1; Neh 7:72); lxx=0: Esth 5:2. Διάνοια appears sixty-nine times in the lxx, but it renders ‫ בינה‬only in Dan 9:22. Outside Daniel, the latter occurs thirty-four times in mt and was rendered in fourteen instances with σύνεσις (Deut 4:6; Isa 11:2; 27:11; 29:14, 24; 33:19; Job 20:3; 28:20; 38:4; 39:17; Prov 9:10; 1 Chr 12:33; 22:12; 2 Chr 2:12); six times with φρόνησις “wisdom” (Prov 1:2; 7:4; 8:14; 9:6; 16:16; 30:2); five times with ἐπιστήμη (Job 28:12, 28; 38:36; 39:26; 2Chr 2:11); and twice each ἔννοια “conception,” “meaning” (Prov 4:1; 23:4) and σοφία “skill,” “wisdom” (Prov 2:3; 3:5); and once with νουθετέω “to warn,” “to admonish” (Job 34:16). lxx=0: Jer 23:20; Prov 4:5, 7; 23:23.

284

chapter 3

1‫( שׂכל־‬to be wise, understand)—διανοέομαι (to intend, understand) og

Th

Dan 9:13, 25

συνίημι to understand, to think about (Dan 9:25)

Whereas the equivalent διανοέομαι is confined to og-Dan, συνίημι constitutes the standard lxx equivalent.414 ‫( נגע‬to touch [qal])—προσάγω (to bring to)415

og

Th

Dan 10:10

ἅπτω to touch (Dan 10:10)

‫( בין‬to understand)—ὑποδείκνυμι (to show, inform)

og

Th

Dan 10:14

συνετίζω to instruct (Dan 10:14)

In the hiphil stem, ‫ בין‬can take either of two meanings: 1) “to understand” conveying the basic meaning of the qal; and 2) “to make understand.”416 Sensitive to the second meaning, the reviser employs συνετίζω, showing further interest in stereotyping and standardization.417

414 415 416 417

See ch. 3 B § 9.2.2 (ἐπιστήμων). See ch. 3 A §§ 1.1.1.1 (‫ ;)נגע‬B § 9.1.1 (‫—נגע‬προσεγγίζω). halot, s.v. “‫בין‬.” Συνετίζω occurs twelve other times in the lxx; significantly, not only does it, as a rule, render ‫ בין‬in hiphil (Neh 8:7, 9; Ps 119[118]:27, 34, 73, 125, 130, 144, 169), but it is also opted for to convey the second meaning of ‫בין‬. In two instances συνετίζω renders 1‫ שׂכל־‬in hiphil (Ps 32[31]:8; Neh 9:20) and once ‫ יעץ‬in qal (Ps 16[15]:7). Considering that both συνετίζω and Th-Dan’s main equivalent συνίημι are combinations of σύν and ἵημι, it appears that the reviser worked toward stereotyping. See ch. 3 A §1.1.1.3 (1‫)שׂכל־‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 285

1‫( שׂכל־‬to be wise, understand)—ἐννοέω (to consider, understand) og

Th

Dan 11:33

συνετός intelligent (Dan 11:33)

Συνετός (adj.) corrects the hapax ἐννοέω in rendering 1‫( שׂכל־‬ptc.).418 9.1.2 Rare lxx Equivalents An equivalent common to both the og and the lxx is considered rare when it renders a Semitic lexeme between one and nine times elsewhere in the lxx. The examples are listed according to their rarity, with the equivalents attested fewer times listed first. ‫( חיל‬strength)—ὄχλος (crowd)

og

Th

Dan 11:10, 13, 252X

δύναμις power; force (Dan 11:10, 13, 252X)

and further 1X: Isa 43:17.

In contrast, Δύναμις constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ חיל‬in the lxx.419 ‫( עם‬people)—δῆμος (people)

og

Th

Dan 8:24; 9:16; 11:32cf. Mu: pap 967 and further 1X: 1Esd 9:53[Neh 8:11].

λαός people (Dan 8:24; 9:16; 11:32)

418

419

The use of adjectives for nominal participles is an expected translational technique (see for instance Kevin Joe Youngblood, “Translation Technique in the Greek Lamentations” [PhD Diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004], 187–188). By using συνετός, the reviser prioritizes stereotyping. See ch. 3 B § 9.2.2 (ἐπιστήμων). Ὄχλος appears forty-nine times in the lxx, but it renders ‫ חיל‬only in og-Dan. ‫ חיל‬occurs more than 300 times, having δύναμις as its standard equivalent: Exod 14:28; 15:4; Num 31:9, 14; Deut 8:17, 18; 11:4; Judg 3:29; 18:2; 21:10; 1 Sam 2:4; 10:26; 14:48, 52; 31:12; 2Sam 8:9; 11:16; 13:28; 17:10; 22:33, 40; 24:4, 9; 1 Kgs 1:42, 52; 10:2; 11:28; etc.

286

chapter 3

Λαός constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ עם‬in the lxx.420 ‫( בין‬to understand)—προσέχω (to pay attention to)

og

Th

Dan 12:102º and further 1X: Isa 32:4

συνίημι to understand (Dan 12:102º)

Συνίημι is the main equivalent of ‫ בין‬in the lxx.421 ‫( זרע‬seed)—γενεά (generation)

og

Th

Dan 9:1 σπέρμα seed, offspring (Dan 9:1) and further 3X: Ex 30:21; Esth 9:28[27]; 10:3.

Σπέρμα constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ זרע‬in the lxx.422 ‫( עת‬time)—ἡμέρα (day, period)

og

Th

Dan 12:12º–4º

καιρός time, season, opportunity (Dan 12:14X) and further 4X: Josh 6:26; Zeph 1:12; 1Kgs 8:65; 2Chr 13:18.

420

421 422

Δῆμος appears over 200 times in the lxx, but it frequently renders ‫ עם‬only in og-Dan. The sole comparable case is found in 1 Esd 9:53, which parallels the Hebrew text of Neh 8:11. ‫עם‬ occurs over 1800 times, having λαός as its standard equivalent: Gen 14:6; 19:4; 23:7, 12–13; 25:8; 26:11; 32:8; 33:15; 34:22; 35:6; 41:40, 55; 42:6; 47:21; 48:19; 49:16, 29, 33; 50:20; Exod 1:20, 22; 3:7, 10, 12, 21; 4:16, 21, 30–31; 5:1, 4–7, 10, 12, 16, 22–23; 6:7; etc. hrcs, s.v. “λαός,” lists no less than eight pages of equivalencies between λαός and ‫עם‬. See ch. 3 B § 9.1.1 (‫—בין‬διανοέομαι). Γενεά appears more than 220 times in the lxx, but it renders ‫ זרע‬only in the instances above. Σπέρμα constitutes the standard equivalent of ‫זרע‬. See ch. 3 A §1.1.2.1 (0‫זרע־‬/‫)זרע‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 287

Καιρός constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ עת‬in the lxx.423 0‫( בינה־‬understanding)—ἐπιστήμη (knowledge) og

Th

Dan 2:21 σύνεσις understanding (Dan 2:21) and further 5X: Job 28:12, 28; 38:36; 39:26; 2Chr 2:11.

Σύνεσις constitutes the main equivalent of ‫ בינה‬in the lxx.424 ‫( גדול‬great)—πολύς (much, many)

og

Th

μέγας great, large (Dan 11:13, 251º) Dan 11:13, 251º and further 6X: Gen 15:14; 29:7; 41:29; Jer 31[38]:8; Ezek 37:10; 2 Chr 28:5.

Μέγας constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ גדול‬in the lxx.425 ‫( נגד‬to tell, declare)—ὑποδείκνυμι (to show, inform)

og

Th

Dan 9:23; 10:21; 11:2

ἀναγγέλλω to report, announce, recount (Dan 9:23; 10:21; 11:2) and further 7X: Esth 2:10, 20; 3:42X; 4:7; 8:1; 2Chr 20:20.

423

424 425

Ἡμέρα appears over 2400 times in the lxx, but its equivalency with ‫ עת‬is limited to the instances above. ‫ עת‬occurs 296 times, having καιρός as its standard equivalent, cf. Gen 21:22; 38:1; Lev 15:25; 26:4; Num 22:4; 23:23; Deut 1:9, 16, 18; 2:34; 3:4, 8, 12, 18, 21, 23; etc. hrcs, s.v. “καιρός.” On the translation of ‫בינה‬, see ch. 3 B § 9.1.1 (‫—בינה‬διάνοια). Πολύς appears over 860 times in the lxx, but its equivalency with ‫ גדול‬is limited to the instances above. ‫ גדול‬occurs more than 500 times, having μέγας as its standard equivalent, cf. Gen 1:162X, 21; 4:13; 10:12, 21; 12:2, 17; 15:12, 18; 17:20; 18:18; 19:11; 20:9; 21:8, 18; 27:33–34; Exod 3:3; 6:6; 7:4; 11:3, 6; 12:30; 14:31; 18:11; 32:10–11, 21, 30–31; 33:13; Lev 21:10; Num 14:12; 22:18; 34:6; Deut 1:7, 17, 19, 282X; etc.

288

chapter 3

Ὑποδείκνυμι occurs frequently in the lxx, though as an equivalent for ‫נגד‬, it is attested only seven times.426 Th-Dan corrected the rare rendition toward ἀναγγέλλω, which is the main equivalent for ‫ נגד‬in the lxx.427 ‫( זרע‬seed)—γένος (offspring)

og

Th

Dan 1:3 σπέρμα seed, offspring (Dan 1:3) and further 7X: Lev 21:17; Jer 29[36]:32; 31:36–37[38:37, 35]; 36[43]:31; 41[48]:1; Esth 6:13.

Σπέρμα constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ זרע‬in the lxx.428 9.2 Substitution of Rare Words with Standard Equivalents og-Dan is rich in exceptional vocabulary, featuring hapax and rare Greek words alike. The reviser took issue with the avant-garde og stock of words, which he regularly replaced with standard lxx equivalents for the same Semitic lexemes. The rare og words are listed in the heading of each subsequent examples. Each chart provides the mt lexeme behind these words in the left column while, in the right, it displays the substituted, standard Th-Dan rendition.

426

427

428

Including Daniel, ὑποδείκνυμι occurs over forty times: 1Chr 28:18; 2Chr 15:3; 20:2; 1Esd 2:18; Esth 2:10, 20; 3:4; 4:7; 5:11; 8:1; 11:14[A.13]; Tob 1:19; 4:2, 20; 5:11; 7:10; 12:6; 13:4; 2Macc 3:10; 13:4; 3 Macc 5:15, 19, 26, 29; Sir 3:23; 14:12; 17:7, 12; 46:20; 48:25; 49:8; Jer 31[38]:19; Dan 2:17; 4:15[18], 34[37c]; 5:7, 9, 12, 16; 9:22–23; 10:14, 21; 11:2. Gen 3:11; 9:22; 22:20; 24:23; 29:12; 31:20, 22, 27; 32:6, 30; 37:16; 43:6; 45:26; 49:1; Exod 4:28; 13:8; 14:5; 16:22; 19:3, 9; Lev 14:35; Num 23:3; Deut 4:13; 5:5; 17:4, 9–11; 26:3; 30:18; 32:7; Josh 7:19; 9:24; Judg 4:12; 9:7; 16:6, 10, 13, 182X; 1 Sam 3:13; 25:12; 27:4, 11; 2Sam 1:20; etc. Γένος appears over 100 times in the lxx, but it renders ‫ זרע‬only in the instances above. Σπέρμα constitutes the standard equivalent of ‫( זרע‬see ch. 3 A §1.1.2.1 [0‫זרע־‬/‫)]זרע‬. For the use of γένος in Josephus, see further Shaye J.D. Cohen, “Ἰουδαῖος τὸ γένος and Related Expressions in Josephus,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, StPB 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 23–38.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 289

9.2.1

Hapax Legomena ἐκφωνέω (to cry out)

og

Th

0‫ ענה־‬to answer (Dan 2:27, 47)

ἀποκρίνομαι to answer, reply (Dan 2:27, 47)

The hapax ἐκφωνέω renders the frequent 0‫ ענה־‬root. The reviser replaces the hapax with ἀποκρίνομαι, which constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ ענה‬in the lxx.429 συναλοάω (to grind into powder) og

Th

0‫ דקק־‬to crush (Dan 2:45)

λεπτύνω to crush, grind to powder (Dan 2:45)

429

Ἀποκρίνομαι occurs 246 times in the lxx and stereotypically renders ‫ענה‬: Gen 18:27; 23:5, 10, 14; 24:50; 27:37, 39; 31:14, 31, 36, 43; 34:13; 40:18; 41:162X; 42:22; 45:3; Exod 4:1; 19:8, 19; 24:3; Num 11:28; 22:18; 23:26; 32:31; Deut 1:14, 41; 20:11; 21:7; 25:9; 26:5; 27:14–15; Josh 1:16; 7:20; 9:24; 22:21; 24:16; Judg 7:14; 8:82X; 18:14; 19:28; 20:4; 1 Sam 1:15, 17; 4:17, 20; 9:8, 12, 17, 19, 21; 10:12; 12:3; 14:12, 28, 37, 39; 16:18; 20:10, 28, 32; 21:5–6; 22:9, 14; 23:4; 25:10; 26:6, 142X, 22; 28:6; 29:9; 30:22; 2 Sam 1:16; 4:9; 13:32; 14:18; 15:21; 19:22, 43–44; 20:20; 1Kgs 1:28, 36, 43; 2:22, 30; 3:27; 12:13; 18:21, 24; 20[21]:4, 11; 2 Kgs 1:10, 12; 3:11; 4:29; 7:2, 13, 19; 18:362X; 1Chr 10:13; 2Chr 10:13; 29:31; 34:15; Ezra 10:2, 12; Neh 8:6; Esth 7:3; Pss 88[87]:1; 102[101]:24; 119[118]:42; Prov 26:4–5; Song 2:10; Job 1:7, 9; 16:3*; 20:3*; 32:15*–16*; 40:1–2; Hab 2:2; Amos 7:14; Mic 6:3, 5; Joel 2:19; Zeph 2:3; Hag 2:12–14; Zech 1:10–13; 3:4; 4:5–6, 11; 6:4–5; Isa 14:10, 32; 21:9; 36:212X; Jer 7:13; 11:5; 23:35; 33[40]:3; 42[49]:4; 44[51]:15, 20; Ezek 14:3–4, 7; Dan 2:5, 7, 10, 26; 3:16; 4:19, 30; 5:13, 17; 6:13; 7:16; 9:25; Ruth 2:6, 11. In addition, ἀποκρίνομαι also renders ‫ שׁוב‬hiphil “to reply” (Num 13:26; 22:8; Josh 14:7; 22:32; Judg 5:29; 2 Sam 3:11; 24:13; 1Kgs 12:6, 9, 16; 20[21]:12; Isa 41:28; Ezek 9:11; Hab 2:1; Zech 1:6; Job 33:32; Prov 18:13; 22:21; 24:26; 1Chr 21:12; 2Chr 10:6, 9, 16); ‫“ דרשׁ‬to seek” (Ezek 14:32X; 20:3, 312X); ‫“ אמר‬to say” (Exod 21:5; 1Kgs 3:26;); ‫( שׁבע‬1Sam 20:3 [= ‫“ ירה ;)]שׁוב‬to teach” (Mic 3:11); ‫“ חרה‬to burn” (1 Sam 20:7); ‫“ נשא‬to lift” (Isa 3:7); 1‫מענה־‬ “response” (Job 32:3); ‫ ידע‬hiphil “to make known” (Job 38:3; 40:7); ‫“ נבע‬to pour out” (Prov 15:28); ‫“ ענוה‬humility” (Prov 15:33); 2‫“ ענה־‬to oppress” (Lam 3:33); 4‫“ ענה־‬to sing” (Ezra 3:11). mt=0: Gen 18:9; 1 Sam 14:41; 1 Kgs 12:24[24p–q]; Jdt 6:17; Tob 2:14; 5:1; 1Macc 2:17, 19, 36; 4:46; 8:19; 10:55; 13:8, 35; 15:33, 36; 2 Macc 7:8; 15:14; Sus 1:48; Sir 4:8; 5:12; 11:8; 33:4; 1Esd 6:12.

290

chapter 3

Λεπτύνω constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ דקק‬in the lxx.430 προσταγή (command) og

Th

0‫ מלה־‬word, thing (Dan 3:28[95])

ῥῆμα word, thing (Dan 3:28[95])

Ῥῆμα constitutes the main equivalent of ‫ מלה‬in the lxx.431 ῥιπίζω (to toss away, blow away) og

Th

0‫ נשׂא־‬to lift, carry, take (Dan 2:35)

ἐξαίρω to lift up, remove, carry away (Dan 2:35)

Ἐξαίρω constitutes a more suited equivalent for 0‫ נשׂא־‬in the lxx.432

430

431

432

Λεπτύνω occurs ten times in the lxx, rendering mainly the cognate root ‫דקק‬: 2Sam 22:43; 2 Kgs 23:6, 15; Isa 41:15; Mic 4:13; 2 Chr 34:4. In another two occasions, it presupposes ‫דקק‬, cf. ‫“ ריק‬to empty” (Jer 48[31]:12 [interchange between ‫ ר‬and ‫ )]ד‬and ‫“ רקד‬to dance” (Ps 29[28]:6 [etymological exegesis]). In addition, λεπτύνω also renders ‫“ שׁחק‬to beat fine” (Ps 18[17]:43) and ‫“ שׁבר‬to break” (2 Chr 23:17). Significantly, ‫ דקק‬was translated another four times with λεπτός “small”: Exod 30:36; 32:20; Deut 9:21; 2Chr 34:7 (see ch. 3 B §8.1 [0‫)]דקק־‬. Ῥῆμα occurs over 500 times in the lxx and stereotypically renders ‫“ דבר‬word,” “speech” (Gen 15:12X; 18:14, 25; 19:21; 20:8; 21:11; 22:1, 16, 20; etc.). However, it also renders ‫ מלה‬twenty times: Ps 19[18]:5; Job 4:2, 4; 6:26; 8:10; 12:11; 13:17; 15:13; 16:4; 19:23; 23:5; 24:25*; 26:4; 32:14, 18; 33:8; 34:3*, 16; 35:16*; 36:4; 38:2. ‫ מלה‬occurs thirty-eight times and besides ῥῆμα, it was further rendered with λόγος “word” (2 Sam 23:2; Ps 139[138]:4; Job 15:3; 19:2; 21:2; 32:11*, 15*; 33:32*; 34:3*; Prov 23:9); λαλέω “to speak” (Job 29:9, 22); θρύλημα “byword” (Job 30:9); ἀπόκρισις “answer” (Job 35:4); λέξις “speech” (Job 36:2); lxx=0: Job 18:2; 33:1; 34:2. Ἐξαίρω occurs 213 times in the lxx and translates variegated Hebrew terms such as ‫“ נסע‬to pull out,” “to journey”; 2‫“ בער־‬to remove,” “to purge,” ‫ ירשׁ‬hiphil “to dispossess,” etc. Among these, it also renders 0‫ נשׂא־‬seventeen times: Gen 29:11; Exod 28:38; Lev 9:22; Num 24:2; Jer 51[28]:9; Ezek 1:192X, 20, 212X; 3:14; 10:16; 11:22; 20:15, 23; Mic 7:18; Zech 5:7. Significantly, αἴρω and its compound derivates predominate in rendering 0‫ נשׂא־‬when it takes the meaning “to carry off.”

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 291

προσφύω (to grow to) og

Th

0‫ סלק־‬to come up (Dan 7:20)

ἀναβαίνω to go up, rise up, advance (Dan 7:20)

Ἀναβαίνω constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ עלה‬in the lxx.433 ἀπωτέρω (far away) og

Th

‫ רחוק‬far (Dan 9:7)

μακράν far, far off, far away (Dan 9:7)

Μακράν constitutes the standard equivalent for ‫ רחוק‬in the lxx.434 ὑδροποτέω (to drink water) og

Th

‫ מים‬water + ‫ שׁתה‬to drink (Dan 1:12)

ὕδωρ water + πίνω to drink (Dan 1:12)

433

434

Ἀναβαίνω occurs over 600 times in the lxx and stereotypically renders ‫“ עלה‬to go up” (Gen 2:6; 13:1; 17:22; 19:28, 30; 24:16; 26:23; 28:12; 31:10, 12; 32:27; 35:1, 3, 13; etc.). Considering that ‫ עלה‬is the Hebrew correspondent of 0‫( סלק־‬cf. Wolfram von Soden, “n als Wurzelaugument im Semitischen,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität HalleWittenberg 17 (1968): 175–184 [178]), it can be safely inferred that the reviser has employed ἀναβαίνω as a standard equivalent. Furthermore, 0‫ סלק־‬has penetrated the Hebrew lexica, being attested once in Ps 139[138]:8. Significantly, ‫“ סלק‬to ascend” was translated with ἀναβαίνω. Μακράν occurs sixty-one times in the lxx and stereotypically renders derivates from the root ‫רחק‬, cf. Gen 44:4; Exod 8:24; 33:7; Num 9:10; Deut 13:8; 14:24; 20:15; 30:11; Josh 3:4, 16; 8:4; 9:22; Judg 18:7, 28; 2 Sam 7:19; 15:17; 1 Kgs 8:46; Isa 5:26; 46:12; 57:19; 59:11, 14; Jer 2:5; Ezek 6:12; 11:15; 22:5; Joel 4:8; Zech 6:15; 10:9; Mic 4:3; Pss 22[21]:2; 65[64]:6; 119[118]:155; Job 30:10; 36:3; Prov 4:24; 5:8; 15:29; 19:7; 22:15; 27:10; 30:8; Eccl 7:24; Esth 9:20; 2Chr 6:36; Ezra 6:6; Neh 4:13; Sir 9:13; 13:10; 15:8; 30:23. It also renders ‫“ רקח‬perfume” (Isa 57:9 [metathesis ‫ר‬/‫ארך ;)]ח‬ “long” (Jer 36[43]:28); ‫“ ארח‬to be long” (Ezek 12:22); ‫“ נצל‬to take away” (Prov 2:16); ‫“ סור‬to turn aside” (Prov 13:19). mt=0: Judg 18:9; Isa 27:9; 1 Macc 8:4, 12; Wis 14:17; Sir 16:22; 24:32; 27:20; Sol 2:4; 4:1; 15:7; 16:1, 10; LetJer 1:72; Sus 1:51.

292

chapter 3

Ὑδροποτέω was corrected towards the standard representation of the Hebrew phrase in the lxx.435 ἀναστατόω (to agitate, subvert, overthrow) og

Th

0‫ דושׁ־‬to trample (Dan 7:23)

συμπατέω (σύν, πατέω) to trample on (Dan 7:23)

Συμπατέω constitutes a more suitable equivalent of ‫דושׁ‬.436 ψευδολογέω (to lie) og

Th

‫ כזב‬lie, falsehood + 2‫ דבר־‬to speak (Dan 11:27)

ψευδής lie, false + λαλέω to speak (Dan 11:27)

The hapax ψευδολογέω was revised toward both the quantitative representation of the source text and standard equivalents.437

435

436

437

The technique of condensation in og-Dan as opposed to the technique of quantitative representation in Th-Dan will was discussed above (see ch. 3 A §2.2.1.2). The Hebrew phrase in both sequences ‫ מים‬+ ‫ שׁתה‬and ‫ שׁתה‬+ ‫ מים‬occurs about fifty times. Significantly, the constituent elements were rendered individually and sequentially throughout: Exod 7:18, 21; Num 20:17; 21:22; Deut 11:11; Judg 7:6; 1 Sam 30:12; 1Kgs 13:8–9, 18–19, 222X; 2Kgs 19:24; Isa 44:12; Jer 2:182X; Ezek 31:14, 16; 34:18; Amos 4:8; Prov 5:15. In Exod 15:23 and Isa 37:25 wherein the phrase occurs, the lxx attests a minus and a different reading, respectively. Συμπατέω constitutes a compound derivate of πατέω. Significantly, the latter together with other of its derivates translate the cognate root ‫ דושׁ‬four times: καταπάτησις “trampling” (2 Kgs 13:7); καταπατέω “to trample on” (Isa 25:101º; Job 39:15*); and πατέω (Isa 25:102º). In addition, ‫ דושׁ‬was also rendered four times with ἀλοάω “to thresh” (Deut 25:4; Isa 41:15; Mic 4:13; 1 Chr 21:20), and once each time with καταξαίνω “to tear apart” (Judg 8:7); καθαίρω “to clean” (Isa 28:27); βοτάνη “pasture” (Jer 50[27]:11 [‫ ;)]דשׁא‬νεῖκος “quarrel” (Hos 10:11 [‫;)]מדון‬ πρίζω “to cut with a saw” (Amos 1:3); and κατάγνυμι “to break” (Hab 3:12). lxx=0: Isa 28:282X. ‫ כזב‬occurs another thirty times and ψευδής constitutes its main equivalent: Judg 16:10, 13; Ezek 13:6; 21:34; 22:28; Hos 7:13; Pss 40[39]:5; 58[57]:4; 62[61]:5, 10; Prov 6:19; 14:5, 25; 19:22; 21:28; 23:3; 30:8. It was also rendered with ψεῦδος “lie,” “falsehood” (Isa 28:15, 17; Pss 4:3;

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 293

8.2.2 Rare lxx Words As with rare equivalents, Greek words are categorized as rare if they occur from two to nine times in the lxx corpus. The examples are listed according to their rarity, beginning with those with the fewest attestations. ἐπιστήμων (understanding) og

Th

1‫ שׂכל־‬to be wise, understand (Dan 1:4)

συνίημι to understand, to think about (Dan 1:4)

and further once in Sir 47:12.438

Συνίημι is the main equivalent of 1‫שׂכל־‬.439 διάλεκτος (language) og

Th

‫ לשׁון‬tongue (Dan 1:4)

γλῶσσα language (Dan 1:4)

and further once in a plus in Esth 9:26.

Th-Dan replaces the rare διάλεκτος with the standard γλῶσσα.440

438 439

440

5:7); μαντεία “divination” (Ezek 13:7–9, 19; Amos 2:4; Zeph 3:13;); κενός “empty,” “foolish” (Hos 12:2); ἀδίκως “wrongfully” (Prov 19:5); and κακία “evil” (Prov 19:5). Λαλέω occurs over 1100 times and consistently represents ‫“ דבר‬to speak,” e.g., Gen 12:4; 16:13; 17:3, 22–23; 18:19, 27, 29–33; 19:14, 21; etc. 1‫ שׂכל־‬was further rendered with other compounds of ἵστημι such as ἐπίσταμαι “to know” (Isa 41:20) and ἐπιστήμη “knowledge” (Jer 3:15; Job 22:2; 34:35). Besides Daniel, 1‫ שׂכל־‬is attested fifty-one times. In twenty-four occasions it was translated with συνίημι (Deut 29:8; 32:29; Jos 1:7–8; 1 Sam 18:14–15; 1Kgs 2:3; 2Kgs 18:7; Isa 52:13; Jer 9:23[24]; 23:5; Amos 5:13; Pss 2:10; 14[13]:2; 36[35]:4; 41[40]:2; 53[52]:3; 64[63]:10; 101[100]:2; 106[105]:7; 119[118]:99; Prov 21:11–12; 2 Chr 30:22), while in the remaining cases, variously. Γλῶσσα occurs about 160 times in the lxx and stereotypically renders ‫לשׁון‬: Gen 10:5, 20, 31; Exod 11:7; Josh 7:21; 10:21; Judg 7:5; 2 Sam 23:2; Isa 3:8; 28:11; 32:4; 35:6; 41:17; 45:23; 50:4; 57:4; 59:3; 66:18; Jer 5:15; 9:2[3], 4[5], 7[8]; 18:18; 23:31; Ezek 3:6, 26; 36:3; Hos 7:16; Mic 6:12; Zeph 3:13; Zech 8:23; 14:12; Pss 5:10; 10:7[9:28]; 12[11]:4–5; 15[14]:3; 22[21]:16; 31[30]:21; 34[33]:14;

294

chapter 3

πραγματεύομαι (to tend to business) og

Th

1‫ עשׂה־‬to do, make (Dan 8:27) ποιέω to do, make; to work (Dan 8:27) and further once, rendering ‫“ חשׁק‬to desire to” in 1 Kgs 9:19[10:22a].

Th-Dan replaces the rare πραγματεύομαι with the standard ποιέω.441 εὐκαταφρόνητος (easily despised) og

Th

‫ בזה‬to despise (Dan 11:21)

ἐξουδενόω to treat with contempt; scorn, despise (Dan 11:21) and further once, rendering ‫ בזה‬in Jer 49:15[30:9].

Th-Dan replaces the rare εὐκαταφρόνητος with the standard ἐξουδενόω.442

441

442

35[34]:28; 37[36]:30; 39[38]:2, 4; 45[44]:2; 50[49]:19; 51[50]:16; 52[51]:4, 6; 55[54]:10; 57[56]:5; 64[63]:4, 9; 66[65]:17; 68[67]:24; 71[70]:24; 73[72]:9; 78[77]:36; 109[108]:2; 119[118]: 172; 120[119]:2–3; 126[125]:2; 137[136]:6; 139[138]:4; 140[139]:4; Job 5:21; 6:30; 20:12*, 16; 29:10*; 33:2; Prov 6:17, 24; 10:20, 31; 12:18–19; 15:2, 4; 17:20; 18:21; 21:6, 23; 25:15, 23; 26:28; Song 4:11; Lam 4:4; Sir 4:24, 29; 5:13–14; 36:23; 37:18; 40:21; 51:2, 6. Beside ‫לשׁון‬, γλῶσσα also render ‫שׂפה‬ “lip” (Gen 11:7; Isa 19:18; Zeph 3:9; Ps 81[80]:6; Sir 6:5; 51:5, 22); ‫“ פה‬mouth” (Judg 7:6); ‫כבוד‬ “glory” (Ps 16[15]:9); mt=0: Isa 29:24; Ps 14[13]:3; Prov 3:16; 24:22; 27:20; Sir 1:20; 17:6; 19:16; 20:17–18; 21:7; 22:27; 25:7–8; 26:6; 28:14–15, 17–18; Jdt 3:8; 11:19; 2Macc 7:10; 15:33; 3Macc 2:17; 6:4; 4 Macc 10:17, 19, 21; 18:21; Wis 1:6, 11; 10:21; Sol 4:4; 12:0–4; 15:3; 16:10; LetJer 7. Ποιέω occurs about 3200 times and stereotypically renders 1‫עשׂה־‬: Gen 1:7, 11–12, 16, 25– 26, 31; 2:22X, 3–4, 18; 3:1, 7, 13–14, 21; 4:10; 5:1; 6:6–7, 142X, 15, 162X, 222X; 7:4–5; 8:6, 21; 9:6, 24; 11:4, 62X; etc. (hrcs, s.v. “ποιέω”). See ch. 3 A § 1.2.2.1 (ποιέω). Ἐξουδενόω occurs forty times in the lxx and mainly renders ‫( בזה‬2Sam 6:16; 12:10; 1Chr 15:29; Pss 15[14]:4; 22[21]:25; 69[68]:34; 73[72]:20; 102[101]:18; 119[118]:141; Eccl 9:16; Mal 1:71º, 12; 2:9) and 1‫“ מאס־‬to reject” (Judg 9:38; 1 Sam 8:7; 15:232X, 262X; 16:1, 7; Pss 53[52]:6; 78[77]:59; 89[88]:39; 106[105]:24; Job 30:1*). Furthermore, it also renders ‫“ בוז‬to despise” (Song 8:1, 72X; Zech 4:10); ‫“ מסס‬to melt” (1 Sam 15:9); 2‫“ מאס־‬to flow” (Ps 58[57]:8); ‫“ לעג‬to mock” (Ps 59[58]:9); ‫“ בוס‬to trample” (Pss 60[59]:14; 108[107]:14); ‫“ בער‬stupid” (Ps 73[72]: 22); 1‫“ סלה־‬to reject” (Ps 119[118]:118); mt=0: Mal 1:72º; Jdt 13:17; Sir 47:7; Sol 2:26.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 295

σοφιστής (wise man) og

Th

0‫ חכים־‬wise men (Dan 2:12, 14, 18, σοφός wise; skilled (Dan 2:12, 14, 18, 242X, 48) 242X, 48) and further once, rendering ‫“ חכם‬wise” in Exod 7:11.

Th-Dan replaces the rare σοφιστής with the standard σοφός.443 φράζω (to explain) og

Th

0‫ חוה־‬to declare (Dan 2:4)

ἀναγγέλλω to report, announce, recount (Dan 2:4) and further twice, rendering ‫ בין‬hiphil “to make understand” (Job 6:24) and 3‫“ ירה־‬to teach” (Job 12:8).

Th-Dan replaces the rare φράζω with the more frequent ἀναγγέλλω.444

443

444

Σοφός occurs about 185 times in the lxx and stereotypically renders ‫חכם‬: Gen 41:8; Exod 28:3; 35:10, 25; 36:1, 4; Deut 1:13, 15; 4:6; 16:19; 32:6; Judg 5:29; 2Sam 13:3; 14:2, 20; 20:16; 1Kgs 2:9; Isa 3:3; 19:11–12; 29:14; 31:2; Jer 4:22; 8:8–9; 9:16[17], 22[23]; 51[28]:57; Ezek 27:8–9; 28:3; Hos 14:10; Obad 1:8; Pss 49:11[48:10]; 58[57]:6; 107[106]:43; Job 5:13; 9:4; 15:2, 18; 32:9; 34:2, 34; 37:24; Prov 1:5–6; 3:35; 6:6; 9:8–9, 12; 10:1, 8, 14; 12:15, 18; 13:14, 20; 14:1, 3, 16, 24; 15:2, 7, 12, 20; 16:14, 21, 23; 18:15; 19:20; 20:1, 26; 21:11, 20, 22; 22:17; 23:15, 19, 24; 24:5, 23; 25:12; 26:5, 12, 16; 27:11; 28:11; 29:8–9, 11; 30:242X; Eccl 2:14, 162X, 19; 4:13; 6:8; 7:4–5, 7, 19; 8:1, 5, 17; 9:1, 11, 15, 17; 10:2, 12; 12:9, 11; 1 Chr 22:15; 2 Chr 2:62X, 11–12, 132X; Sir 8:8; 9:14, 17; 10:1; 20:7, 13; 33:2; 37:22– 24, 26; 44:4. Σοφός further renders ‫ בין‬niphal “to understand” (1Sam 16:18; 1Kgs 3:12); ‫חכמה‬ “wisdom” (Prov 13:10; 17:24); 1‫“ דעת־‬knowledge” (Prov 14:7); and ‫( שכל‬Sir 7:19; 10:25). μτ=0: Exod 36:8; 1 Kgs 2:46; Prov 10:4, 13; 24:7; 1 Esd 3:5, 9; 4:42; 5:6; 4Macc 7:23; Odes 2:6; 3:10; Wis 4:17; 6:24; 7:15; Sir 1:8; 3:29; 6:33–34; 18:27; 20:5, 27, 29; 21:13, 15, 26; Sol 8:20; 17:37. The Hebrew cognate root ‫“ חוה‬to tell” is most likely an Aramaism (halot, s.v. “‫ חוה‬i”) and occurs six times. Interestingly, its main equivalent in the lxx is ἀναγγέλλω (Ps 19[18]:3; Job 15:17; 32:6, 10), in the other instances being translated with λέγω “to say” (Job 32:17) and διδάσκω “to teach” (Job 36:2). Considering both that ἀναγγέλλω occurs 230 times in the lxx as the standard equivalent for ‫“ נגד‬to tell,” and that in Th-Dan it also stereotypically renders both 0‫ חוה־‬and ‫נגד‬, it can be argued that the correction reveals the reviser’s tendency toward standardization.

296

chapter 3

κοπανίζω (to grind) og

Th

0‫ דקק־‬to crush (Dan 7:7)

λεπτύνω to crush, grind to powder (Dan 7:7) and further twice in pluses in 1Kgs 2:46[46e] and 5:2.

Th-Dan replaces the rare κοπανίζω with the standard λεπτύνω.445 διαμάχομαι (to contend) og

Th

1‫ לחם־‬to fight (Dan 10:20)

πολεμέω (πόλεμος) to wage war (Dan 10:20) and further three times, rendering ‫ ריב‬in Sir 8:1; ‫ תינץ‬in Sir 8:3; and with no Hebrew counterpart in Sir 38:28.

Th-Dan replaces the rare διαμάχομαι with the standard πολεμέω.446

445 446

See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.2 (0‫ ;)דקק־‬B § 8.1 (0‫)דקק־‬. Πολεμέω occurs 221 times in the lxx and stereotypically renders 1‫לחם־‬: Exod 14:14, 25; 17:8; Num 21:1, 26; Deut 1:41–42; 3:22; Josh 11:5; 24:11; Judg 1:1, 3, 5, 8–9; 5:19–202X; 8:1; 9:17, 38–39, 45; 10:18; 11:4–6, 8–9, 12, 20, 25, 27, 32; 12:1, 3–4; 1Sam 4:9–10; 8:20; 12:9; 14:47; 15:18; 17:9, 32–33; 19:8; 23:1, 5; 25:28; 28:1, 15; 29:8; 31:1; 2 Sam 2:28; 8:10; 10:17; 11:17, 20; 12:26–27, 29; 21:15; 1 Kgs 12:21, 24; 16:28; 20[21]:1, 23, 25; 22:31–32; 2Kgs 3:21; 6:8; 8:29; 9:15; 10:3; 12:18; 14:15, 28; 16:5; 19:8–9; Isa 19:2; 20:1; 63:10; Jer 1:19; 15:20; 21:4–5; 32[39]:24, 29; 34[41]:1, 7, 22; 37[44]:8, 10; 41[48]:12; 51[28]:30; Pss 35[34]:12X; 56[55]:2–3; 109[108]:3; Neh 4:14; 1Chr 10:1; 18:10; 19:17; 2 Chr 11:1, 4; 13:12; 17:10; 18:30–31; 20:17, 29; 22:6; 26:6; 32:8; 35:222X. It has also rendered ‫“ מלחמה‬war” (Exod 17:16; Josh 11:23; Judg 20:14, 18; Isa 2:4; 7:1; 30:32; Jer 38[45]:4; Mic 4:3; Ps 120[119]:7; 1 Chr 7:11, 40; 19:7, 10; 2Chr 12:15; 32:2); 1‫“ חנה־‬to camp” (Isa 29:1); ‫“ שׁחת‬to destroy” (Isa 36:10); 2‫“ צרר־‬to be hostile” (Ps 129[128]:1–2; Esth 9:24); ‫“ נקם‬to avenge” (Esth 8:13); ‫“ חרד‬to tremble” (Job 11:19); ‫“ נוד‬to move to and fro” (Jer 48[31]:27). mt=0: Judg 5:14; 1 Sam 29:11; 2 Sam 11:22; Esth 11:7 [A.6]; 14:13 [C.24]; 2Chr 12:15; 1 Esd 1:26; 4:6; 1 Macc 2:40–41, 66; 3:2, 10, 12, 14, 17, 21, 43, 58; 4:18, 41; 5:3, 16, 30, 32, 35, 50, 57, 65; 6:31, 37, 52, 63; 8:10, 26, 32; 9:8–9, 30, 44, 64, 68; 10:75; 11:41, 46, 50, 55, 65; 12:13, 24, 40, 53; 13:9, 47; 14:1, 13, 26, 32; 15:19, 39; 16:2; 4 Macc 4:21–22; Sir 4:28; 29:13; Jdt 6:2; 7:11; 11:8.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 297

νοσσεύω (to build a nest) og

Th

0‫ שׁכן־‬to dwell (Dan 4:18[21])

κατασκηνόω to live, settle, nest (Dan 4:18[21]) and further four times, translating ‫“ קנן‬to nest” in Is 34:15; Jer 48[31]:28; Ezek 31:6; mt=0: Sir 1:15.

Th-Dan replaces the rare νοσσεύω with the standard κατασκηνόω.447 προνοέω (to try, care for) og

Th

‫ בין‬to understand (Dan 11:372X)

συνίημι to understand, to think about (Dan 11:372X) and further seven times, rendering ‫“ שׂכל‬understanding” in Prov 3:4; mt=0: 1 Esd 2:24; 2Macc 14:9; 3Macc 3:24; 4Macc 7:18; Wis 6:7; 13:16.

Th-Dan replaces the rare προνοέω with the standard συνίημι.448

447

448

Κατασκηνόω occurs sixty-three times in the lxx and represents the stereotyped equivalent of ‫שׁכן‬: Num 14:30; 35:342X; Deut 33:121º, 28; Josh 22:19; Judg 5:172X; 2Sam 7:10; 1Chr 17:9; 23:25; 2 Chr 6:1; Ezra 6:12; Neh 1:9; Pss 7:6; 15[14]:1; 16[15]:9; 37[36]:3, 27, 29; 65[64]:5; 68[67]:17, 19; 69[68]:37; 74[73]:2; 78[77]:55, 60; 85[84]:10; 102[101]:29; 104[103]:12; 120[119]:5; 139[138]:9; Prov 1:33; 2:21; 8:12; Job 18:15; 29:25; Mic 4:10; 7:14; Joel 4:17, 21; Obad 1:3; Zech 2:14– 15; 8:3, 8; Jer 7:12; 17:6; 23:6; 51[28]:13; Ezek 43:7, 9. It also exceptionally translates ‫“ ישׁב‬to sit,” “to dwell” (Ezek 25:4; 2 Chr 6:2); 1‫“ סכך־‬to cover” (Ps 5:12); ‫“ רבץ‬to lie down” (Ps 23[22]:2); 0‫“ משׁככן־‬dwelling” (Ezra 7:15); ‫( אשׁר‬1 Esd 2:3); and ‫( ייחן‬Sir 4:15). In texts with no Semitic counterparts, it occurs in Sir 24:4, 8; 28:16; and Sol 7:6. In addition, κατασκηνόω renders 0‫ שׁכן־‬in Ezra 6:12. See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.3 (‫)בין‬.

298

chapter 3

στολίζω (to clothe) og

Th

0‫ לבשׁ־‬to wear (Dan 5:7, 16) ἐνδύω to wear, put on (Dan 5:7, 16) and further ten times, rendering only ‫“ לבשׁ‬to wear” (Ezra 3:10; Esth 4:4; 6:9, 11; 8:15). mt=0: 1Esd 1:2; 5:57; 7:9; Jdt 10:3; 2Macc 3:33.

Th-Dan replaces the rare στολίζω with the standard ἐνδύω.449

10

Synonymous Equivalents

An investigation of equivalents that are identical in meaning or overlap semantically affords the following conclusion: the reviser reserved the right to replace acceptable equivalents in the base text with synonymous ones. The technique seemingly reflects the desire to update the og vocabulary with what in his view would constitute more fitting equivalents. However, it is difficult to precisely pinpoint the motivations that led to the replacement of certain equivalents in the base text with synonymous ones. In this respect, we concur with Tov: [I]t is hard to know in every instance why the revisers replaced the old renditions with new ones since we are lacking thorough studies of the revision techniques employed. Sometimes the revisers introduced new words because they simply preferred them to the old ones. In other cases, the synonymous renditions may bear a certain revisionary trait which cannot always be ascertained.450

449

450

Ενδύω occurs 113 times and is the standard equivalent for ‫ לבשׁ‬in the lxx: Gen 3:21; 27:15; 38:19; 41:42; Exod 28:41; 29:5, 8, 30; 40:13–14; Lev 6:32X, 4; 8:7, 13; 16:42X, 23–24, 32; 21:10; Num 20:26, 28; Deut 22:5, 11; Judg 6:34; 1 Sam 17:38; 2 Sam 14:2; 1Kgs 22:30; Isa 22:21; 49:18; 50:3; 51:9; 52:12X; 59:17; 61:10; Jer 46[26]:4; Ezek 7:27; 16:10; 42:14; 44:17, 19; Jonah 3:5; Zeph 1:8; Zech 3:4; 13:4; Ps 35[34]:26; 65[64]:14; 93[92]:12X; 104[103]:1; 109[108]:18, 29; 132[131]:9, 16, 18; Job 8:22; 10:11; 29:14; 39:19; Prov 23:21; Song 5:3; Esth 4:1; Ezra 3:10; 1Chr 12:19; 2Chr 5:12; 6:41; 18:9, 29; 24:20; 28:15; Sir 6:31; 43:20; 45:8. It also renders the adjective ‫“ ָלבוּשׁ‬clothed” (1Sam 17:5; Jer 10:9; Ezek 9:2–3, 11; 10:2, 6–7; 23:6, 12; 38:4; Zech 3:3; Ps 35[34]:13) and ‫“ חגר‬to gird” (2 Sam 6:14). mt=0: 1 Esd 5:40; Jdt 9:1; 10:3; 1 Macc 1:28; 3:3; 10:21, 62; 14:9; Wis 5:18; Sir 17:3; 27:8; 45:13; Sol 11:7; Bar 4:20; 5:1; LetJer 1:32. Tov, Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch, 93–94.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 299

A further explanation may be that the preferred renditions reflected more popular synonyms in the days of the reviser. Another option is to consider regional dialects as determinative for the lexical preference of the reviser.451 The definition of “synonymity” applied for the equivalents adduced below combines two elements: (1) both the og and Th-Dan renditions share the same semantic meaning with the Semitic lexeme; (2) both potentially function as synonyms in Greek. The tendency of the reviser to substitute og-Dan renditions with synonymous equivalents is visible in the way he prefers derivate equivalents from the same lemma and from different roots. The examples of both categories comply with the two elements of the definition.452 The heading of each subsequent example gives the Semitic word under discussion. The chart then lists the synonymous renderings in both the og and Th-Dan. For space reasons, we do not provide the full spectrum of equivalents for each Semitic lexeme but only for those which were not discussed elsewhere. The examples are presented sequentially. 10.1 Synonymous Compound Forms Representing the Same Lexeme The following synonymous equivalents in Th-Dan are either stand-alone or compound words of the same lexeme as those in og-Dan which they replace. 0‫( אזה־‬to heat) og

Th

καίω to burn, kindle, light (Dan 3:192X) ἐκκαίω (ἐκ, καίω) to burn, burn out, inflame (Dan 3:22)

ἐκκαίω (ἐκ, καίω) to burn, burn out, inflame (Dan 3:192X, 22)

451

452

Claude E. Cox, “Εὶσακούω and Επακούω in the Greek Psalter,”Bib 62 (1981): 251–258; “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing and Forgiveness in the Greek Translations of Job,” Text 15 (1990): 119–130; and their discussion by Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 265–266. The synonymity can be investigated in relation to the base text and the source text. The former approach starts methodologically with the analysis of Hebrew/Aramaic–Greek equivalents, while the latter proceeds with the search of Greek–Hebrew/Aramaic equivalents. The former is the focus of our investigation in this section and points clearly to the recensional technique of the reviser to replace proper og-Dan renditions with synonymous Greek words which probably were perceived as more fitting. The latter discloses the tendency of the reviser to employ a Greek equivalent for multiple Semitic synonymous words. This aspect will be discussed and exemplified in the next section. See ch. 3 C §13.2.

300

chapter 3

The og utilizes interchangeably the synonymous equivalents καίω and ἐκκαίω for 0‫ אזה־‬in Daniel 3. The reviser prefers the latter, twice replacing the former in v. 19.453 0‫( רפס־‬to trample)454 og

Th

καταπατέω (κατά, ἀπό, πατέω) to trample on, oppress (Dan 7:7, 19)

συμπατέω (σύν, πατέω) to trample on (Dan 7:7, 19)

0‫( דין־‬judgment) og

Th

κρίσις (κρίνω) judgment, decision, legal case; meaning (Dan 7:22)

κρίμα (κρίνω) judgment, decree, decision (Dan 7:22)

Both κρίσις and κρίμα (same meaning) regularly occur in the lxx as the main equivalents for ‫“ משפט‬judgment.”455 The latter is seemingly preferred by ThDan 7:22.456

453

454 455

456

Furthermore, Th-Dan’s revision indicates consistency in the way καίω and ἐκκαίω were employed. The reviser used καίω only for 0‫“ יקד־‬to burn” (Dan 3:6, 11, 15, 17, 20–21, 23, 26[93]), whereas ἐκκαίω stands for 0‫אזה־‬. That is to say the reviser aimed to reserve distinct equivalents for the semantically overlapping roots 0‫ אזה־‬and 0‫יקד־‬. The opposite is true for the og, in which both roots are translated with καίω. See below ch. 3 B § 10.1.1 (‫)רמס‬. For κρίσις rendering ‫משפט‬, e.g., Gen 18:19; Exod 15:25; Lev 19:15; Num 27:11; Deut 10:18; Josh 24:25; 2 Sam 15:2; 2 Kgs 1:7; Isa 28:17; Ezek 39:21; etc.; for κρίμα rendering ‫משפט‬, e.g., Exod 23:6; Lev 18:4–5; 20:22; Num 35:24; Deut 4:1, 8; Jud 13:12; 2Sam 8:15; etc. Whereas κρίσις occurs once in Th-Dan 4:34[37] rendering ‫“ דין‬judgment” (probably influenced from the immediate context of og-Dan 4:20[23]), κρίμα renders 0‫“ פשר־‬interpretation” in 5:16cf. Ra≠Mu; 0‫“ ִדּין־‬judgment” in 7:22; ‫“ משפט‬judgment” in 9:5; and mt=0 in 9:26 (possibly secondarily developed as a double reading from the graphic/phonic similar word χρῖσμα “anointing,” “anointment”). In contrast, κρίμα appears once in og-Dan 9:5 (= ThDan), while κρίσις was frequently employed as an equivalent for 0‫ פשר־‬in 2:9, 36, 45; 7:16; 0‫“ גזרה־‬decree” in 4:20[23]; 0‫“ דין־‬judgment” in 7:22, 26; and mt=0: Dan 4:25[28].

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 301 ‫( רמס‬to trample)

og

Th

συντρίβω (σύν, τρίβος) to crush, to break (Dan 8:7) καταπατέω (κατά, ἀπό, πατέω) to trample on, oppress (Dan 8:10) → ‫ מרמס‬trampling—καταπάτημα (κατά, πατέω) trampled thing (Dan 8:13)

συμπατέω (σύν, πατέω) to trample on (Dan 8:7, 10)

→ ‫ מרמס‬trampling—συμπατέω (Dan 8:13)

The reviser rejected συντρίβω in v. 7 since, starting with that verse, it was restricted to 1‫שׁבר־‬.457 Furthermore, in v. 10 he preferred the compound synonym συμπατέω instead of καταπατέω. The same synonymous equivalent was maintained for ‫ מרמס‬in v. 13, probably considered a more fitting rendition for √‫רמס‬.458 ‫( רעד‬to tremble)459

og

Th

τρέμω to tremble (Dan 10:11)

ἔντρομος (ἐν, τρέμω) trembling (Dan 10:11)

457 458

459

See ch. 3 A § 1.2.1.2 (συντρίβω). For the analysis of the difference in v. 13, see ch. 4 § 3 (Dan 8:13). The contention of McLay (og and Th Versions, 169) that συμπατέω should be considered an independent or distinctive rendition is problematic. The fact that both versions render ‫ רמס‬with derivates from the same lemma rather points to the influence of the og on Th in its equivalence selection. In addition to mt-Dan, √‫ רעד‬appears twice and was rendered with τρέμω in Ps 104[103]:32, and θόρυβος “confusion,” “noise,” “tumult” (Ezra 10:9).

302

chapter 3 ‫( עמד‬to stand)460

og

Th

ἀνίστημι (ἀνά, ἵστημι) to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 11:14)

ἐπανίστημι (ἐπί, ἀνά, ἵστημι) to rise; to turn against (Dan 11:14)

2‫( עור־‬to arouse, stir up, uncover) og

Th

ἐγείρω to raise, lift up (Dan 11:25)

ἐξεγείρω (ἐκ, ἐγείρω) to raise up, wake up, arise, revive (Dan 11:25)

The less frequent ἐγείρω was replaced with the synonymous equivalent ἐξεγείρω.461 10.2 Synonymous Renderings Representing a Different Lexeme The reviser did not always arrive at synonymous equivalents based on the etymology of the equivalent he found in the og. His choices equally included equivalents based on other lexemes. In many cases, the relationship of synonymity between the og- and Th-Dan equivalents can be corroborated with the fact they represent the two main lxx equivalents of a Semitic lexeme. 0‫( רחץ־‬to trust) og

Th

ἐλπίζω to hope (Dan 3:28[95])

πείθω to persuade; believe; trust (Dan 3:28[95])

460 461

See ch. 3 C § 12.2.2 (‫)עמד‬. Ἐγείρω has rendered eight times 2‫( עור־‬Isa 41:25; 45:13; Jer 50[27]:9; 51[28]:11; Prov 10:12; Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4). By contrast, ἐξεγείρω has translated it thirty-nine times: Judg 5:144X; 2 Sam 23:18; Is 41:2; 51:93X; 51:172X; 52:22X; Jer 6:22; 50[27]:41; 51[28]:1; Ezek 23:22; Joel 4:7, 9, 12; Hab 2:19; Hag 1:14; Zech 2:17; 4:12X; 13:7; Pss 57[56]:93X; 108[107]:32X; Song 2:7; 3:5; 4:16; 8:4–5; Ezra 1:1, 5; 2 Chr 36:22. See further Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 96 (No. 72).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 303

Both ἐλπίζω and πείθω are the main equivalents of 1‫“ בטח־‬to trust” in the remainder of the lxx, suggesting their synonymous relationship.462 ‫[ מרר‬hithpalpel] (to become furious)

og

Th

θυμόω to be angry (Dan 8:7) ὀργίζω to be angry (Dan 11:11)

ἐξαγριαίνω to make, become savage (Dan 8:7) ἀγριαίνω to be angry (Dan 11:11)

The hithpalpel form is confined to mt-Dan; both versions display acceptable, synonymous renditions. ‫( קלל‬polished)

og

Th

ἐξαστράπτω to flash like lightning (Dan 10:6)

στίλβω to shine (Dan 10:6)

Both equivalents are rarely attested, have overlapping meanings, and are possibly influenced by lxx-Ezek. Ἐξαστράπτω translates ‫ לקח‬hithpael “to flash intermittently” and ‫“ עין‬eye” in Ezek 1:4, 7, whereas στίλβω appears once for 1‫ברק־‬ “lightning” (Ezek 21:33) and once in a plus (Ezek 40:3).463

462

463

For example, ἐλπίζω renders 1‫ בטח־‬in Judg 20:36; 2 Kgs 18:5, 24; Isa 30:12; Jer 13:25; Hos 10:13; Mic 7:5; Pss 4:6; 9:11; 21[20]:8; 22[21]:52X; etc., while πείθω renders 1‫ בטח־‬in Deut 28:52; Judg 9:26; 18:10, 27; 2 Kgs 18:19–22; 19:10; Isa 12:2; 36:5–9; 37:10; etc. Ἐξαστράπτω and στίλβω occur four and eight times, respectively. Outside of lxx-Ezek and og-Dan, the former is employed for 1‫“ ברק־‬lightning” (Nah 3:3), while the latter for ‫להב‬ “flame” (Nah 3:3); ‫“ צהב‬to gleam” (Ezra 8:27); and mt=0: 1Esd 8:56; 1Macc 6:39; LetJer 1:23. Their joint occurrence in Nah 3:3 in parallel lines indicates the overlap in meaning. See ch. 3 B § 11 (σκέλος).

304

chapter 3

1‫( ברח־‬to flee) og

Th

ἀποδιδράσκω to run away, escape (Dan 10:7)

φεύγω to flee (Dan 10:7)

Ἀποδιδράσκω and φεύγω are the main equivalents of 1‫ברח־‬. The former renders the Semitic lexeme twenty-one times,464 while the latter twenty-four times out of its sixty-three occurrences.465 ‫[ נשׂא‬hithpael] (to lift, carry, take)

og

Th

ἀνίστημι to raise up (Dan 11:14) → ἀναιρέω to destroy, carry off, kill (Dan 1:16); ἀναβλέπω to receive sight (Dan 8:3); αἴρω to take up (Dan 10:5); λαμβάνω to take (Dan 11:12)

ἐπαίρω (ἐπί, αἴρω) to lift up (Dan 11:14) → ἀναιρέω to destroy, carry off, kill (Dan 1:16); αἴρω to take up (Dan 8:3; 10:5); λαμβάνω to take (Dan 11:12)

The hithpael form of √‫ נשׂא‬occurs rarely in mt and denotes “to raise oneself,” “to arise.”466 The versions employ synonymous renditions from different roots in Dan 11:14. Considering that ἀνίστημι constitutes a hapax equivalent for √‫נשׂא‬, it seems that with ἐπαίρω the reviser attempted to provide a more frequent equivalent.467 He also aimed toward stereotyping, employing only αἴρω and its compounds.468

464 465

466 467

468

Gen 16:6, 8; 27:43; 31:20–22; 35:1, 7; Judg 11:3; 1 Sam 20:1; 2Sam 4:3; 13:34, 38; 1Kgs 2:7, 39; 11:17, 40; Pss 3:1; 57[56]:1; Job 9:25; 14:2. Exod 14:5; Num 24:11; Judg 9:21; 1 Sam 19:12, 18; 21:11; 22:17, 20; 23:6; 27:4; 2Sam 13:37; 15:14; 19:10; Isa 22:3; 48:20; Jonah 1:3, 10; 4:2; Ps 139[138]:7; Job 27:222X*; Song 8:14; Neh 13:10; 2Chr 10:2. halot, s.v. “‫נשׂא‬.” Ἔπαίρω render ‫ נשׂא‬in Gen 7:17; 13:10; Num 6:26; Judg 2:4; 9:7; 21:2; 2Sam 5:12; 13:36; 18:24; 20:21; 1 Kgs 1:5; 2 Kgs 9:32; 14:10; Isa 6:1; Ezek 17:14; 18:6; Zech 2:4; Pss 24[23]:7, 9; 28[27]:9; 93[92]:32X; 102[101]:11; 106[105]:26; 134[133]:2; Prov 19:18; 30:13; Ruth 1:9, 14; 1Chr 21:16; 25:19. Αἴρω and λαμβάνω constitute the two main equivalents of ‫נשׂא‬. This perhaps explains the maintenance of the latter in Th-Dan 11:12, which otherwise may indicate an impor-

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 305

11

Exegesis Based on Remote Passages

There are traces that suggest the reviser used at times broad literary exegesis. By remote context we refer to a translation unit outside Septuagint Daniel that the reviser may have recalled and used to determine his equivalents.469 Similar to those categories where the reviser scrutinized the immediate and wider og context, both preceeding and following, we suggest this possibility on the basis of peculiar equivalents shared between Th-Dan and certain remote contexts. The presentation of the examples in this category is as follows: First we present the peculiar rendition in the heading. Then, in order to provide the contexts, we list in parallel columns the references where the rendition appears in the Greek versions of Daniel. Lastly, the chart presents all the other references where the rendition occurs in lxx together with its equivalents. ἐνδελεχισμός (continuity) og

Th-Dan

og=0 ‫ תמיד‬continually (Dan 11:31; 12:11) → ‫ תמיד‬continually (Exod 29:38[?], 42; 30:8; Num 28:6, 23; Ezra 3:5; Neh 10:342X); mt=0: 1 Esdr 5:51; Judith 4:14; Sir 7:13.

We have already discussed Th-Dan’s use of the immediate context to determine an equivalent for ‫ תמיד‬in Dan 8:11–13.470 In search of a more precise rendition, the reviser demonstrably examined the remote context of the cultic sections of the Pentateuch, wherein he singled out ἐνδελεχισμός. The rare ἐνδελεχισμός

469

470

tant preservation of og-Dan’s alternation of equivalents. Ἀναιρέω represents a significant agreement. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 94 (No. 70). For the condensed translation in Dan 8:3, see ch. 3 A § 2.2.1.2 (Dan 8:3). In the Aramaic section, 0‫ נשׂא־‬was translated in Dan 2:35 with the hapax legomenon ῥιπίζω, while Th-Dan has revised it with the compound ἐξαίρω, which occurs frequently in the lxx as an equivalent for √‫( נשׂא‬Gen 29:1; Exod 28:38; Lev 9:22; Num 24:2; Jer 51[28]:9; Ezek 1:192X, 20–21; 3:14; 10:16; 11:22; 20:15, 23; Mic 7:18; Zech 5:7). Th-Josh 23:13 is likely a similar case to those presented in this category; there, Theodotion likely revises the rare πτερναις for ‫ צדיכם‬with πλευραις, having in mind the similar language of Num 33:55. This interpretation of the data, which was carefully collated by Greenspoon (Textual Studies, 54–55), goes against his view; but he too easily discounts this possibility and “finds good reason to believe that the translator of Joshua would also have followed the og of Numbers in his rendering of ‫בצדיכם‬.” Ibid., 55. Ch. 3 B § 8.1 (‫)תמיד‬.

306

chapter 3

occurs eleven times in the lxx, mainly in the Pentateuch. Furthermore, ἐνδελεχισμός is the only deviation in the lxx from the stereotyped πᾶς in rendering ‫תמיד‬. Consequently, in searching for a better equivalent, ἐνδελεχισμός represented a feasible alternative.471 συμπλήρωσις (fulfillment, completion) og

Th-Dan

og=0 ‫ מלא‬to fill (Dan 9:2) → ‫ מלא‬to fill (2Chr 36:21); mt=0: 1Esdr 1:55.

To render the infinitive construct ‫ למלאות‬in 9:2, og-Dan employs εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν and Th-Dan εἰς συμπλήρωσιν. Both equivalents are rare: ἀναπλήρωσιν occurs once in 1Esd 1:54 in addition to its usage in og-Dan 9:2; 12:13, and συμπλήρωσιν occurs only twice (2Chr 36:21; 1Esd 1:55). Furthermore, considering that 1 Esd 1:54 introduces the quotation of 2Chr 36:21 which is cited in 1 Esd 1:55, it stands to reason that the shared ἀναπλήρωσιν between og-Dan 9:2 and 1 Esdr 1:54 is a significant agreement,472 and the shared συμπλήρωσιν between Th-Dan 9:2 and 2 Chr 36:21 (1Esd 1:55) could be also viewed as a significant agreement, and a glimpse of how remote contexts have been used by the reviser in accomplishing his work. σκυθρωπός (gloomy) og

Th-Dan

2‫ זעף־‬to look poor (Dan 1:10) og=0 → ‫ רע‬bad, evil (Gen 40:7); mt=0: Sir 25:23

471 472

The same use of remote context is evidenced by the presence of this rare term in Ezra 3:5 and Neh 10:342X, which has parallel language with the Pentateuch passages. First Esdras 1:54 follows, with slight refinements, the first part of 2Chr 36:21, putting the quote in 1 Esd 1:55 on Jeremiah’s lips. One of these refinements is the use of the compound ἀναπλήρωσιν instead of πληρωθῆναι. That the equivalent ἀναπλήρωσιν stems from the ogDan translator is evident from its occurrence in the addition in 12:13. Consequently, it is likely that ἀναπλήρωσιν in 1 Esd 1:54 indicates the same translator or dependence with/on Dan 9:2, while συμπλήρωσιν in 1 Esd. 1:55 comes from 2Chr 36:21.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 307

Considering that the only other attestation of 2‫ זעף־‬in mt occurs in Gen 40:6 and that the rare σκυθρωπός occurs in Gen 40:7, it is plausible that the reviser has looked into the Joseph’s story to find an equivalent. The numerous intertextual connections between Daniel and Joseph—which have already been noted by scholars473—indicate that these literary parallels were known to the lxx translators.474 σκέλος (leg) og

Th-Dan

0‫ שׁק־‬leg (Dan 2:33) ‫ מרגלות‬feet (Dan 10:6) → ‫ רגל‬foot (1Sam 17:6; Ezek 1:7; 16:25); ‫ כרע‬leg (Lev 11:21; Amos 3:12); ‫ קרסל‬foot (2Sam 22:37); ‫ שׁוק‬thigh (Prov 26:7); ‫ ירך‬thigh, loin, side, base (Ezek 24:4); mt=0: 4Macc 10:6.

Several observations suggest that the reviser referred to Ezekiel 1 to render ‫רגל‬ in Dan 10:6 as σκέλος. First, ‫ רגל‬is a common word, which was understood and rendered elsewhere in Th-Dan with the expected πούς “foot.”475 Second, in addition to σκέλος, there is another unique equivalent which link Daniel 10 with Ezekiel 1. The idiomatic ‫ כעין‬in the phrase ‫ כעין נחשׁת קלל ומרגלתיו‬was rendered in Th-Dan with ὡς ὅρασις, a rendering which is only attested in Ezek 1:4, 22. Third, the subject content of Daniel 10 and Ezekiel 1 is analogous—namely, the appearance of a heavenly being.476 This similarity naturally triggered the reviser’s use of the remote context.

473 474

475 476

For a recent discussion of these parallels, see Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 48–51 (and n. 55 for bibliography). The og’s rendering of ‫ את פניכם זעפים‬with τὰ πρόσωπα ὑμῶν διατετραμμένα καὶ ἀσθενῆ “(he should not see) your face more drawn and sickly” most likely records a double reading. It is possible that ἀσθενῆ was the original reading, while διατετραμμένα was also influenced by Gen 40:6 wherein ‫ זעפים‬was rendered with τεταραγμένοι. However, in view of the overall free style, the og rendering may also be interpreted as a paraphrastic approximation. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 37–38 (No. 1). Dan 2:33–34, 41–42; 7:4, 7, 19. Ch. 3 B § 10.1.2 (‫)קלל‬.

308

chapter 3

κατανύσσομαι (to stab; to slumber) og

Th-Dan

Sus 1:10

‫ רדם‬to sleep soundly (Dan 10:9) 1‫ אלם־‬to be dumb (Dan 10:15)

→ 1‫ דמם־‬to be silent, be dumb (Lev 10:3; Pss 4:5; 30[29]:13; 35[34]:15; Isa 6:5; 47:5); 2‫ עצב־‬to grieve, hurt (Gen 34:7); ‫ כנע‬to humble, subdue (1 Kgs 21[20]:29); ‫ כאה‬to be disheartened (Ps 109[108]:16); mt=0: Gen 27:38; 1 Kgs 21[20]:27; Sir 12:12; 14:1; 20:21; 47:20.

Dissatisfied with the use of πίπτω for ‫ רדם‬in og-Dan 10:9,477 the reviser has presumably coined his own equivalent. We suggest that κατανύσσομαι was perhaps selected under the influence of Isa 6:5 on two considerations: (1) both Daniel 10 and Isaiah 6 record encounters with heavenly beings (epiphanies), describing the prophets’ reactions and the detail that the prophets were both touched on their lips. Consequently, the reviser could have naturally recalled the remote context of Isaiah in searching for a better equivalent; (2) the verbal forms ‫ נרדמתי‬and ‫ נרדם‬from Dan 8:18 and 10:9 resemble ‫ נדמיתי‬and ‫ נדמה‬from Isa 6:5 and 15:1, respectively. As such, the reviser could have assumed an etymology based on √‫ דמם‬instead of √‫רדם‬, which has κατανύσσομαι as its main equivalent. ἀπόκρυφος (hidden [things]) og

Th-Dan

0‫־‬1‫ סתר־‬to hide (Dan 2:22) ‫ מכמן‬hidden treasure (Dan 11:43) → ‫ מטמון‬hidden treasure (Isa 45:3); ‫ סתר‬secret (Deut 27:15; Pss 27[26]:5; 31[30]:21; 81[80]:8); ‫ מסתר‬secret place (Pss 10:8–9[9:29–30]; 17[16]:12; 64[63]:5; Isa 4:6); 2‫ מצודה־‬stronghold (Job 39:28); mt=0: 1Macc 1:23; Sir 14:21 (‫;)תבונה‬ 16:21 (‫ ;)סתר‬23:19; 39:3, 7; 42:9 (‫)מטמון‬, 19 (‫ ;)סתר‬43:32; 48:25 (‫ ;)סתר‬Sol 1:7; 4:5. og=0

477

Ch. 3 B § 8.2 (‫)רדם‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 309

We have argued elsewhere478 that the reviser replaced the etymologically derived τόπος “place” in the og with the literal ἀπόκρυφος in Dan 11:43. Furthermore, it is likely that the reviser arrived at this rendition by etymological derivation as well, i.e. ‫“ מטמון‬hidden treasure,” using the remote context of Isa 45:3. The context in question is the only place where ‫ מטמון‬was translated with ἀπόκρυφος.479 Alternatively, if it is assumed that the reviser was familiar with the semantics of the Aramaic loanword ‫מכמן‬,480 the use of ἀπόκρυφος for both 0‫־‬1‫ סתר־‬and ‫ מכמן‬may be accounted for as due to their overlapping meaning.

C

Recensional Inconsistencies

Section C addresses the presence of inconsistencies in Th-Dan which are exceptions to its revisional style. While the previous sections of this chapter demonstrated, in many ways, Th-Dan’s recensional consistency and described recensional techniques, Section C seeks to account for recensional inconsistencies. Methodologically, inconsistencies are expected to manifest in a recension, no matter how systematic it may be (e.g., Aquila, Kaige[-Th], etc.).481 However, the previous recensional studies provide little account or discussion of their nature in the recensional units which have been investigated. Consequently, the contribution of this section to the discussion is twofold: (1) it addresses recensional inconsistencies and their place in the argument that Th-Dan is a revision; and (2) it explains most of the inconsistencies within a framework of the motivations that have perhaps generated their appearance. Our reviser can be inconsistent in three ways, each one with reference to a different text with which he interacts. If we assess his effort in view of his base text, inconsistencies pertain to those readings which were left unrevised.

478 479

480 481

Ch. 3 A § 3.2.2.2 (Dan 11:43). Excepting Isa 45:3, ‫ מטמון‬occurs four times and was translated with θησαυρός “treasury” (Gen 43:23; Jer 41[48]:8; Job 3:21; Prov 2:4). Ἀπόκρυφος usually renders √‫ סתר‬in the lxx. An alternative suggestion (of secondary preference) posits that the reviser made use of the context of Antiochus’s plunder of the temple treasures in 1Macc 1:23: καὶ ἔλαβεν τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὸ χρυσίον καὶ τὰ σκεύη τὰ ἐπιθυμητὰ καὶ ἔλαβεν τοὺς θησαυροὺς τοὺς ἀποκρύφους, οὓς εὗρεν. The verse shares language and motifs with Dan 11:43. If so, this would afford important insight into the way the reviser has interpreted the last verses of Daniel 11. halot, s.v. “‫ִמְכָמן‬.” We have argued elsewhere that recensional inconsistencies are to be expected, considering the state of the art in recensional studies (see ch. 2 §§2.1–5).

310

chapter 3

In reference to the source text, inconsistencies are deficiencies to represent mt word-for-word. Inconsistencies can also be assessed within the reviser’s own practices; in this event, they constitute exceptions to his applied revising principles in generating his text. In keeping with the general goal of this chapter to characterize Th-Dan’s recensional processes, we seek to account for the nature of the inconsistencies. However, the goal of this section is not purely descriptive, in the sense that it won’t merely list inconsistencies. It rather aims to group cases according to the apparent motives which have sometimes caused the reviser not to strictly apply his rules in literally representing the source text. These inconsistencies reflect exceptions to the reviser’s modus operandi and their analysis affords the unique opportunity to recover what hinders him to generate an absolutely consistent revision.482 There are three important reasons for such inconsistencies: (1) the influence of og-Dan’s style on Th-Dan’s; (2) the difficult nature of mtDan; and (3) inadvertence. For methodological reasons we will further focus only on the first two reasons, assuming that inadvertence could have played a role along with each of the two reasons.483

12

Inconsistencies Influenced by the Base Text

The influence of og-Dan’s style on Th-Dan’s lexical choices and revising techniques is much broader than previous studies have acknowledged. Following a strict methodology, we have demonstrated elsewhere484 the presence of a common textual basis between the og and Th-Dan based on distinct agreements. Many of the subsequent examples corroborate this conclusion, though for methodological reasons they are classified here as cases which document

482

483

484

In light of the comments above, we contend that unique and peculiar readings (e.g., guesses) afford the opportunity to investigate the factors which have affected recensional consistency. Equally, instances in which Th-Dan departs from a literal representation of mt, and its use of idiomatic constructions and approximations to render mt could be attributed to specific circumstances which point to the reviser’s limited understanding, exegesis, and struggle to decode the parent text. In recensional studies, “inadvertence” has been often referred to as an explanation for inconsistencies. Indeed, in many of the following cases, one might also argue for the reviser’s lack of attention. However, for methodological reasons, we attempt in this section to highlight cases from which we can phenomenologically infer certain patterns. These patterns are in view in our analysis below. Ch. 1 § 1.4.2.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 311

the og’s influence on the equivalents selected in Th-Dan. It will be shown that exegetical elements from the og shine through Th-Dan’s revision, affecting recensional consistency. It will be also argued that the reviser was sometimes influenced by og-Dan’s alternation of equivalents, affecting his own recensional tendencies toward stereotyping and restricting equivalents. Lastly, it will be noted that og-Dan’s influence is visible at the level of other techniques, such as transpositions and contextual guesses. 12.1 Contextual Exegesis As part of the recensional process, we have documented Th-Dan’s tendency to eliminate pluses and minuses from the og in order to bring it to conform quantitatively and qualitatively with its mt-like Vorlage. However, the og’s style has interfered sometimes with Th-Dan’s agenda. That is to say, we can identify og exegetical elements in Th-Dan’s revision, arguing for an influence of the base text on the reviser’s lexical choices. In its broader definition, exegesis refers to a translator’s deviation from a literal representation of the underlying text by adding, omitting, or substituting its elements. Furthermore, by means of these techniques, the translators embed their linguistic, exegetical, and theological ideas in the text. It is important to note that these departures do not reflect variant readings, “though from a formal point of view, exegetical elements stand in the same relationship to mt as variant readings.”485 That is to say, the presence of these elements reflect the style of the translator and not words in his Vorlage. All the exegetical elements presented subsequently share the common denominator that they are the result of contextual exegesis.486 However, in presenting the data, we take into consideration both form and content criteria. By form, the contextual elements are described first in relationship to its source text. Accordingly, the elements can be described as additions, omissions, and substitutions.487 By content, we mainly refer to the probable factors that led

485 486

487

Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 50. In this respect, Tov explains: “In a way, all forms of exegesis might be called “contextual exegesis”, because the translators’ concept of “context” was wider than ours. Translators created relationships between words not only when they occurred in the immediate context, but also when they occurred in remote contexts. Furthermore, the translator might insert into the translation any idea the source text called to mind.” Ibid., 50. In this section, we do not evaluate the additions, omissions, and substitution of elements from the source language that fall into the category of variants/non-variants (e.g., connective waw, pronominal suffixes, etc.). The same methodological stricture is applied to

312

chapter 3

to their formation. As such, we distinguish between linguistic, exegetical, and theological motives. The data in this section are presented in charts, with the readings from mt-Dan, og-Dan, and Th-Dan in parallel columns. The examples adduced to support each tendency do not follow a pattern related to their persuasiveness. Rather, since the same phenomenon shines through in each of them, the items below are listed in the sequence of how they occur in the book of Daniel. 12.1.1 Additions The reviser sometimes adopted contextual additions from the og, such as particles, prepositions, pronouns, and helping verbs. However, many such deviations share the common denominator that they, to a certain degree, are expected in the grammar of the Greek language.488 They represent linguistic additions pertaining to style. However, most of the examples below are of another kind: they are cases in which the og’s influence on Th-Dan’s selection of equivalents can be demonstrated. The interference has affected Th-Dan’s recensional practice of quantitatively representing the source text. The string of words under discussion appears as red text in the columns of each chart. When Th-Dan adopts a contextual plus from the og, the plus is marked in red in both the second and the third columns. 12.1.1.1 Linguistic Elements Under the influence of og-Dan, the reviser has sometimes retained linguistic additions which demonstrably reflect the og’s style.

488

the additions, omissions, and substitutions of elements in the target language pertaining to the requirements of the Greek language (e.g., stylistic addition of helping verbs, personal pronouns, prepositions, connective particle καί, etc.). Since such additions are expected and should be properly described as variants/non-variants as well, they were not in the scope of our analysis. For more about the variant/non-variant category, see Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 169–178. E.g., og-Dan and Th-Dan agree thrice in adding the preposition εἰς (+acc) “into,” “to,” “for” in Dan 1:1, 2; 11:8. However, it can be shown that they are compensating for the lack of a preposition attached to the verb ‫“ בוא‬to come.” The verb occurs over forty times in mtDan, being followed most of the time by a preposition. However, since the verb is devoid of a preposition in the cases in question, Th-Dan has expectedly accepted the og’s addition of the preposition εἰς. Th-Dan’s decision is in accordance with the requirements of the verb that he employs, namely, ἔρχομαι “to come,” especially since it was used with a noun of place, indicating destination.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 313

Dan 2:24 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ לחכימי בבל אל תהובד‬Τοὺς μὲν σοφιστὰς ‫ העלני קדם מלכא ]…[׃‬τῆς Βαβυλωνίας μὴ ἀπο-

[…] “Do not do away with the wise men of Babylon; bring me to the king […].

Th

λέσῃς, εἰσάγαγε δέ με πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, […].

[…] Τοὺς σοφοὺς Βαβυλῶνος μὴ ἀπολέσῃς, εἰσάγαγε δέ με ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως, […].

[…] “Do not destroy the savants of Babylon, but bring me in to the king […].

[…] “Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon, but bring me in before the king […].

The marker of contrast δέ “but” can be used independently or as part of the idiomatic construction μέν … δέ, denoting contrast in a set of items, i.e. “on the one hand … but on the other hand.”489 A cursory check suggests that δέ belongs to og-Dan’s style, occurring about forty-seven times, independently or idiomatically.490 Excluding the instances when δέ was used as part of μέν … δέ,491 δέ renders, unsurprisingly, the Semitic particle ‫“ ְו‬and” eight times (1:15, 18; 2:6, 13, 16, 41; 7:72º, 16), and it also renders once each ‫“ כל קבל דנה‬thereupon” (2:241º); 0‫די־‬ “who,” “which” (2:262); 0‫“ אדין־‬then” (4:16[19]); and 0‫“ אף־‬also” (6:23[22]1º). However, the fact that δέ most of the time appears as a plus (Dan 2:5, 7, 242º, 261º, 27, 30, 331°, 36, 43–44; 3:12, 16, 28[95]; 4:19[22], 28[31], 30[33], 34[37b]; 5:0; 6:5[4]– 6[5], 11[10], 13[12]2X, 17[16], 23[22]2º; 7:71º; 8:4) argues that the term belongs to the og’s translational style.492 Th-Dan contrasts sharply with the og: δέ occurs only ten times—twice in a μέν … δε construction and eight times independently. However, out of ten, Th-Dan agrees with the og in rendering five times both ‫( ְו‬2:6, 41–42; 3:15) and

489 490

491 492

L&N, s.vv. “δέ,” “μέν … δέ.” Excepting the additions, δέ appears three times in Daniel 1 (vv. 7, 15, 18); eighteen times in Daniel 2 (vv. 5–7, 13, 16, 242X, 262X–27, 30, 332X, 36, 41, 42Ra–44); five times in Daniel 3 (vv. 12, 15–16, 23, 28[95); six times in Daniel 4 (vv. 16[19], 19[22], 28[31], 30[33], 34[37b,c]2X); once in Daniel 5 (v. 0[abs.]); eight times in Daniel 6 (vv. 5[4]–6[5], 11[10], 13[12]2X, 17[16], 23[22]2X); trice in Daniel 7 (vv. 72X, 16; 8:4); and twice in Daniel 12 (v. 22X). Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 77–78 (No. 51). In the remaining instances—ten times, δέ occurs in og-Dan as part of long pluses: mt=0: Dan 3:23; 4:19[22], 28[31], 30[33], 34[37b, c]2X; 5:0; 6:5[4]–6[5], 23[22]2º.

314

chapter 3

0‫“ אף־‬also” (6:23[22]). Furthermore, in three instances wherein the og=0, ThDan employs δέ to render 0‫“ אדין־‬then” (2:15); ‫( ְו‬4:15[18]); and 0‫“ ברם־‬but” (5:17). Consequently, Th-Dan’s style was to minimize as much as possible the marker of contrast, repeatedly replacing δέ with καί “and, also, even, and yet, but” from the base text when δέ rendered various Semitic words. In addition, in the three cases when og=0, Th-Dan always uses δέ for a Semitic word. The only exceptions are Dan 2:24, 30 where, influenced by the og, Th-Dan accepted δέ stylistically.493 Dan 5:29 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ והלבישׁו לדניאל‬ἐνέδυσε τὸν Δανιηλ ‫ ארגונא והמונכא די דהבא‬πορφύραν καὶ μανιάκην ‫ על צוארה]…[ ׃‬χρυσοῦν περιέθηκεν αὐτῷ

[…].

[…] they clothed Daniel in purple, placed a golden chain on his neck, […].

[…] clothed Daniel in purple, and he put a gold torque on him, […].

Th […] καὶ ἐνέδυσαν τὸν Δανιηλ πορφύραν καὶ τὸν μανιάκην τὸν χρυσοῦν περιέθηκαν περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ […]. […] and they clothed Daniel in purple, and the gold torque they put around his neck […].

The language of v. 29 reflects the literal fulfillment of the king’s promise repeated twice in vv. 7, 16, for the one who could read and interpret the writing on the wall. In v. 7, Th-Dan eliminates the og’s 3rd sing. fut. act. ind. verb περιθήσει “he will put on,” which was added to compensate for the elliptical clause

493

Further evidence for the dependence of Th-Dan on the og emerges by analyzing the idiomatic ‫“ מנהון )…( ומנהון‬they were partly this (…) partly that” (halot, s.v. “‫)”ִמן‬, which was rendered in og-Dan 2:33, 41 with the unique lxx construction μέρος μέν τι (…) μέρος δέ τι. In 2:33, Th has μέρος τι but lacks μέν … δέ of the idiomatic construction. However, Th-Dan retains the full idiomatic expression in v. 41 and uses it further in v. 42. Additional evidence of Th-Dan’s dependence on the og derives from its use of μέν (…) δέ. The collocation is used eight times in og-Dan both before and after 2:41, and consequently it can be assigned to the og style. Its presence in Th-Dan at v. 41 reveals the og’s influence on Th-Dan’s lexical choices. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 77–78 (No. 51).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 315

in the source language.494 In v. 16, not benefiting from a parallel translation in the og, the reviser adds the 3rd sing. fut. mid. ind. ἔσται “[the torque] will be,” interpreting the wording ‫ והמונכא די דהבא על צוארך‬as a nominal clause.495 Consequently, ἔσται is expected. However, in v. 29, the presence of περιέθηκαν in Th-Dan indicates dependence on the og. Not only does the equivalent depart from Th-Dan’s style, displayed in vv. 7, 16, but περιέθηκαν also demonstrably stems from the og (cf. v. 7). 12.1.1.2 Exegetical Elements The reviser sometimes followed the og’s lead in adding exegetical elements. They were generally introduced to clarify the source text and to make explicit what is implicit in the immediate or larger context. Dan 2:34 mt

og ‫ חזה הוית עד די התגזרת‬ἑώρακας ἕως ὅτου ἐτμήθη ‫ אבן די לא בידין ]…[׃‬λίθος ἐξ ὄρους ἄνευ χει-

ρῶν […]. As you looked on, a And you saw until when stone was hewn out, not a stone was cut from by hands, […]. a mountain, without hands, […].

Th ἐθεώρεις, ἕως οὗ ἐτμήθη λίθος ἐξ ὄρους ἄνευ χειρῶν […]. you kept looking until a stone was severed from a mountain, not by hands, […].

Notwithstanding that the agreement between the og and Th-Dan in adding ἐξ ὄρους suggests, at first glance, a different Vorlage, the versions provide a valuable piece of information which convincingly indicates that the reading reflects contextual harmonization in og-Dan. The clue is provided in v. 45, wherein the Semitic phrase ‫ מטורא אתגזרת אבן‬was translated with ἐξ ὄρους τμηθῆναι λίθον in the og, while Th-Dan has ἀπὸ ὄρους ἐτμήθη λίθος. As Montgomery has aptly

494

495

The Semitic clause ‫ והמונכא די דהבא על צוארה‬was rendered in the versions as καὶ μανιάκην χρυσοῦν περιθήσει αὐτῷ “and the gold torque he will put on him” (og-Dan) and καὶ ὁ μανιάκης ὁ χρυσοῦς ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ “and [have] the gold torque around his neck” (Th-Dan). Th-Dan renders the phrase literally: καὶ ὁ μανιάκης ὁ χρυσοῦς ἔσται ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλόν σου “and the gold torque will be around your neck.”

316

chapter 3

remarked, ἐξ ὄρους reflects “an intrusion from lxx” in v. 34, since Th has ἀπὸ ὄρους in v. 45 while the og displays ἐξ ὄρους as in v. 34.496 Dan 7:24 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואחרן יקום אחריהון‬καὶ ὁ ἄλλος βασιλεὺς ‫ והוא ישנא מן קדמיא ]…[׃‬μετὰ τούτους στήσεται,

καὶ αὐτὸς διοίσει κακοῖς ὑπὲρ τοὺς πρώτους […]. […] and after them another will arise. He will be different from the former ones, […].

[…] and another king shall rise after these. And he shall excel more than the former ones in evil, […].

Th […] καὶ ὀπίσω αὐτῶν ἀναστήσεται ἕτερος, ὃς ὑπεροίσει κακοῖς πάντας τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν, […]. […] and another shall arise behind them who shall surpass in evil all the previous ones, […].

Verse 24 is part of the lengthy interpretation section dealing with the little horn and the fourth beast. Th-Dan incorporates in its text the og exegetical addition of κακοῖς, which was likely meant to underscore that the little horn’s surpassing power over the other horns regards malevolent behavior. Dan 8:13 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ עד מתי החזון התמיד‬Ἕως τίνος τὸ ὅραμα ‫ והפשע שמם תת וקדש‬στήσεται καὶ ἡ θυσία ἡ ‫ וצבא מרמס׃‬ἀρθεῖσα καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία

ἐρημώσεως ἡ δοθεῖσα, καὶ τὰ ἅγια ἐρημωθήσεται εἰς καταπάτημα;

496

Th […] Ἕως πότε ἡ ὅρασις στήσεται, ἡ θυσία ἡ ἀρθεῖσα καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐρημώσεως ἡ δοθεῖσα, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἡ δύναμις συμπατηθήσεται;

Montgomery, Daniel, 169. Collins (Daniel, 151) follows Barthélemy in interpreting the addition as an “explanatory gloss.” Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 438. However, not only is their view relatively speculative in comparison to the widely attested practice of harmonization, but even if we should agree that ἐξ ὄρους entered the og as an interpolation, its presence in Th-Dan still argues for the og’s influence on Th-Dan.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 317 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] “How long will [what was seen in] the vision last—the regular offering be forsaken because of transgression; the sanctuary be surrendered and the [heavenly] host be trampled?”

[…] “How long will this vision continue: even the sacrifice, which has been taken away, and the sin of desolation that has been given and the sanctuaries will be desolated unto trampling?” […].

[…] “For how long will this vision continue: the sacrifice, which has been taken away, and the sin of desolation that has been given and the sanctuary and the host will be trampled under foot?”

There is no doubt that the concise Hebrew question in v. 13b has posed problems in translation. Th-Dan follows the og’s lead in adding terms that enhance readability. In this case, the reviser borrows from og-Dan the exegetical additions στήσεται (which governs ἡ ὅρασις) and ἡ ἀρθεῖσα (which govern ἡ θυσία). Dan 8:14 mt

og

‫ ויאמר אלי עד ערב בקר‬καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἕως ‫ אלפים ושלש מאות ונצדק‬ἑσπέρας καὶ πρωὶ ἡμέ‫ קדש׃‬ραι δισχίλιαι τριακόσιαι,

He answered me, “For twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”

Th

καὶ καθαρισθήσεται τὸ ἅγιον.

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἕως ἑσπέρας καὶ πρωὶ ἡμέραι δισχίλιαι καὶ τριακόσιαι, καὶ καθαρισθήσεται τὸ ἅγιον.

And he said to him, “Two thousand three hundred days, evenings and mornings, and the sanctuary will be purified.”

And he said to him, “Two thousand and three hundred days, evenings and mornings, and the sanctuary will be purified.”

318

chapter 3

Most modern commentators interpret the 2300 “evenings and mornings” as referring to 1150 days.497 However, Th-Dan seemingly adopts the exegetical addition ἡμέραι “days” from the og,498 suggesting that, similar to the og and Vulgate, the time period was understood as tantamount to 2300 days.499 Dan 8:17 mt

og

‫ ויבא אצל עמדי ]…[ כי לעת‬καὶ ἦλθε καὶ ἔστη ἐχόμε‫ קץ החזון׃‬νός μου τῆς στάσεως, […]

He came near to where I was standing, […] that the vision refers to the time of the end.”

Th

ἔτι γὰρ εἰς ὥραν καιροῦ τοῦτο τὸ ὅραμα.

καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ ἔστη ἐχόμενος τῆς στάσεώς μου, […] ἔτι γὰρ εἰς καιροῦ πέρας ἡ ὅρασις.

And he came and stood near where I stood, […] for this vision is yet for an appropriate time.”

And he came and stood near where I stood, […] for the vision is yet for the end of time.”

The motive for the addition of καὶ ἔστη was most likely contextual exegesis; the og translator was probably inspired by the Hebrew collocation ‫ ועמד‬+ ‫“ בוא‬to come and to stand,” which frequently appears in mt.500 It can be further argued

497

498

499

500

E.g., Michael Segal, “Calculating the End: Inner-Danielic Chronological Developments,” vt 68 (2018): 272–296; Collins, Daniel, 336; Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 227; Montgomery, Daniel, 242–243; Lacocque, Daniel, 164; Carol A. Newsom and Brennan W. Breed, Daniel, A Commentary, otl (Louisville, KY: wjk, 2014), 267. A further indication of Th-Dan’s dependence on the og in this verse is the shared significant equivalent καθαρισθήσεται for ‫ונצדק‬. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 70 (No. 40). For modern scholars that have understood the time period of 2300 as days in light of Genesis 1, see Goldingay, Daniel, 213; and C. Leong Seow, Daniel, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 125. The habitual juxtaposition of these words mirrors the logical sequence of action, namely, that a person first comes and then stands in front of another entity. The collocation occurs in 1 Kgs 3:15; 2 Kgs 5:15, 25; 8:9; 18:17; Jer 7:10; Ezek 9:2; 10:6; Ruth 2:7; Dan 2:2; 8:17. Since there is no clear contextual indication to imply that a scribal error has occurred (e.g., the omission because of parablepsis of the purported ‫)ויעמד‬, it is methodologically appropriate to assume that the addition of καὶ ἔστη reflects contextual harmonization and adaptation in view of the frequent Semitic collocation.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 319

that the translator may have had been directly influenced by Ezek 9:2; 10:6.501 Indeed, both passages have a phraseology similar to the longer og text, i.e. ‫ויבא‬ ‫ ויעמד אצל‬and ‫ויבאו ויעמדו אצל‬, respectively, and the og-Ezek rendering of each is very similar to og-Dan 8:17, namely, καὶ εἰσήλθοσαν καὶ ἔστησαν ἐχόμενοι and καὶ εἰσῆλθεν καὶ ἔστη ἐχόμενος. The presence of ‫ עמדי‬in the proximity may have been a trigger for the og translator to recall the Semitic collocation.502 Th-Dan has taken in the og’s exegetical addition. Dan 8:22 mt

og

‫ והנשברת ותעמדנה ארבע‬καὶ τὰ συντριβέντα καὶ ‫ תחתיה ]…[׃‬ἀναβάντα ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ

τέσσαρα κέρατα, […]. One was broken and four came in its stead— that [means]: […].

Th καὶ τοῦ συντριβέντος, οὗ ἔστησαν τέσσαρα ὑποκάτω κέρατα, […].

And as for the four And as for the crushed horns that were crushed one, where four horns and came up after it: arose underneath: […]. […].

In the interpretation section of Daniel 8, v. 22 parallels v. 8 of the vision. The def. fem. sing. ptc. ‫ הנשברת‬along with the clause ‫ ותעמדנה ארבע תחתיה‬function as headings, aiming to resume features from the vision that are to be explained.503

501

502

503

Another possibility is to postulate contextual harmonization with Dan 2:2. However, notwithstanding that the collocation ‫ ויבאו ויעמדו‬is attested in this verse, the og renders it differently (καὶ παραγενόμενοι ἔστησαν “and when they arrived, they stood”) than in 8:17. In addition, the collocation in 2:2 lacks ‫אצל‬, making Ezek 9:2; 10:6 the more likely source for the og reading. In addition, the collocation ‫ עֶֹמד‬+ ‫ עמד‬appears twice in the immediate context (i.e., Dan 8:18; 10:11) and several times in the remote mt context (i.e., Neh 13:11; 2Chr 30:16; 34:31; 35:10). Noting its presence, Charles uses this piece of information to suggest that both the og and Th-Dan reflect the original Vorlage, the reading presupposed by καὶ ἔστη being “lost in mt.” Charles, Daniel, 1929, 196 (see also 214–215). However, he fails to provide a reason for its disappearance and does not note that the og’s addition, which entered Th-Dan (and further in Vulgate), reflects translational harmonization. As such, ‫ הנשברת‬resumes ‫ וכעצמו נשברה הקרן הגדולה‬while ‫ ותעמדנה ארבע תחתיה‬parallels ‫ ותעלנה חזות ארבע תחתיה לארבע רוחות השמים‬of v. 8. The use of headings is amply attested in the pesharim literature found at Qumran. See Collins, Daniel, 339. It is less likely that v. 22b reflects a casus pendence clause, as suggested by Montgomery (Daniel,

320

chapter 3

og-Dan has mistakenly taken both phrases as forming a single clause, wherein the fem. sg. ptc. was interpreted attributively as determining ‫ ארבע‬as the subject. Consequently, the translator represented all four horns as being crushed and not only the conspicuous horn of the he-goat. The imprecision was seemingly triggered by the different vocalization of the ptc. by the translator., i.e., ‫( ונשבר ֹת‬fem. pl.) vs. ‫( ונשב ֶרת‬fem. sg.). The reviser corrected the imprecisions toward a literal representation of the mt but still shows dependence, copying the explicating addition κέρατα from og. Dan 12:7 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ וירם ימינו ושמאלו אל‬καὶ ὕψωσε τὴν δεξιὰν ‫ השמים וישבע בחי העולם‬καὶ τὴν ἀριστερὰν εἰς τὸν ‫ כי למועד מועדים וחצי ]…[׃‬οὐρανὸν καὶ ὤμοσε τὸν

ζῶντα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα θεὸν ὅτι εἰς καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ […].

[…] as he lifted his right hand and his left hand to heaven: “For a time, times, and half a time […].

[…] And he raised the right hand and left hand toward heaven, and he swore by God, who lives forever, [“The consummation] … will be at a time and times and half a time […].

Th […] καὶ ὕψωσεν τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀριστερὰν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ὤμοσεν ἐν τῷ ζῶντι τὸν αἰῶνα ὅτι Εἰς καιρὸν καιρῶν καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ […]. […] and he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven. And he swore by means of the one who lives forever: [“Pertaining] to a time of times and half a time; […].

Th-Dan follows the og in adding καιροῦ which is implied by the Hebrew idiomatic phrase ‫למועד מועדים וחצי‬.

353), and who was rightly criticized by Charles (Daniel, 1929, 216), or that that the Hebrew “would be unintelligible without recourse to the underlying Aramaic” as Hartman and Di Lella (Daniel, 228) emphatically claim.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 321

12.1.2 Omissions A small number of contextual omissions are shared between og-Dan and ThDan. The most important omissions in Th-Dan vis-à-vis mt will be dealt with in ch. 4, raising the question of a different Vorlage. 12.1.2.1

Theological Elements Dan 8:12

mt

og ‫ וצבא תנתן על התמיד‬καὶ ἐγενήθησαν ἐπὶ τῇ :[…] ‫ בפשע‬θυσίᾳ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι […].

An army was arrayed iniquitously against the regular offering […].

And sins were on the offering […].

Th καὶ ἐδόθη ἐπὶ τὴν θυσίαν ἁμαρτία […]. And sin was given for an offering […].

Th-Dan followed og in not representing ‫צבא‬, presumably because of its different understanding in context. In v. 9, the difficult 1‫“ צבי־‬beauty” was rendered by Th-Dan with δύναμις “power,” “strength,” “force.” This maneuver indicates etymological derivation, the reviser interpreting 1‫ צבי־‬as ‫ צבא‬from the immediate context. Indeed, in the next verse (v. 10a), Th-Dan renders ‫ צבא השמים‬with τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ while the og uses τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Both translations suggest that ‫ צבא‬was understood with reference to the heavenly bodies.504 Since ‫ צבא‬with this assumed meaning was no longer suited to the context of v. 12, the og omitted it, and Th-Dan followed the og. 12.1.3 Substitutions Th-Dan was influenced by some og lexical choices that are tantamount to contextual substitutions. Notwithstanding their quality as word-for-word render-

504

Additional evidence that Th-Dan’s reviser had in mind the heavenly bodies when he rendered ‫ צבא‬in v. 10a stems from the readings preserved in v. 10b in the most important witnesses of Th-Dan. Here, ‫ צבא‬occurs a second time in the phrase ‫ותפל ארצה מן הצבא‬ and was rendered in Th-Dan cf. Ra ≠ Mu with καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Significantly, these witnesses attest the addition of τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, suggesting that the reviser or subsequent copists wanted to make sure that ‫ צבא‬would be understood as alluding to heavenly bodies.

322

chapter 3

ings, these shared linguistic, exegetical, and theological elements reflect deviations from the literal translation of the source text. As a result of the reviser’s consultation of the base text, he has at times adopted such imprecise elements, though, at times, it can hardly be determined when they reflect conscious decision or inadvertence. From a formal point of view, the subsequent substituted elements are tantamount to significant agreements, thus differing from the additions and omissions previously discussed. While the presence of the shared additions and omissions by both the og and Th-Dan raises the issue of whether they reflect a different Vorlage and, thus, were not included as part of our argument for the common basis from methodological stricture, the contextual substitutions qualify for such a case. However, by means of a small number of examples, we underscore here their nature as free contextual borrowings from the og, affecting Th-Dan’s consistency. 12.1.3.1 Linguistic Elements The linguistic influence of the og on Th-Dan is visible in the way Th-Dan adopts erroneous renditions to circumvent difficult language, as well as in its following the og’s precise, but free contextually sensitive equivalents. In the latter case, we argue that this sort of influence affects the reviser’s agenda of stereotyping. Dan 8:13 mt

og

‫ ואשמעה אחד קדוש מדבר‬καὶ ἤκουον ἑτέρου ἁγίου ‫ ויאמר אחד קדוש לפלמוני‬λαλοῦντος, καὶ εἶπεν ὁ :[…] ‫ המדבר‬ἕτερος τῷ φελμουνι τῷ

Then I heard a holy being speaking, and another holy being said to whoever it was who was speaking […].

Th

λαλοῦντι […].

καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἁγίου λαλοῦντος, καὶ εἶπεν εἷς ἅγιος τῷ φελμουνι τῷ λαλοῦντι […].

And I kept hearing another holy one speaking, and the other one said to the Phelmouni who was speaking […].

And I heard one of the holy ones speaking, and one holy one said to the Phelmouni who was speaking […].

The og translators struggled with the indefinite pronoun ‫ פלני אלמני‬as well as with its shorter form ‫“ הפלני‬that certain one.”505 Its variation in Daniel is 505

The various forms of the indefinite pronoun were rendered as follows: ‫—פלני אלמני‬

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 323

unique506 as is its transliteration in the og. The reviser has adopted the og’s unique transliteration, betraying his linguistic limitations as well as his dependence on the og.507 Dan 10:3 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ובשר ויין לא בא אל פי‬καὶ κρέας καὶ οἶνος

:[…] οὐκ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ στόμα μου […]. […] nor did any meat or wine enter my mouth […].

[…] and no meat or wine had entered my mouth […].

Th […] καὶ κρέας καὶ οἶνος οὐκ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ στόμα μου […]. […] and no meat or wine had entered my mouth […].

Dan 10:3 is the only place where the reviser rendered ‫“ בשר‬flesh,” “meat” or its cognate 0‫“ בשר־‬body,” differently.508 Th-Dan’s departure from stereotyping in Dan 10:3 presumably involves linguistic precision. Σάρξ was employed in the other Danielic passages to describe living bodies. Since in Dan 10:3 ‫ בשר‬refers to meat for consumption,509 Th-Dan has retained κρέας, which is the og’s contextually sensitive rendition.510

506

507 508 509

510

Φελλανι Αλεμωνι (1 Sam 21:3); ‫—פלני אלמני‬ελμωνι (2Kgs 6:8); ‫—פלני אלמני‬κρύφιος (Ruth 4:1); ‫—הפלני‬Φελωνι (1Chr 11:27; 27:10); and ‫—הפלני‬Φαλλους (1Chr 11:36). In its form, ‫ פלמוני‬in Dan 8:13 constitutes a combination between ‫ פלני‬and ‫אלמני‬. See H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel, Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 14 (New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1948), 83. It is no surprise that, starting with Aquila, φελμουνι was taken as a “proper, angelic name.” See further Montgomery, Daniel, 344 and Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 226. See ch. 3 A § 1.1.2.1 (0‫בשר־‬/‫)בשר‬. Κρέας follows σάρξ in frequency as an equivalent for ‫בשר‬. It occurs eighty-seven times and was exclusively employed for ‫בשר‬: Gen 9:4; Exod 12:8, 46; 16:3, 8, 12; 21:28; 22:30; 29:14, 31–32, 34; Lev 6:20; etc. However, apart from Job 10:11, κρέας was restricted to those contexts which deal with meat as food or cultic offering (gels, s.v. “κρέας”). Consequently, the reviser’s deviation may reflect his adherence to a translational standard that differentiated between contexts in rendering ‫בשר‬. See ch. 3 A § 1.1.2.1 (0‫בשר־‬/‫)בשר‬. In addition to the linguistic precision, it can be further conjectured that since the setting of Daniel 10 is the first calendrical month, wherein Daniel fasted three full weeks (vv. 1–3), the Septuagint translators would have read the narrative within the framework of a Jewish liturgical calendar. In such a case, the lapse of time would have included Passover and

324

chapter 3

12.1.3.2 Exegetical Elements The reviser sometimes imports the og’s exegetical elements, affecting consistency. Dan 8:25b mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ ובשלוה ישחית רבים‬καὶ δόλῳ ἀφανιεῖ ‫ ]…[׃‬πολλοὺς […].

[…] will destroy many, taking them unawares, […].

[…] And by deceit he will annihilate many […].

Th […] καὶ δόλῳ διαφθερεῖ πολλοὺς […]. […] And by deceit he will destroy many, […].

‫ שלוה‬denotes “prosperity,” “tranquility” and occurs three times in mt-Dan. Both versions agree only in Dan 8:25, rendering it with δόλος “deceit.” In the other two occasions, Th-Dan substitutes the conjectural og equivalent ἐξάπινα “suddenly” with the literal εὐθηνία “prosperity” (Dan 11:21, 24).511 The motive for Th-Dan to retain δόλος in 8:25 was exegetical. Since the basic meaning of ‫שלוה‬ hardly made sense in the context, the og translator rendered it in view of the 1‫“ מרמה־‬deceit” of the same verse.512 Significantly, 1‫ מרמה־‬was rendered with ψεῦδος “lie,” “falsehood” in the og, whereas in Th-Dan with δόλος. The effect of this deliberate substitution is that it negatively depicts the actions of the little horn, while textually leveling ‫ שלוה‬with 1‫מרמה־‬.

511

512

the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 279). The refraining from eating meat would connote the Passover lamb, whereas the avoidance of “tasty bread” [lit. trans.] might have constituted an allusion to the fact that he ate ‫“ לחם עני‬bread of affliction” or “unleavened bread” (Deut 16:3). Significantly, κρέας has rendered ‫ בשר‬in Passover narrative twice, i.e., Exod 12:8, 46. Besides Daniel, ‫ שׁלוה‬occurs five times, with its meaning deduced erroneously thrice (Jer 22:21; Prov 1:32; 17:1). In the other two instances, lxx renders it with the more suitable equivalent εὐθηνία “prosperity” (Ezek 16:49; Ps 122[121]:7). As tempting as may be to suggest in this case a different Aramaic Vorlage, i.e., ‫ שׁלה‬or ‫שׁלו‬ (3:29[96]; 6:5[4]; Ezra 4:22; 6:9) instead of ‫שׁלוה‬, this possibility is mitigated by the fact that the Greek versions offered in 3:29[96] a different, contextual translation for ‫שׁלה‬/‫שׁלו‬ (ch. 3 B § 9). Both readings would have seemingly challenged the process of translation in Dan 8:25.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 325

12.1.3.3 Theological Elements The theological ideas of the og translator permeate the reviser’s work, affecting his consistency. Further, they are clues to the influence of the base text on the reviser’s world of ideas. Dan 8:11 mt

og

:[…] ‫ ועד שר הצבא הגדיל‬ἕως ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος ῥύσεται τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν […]. It vaunted itself against the very chief of the host […].

until the commander in chief delivers the captives. […].

Th καὶ ἕως οὗ ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος ῥύσηται τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν […]. even until the commander in chief delivers the captives. […].

Both the og and Th-Dan do not allow that ‫“ שר הצבא‬the chief of the host” to be attacked by the little horn (see further next example). The phrase was likely understood as referring to a heavenly being and, thus, the attack would be an inappropriate scenario.513 This might explain the reviser’s adoption of the og’s erroneous equivalent ῥύομαι “to deliver” for ‫ גדל‬hiphil “to magnify oneself” and the addition of αἰχμαλωσία “captivity,” “captives.” Dan 8:25c mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ועל שר שרים יעמד‬καὶ ἐπὶ ἀπωλείας ‫ ]…[׃‬ἀνδρῶν στήσεται […].

[…] and will rise up against the chief of chiefs, […].

513

[…] and he will rise by the destruction of men […].

See also the subsequent example (Dan 8:25c).

Th […] καὶ ἐπὶ ἀπωλείας πολλῶν στήσεται […]. […] and he will rise by the destruction of many […].

326

chapter 3

The deviation from a literally rendering ‫ שר שרים‬originated because of theological exegesis.514 Since the appellation was perceived as referring to God,515 the og translator found the language as unacceptable and hence translated the text as though the little horn would destroy people. Th-Dan has accepted the og’s exegesis, and with it, also its equivalent ἀπωλείας.516 12.2 Interchange of Equivalents The interchange of equivalents, which is a translational idiosyncrasy of ogDan, is sometimes traceable in Th-Dan. The subsequent examples of equivalence alternations in Th-Dan demonstrate that, in many cases, they follow og-Dan’s pattern, further underscoring the influence of the latter on the former. In documenting this influence, these shared patterns also provide an explanation for many of Th-Dan’s departures from stereotyping. That is to say, although the reviser worked toward stereotyping, he has mechanically taken in og equivalents, sometimes inadvertently. This interference from og lexical choices argues that the reviser constantly checked the base text, a procedure which affected his desired outcome, namely, stereotyping. We distinguish between absolute and general alternation in order to describe the extent to which the reviser has followed og-Dan’s interchange of equivalents. 12.2.1 Absolute Alternation The influence of og-Dan on Th-Dan is “absolute” when the latter displays the same interchange of equivalents for a Semitic lexeme in the same locations where they are attested in the former.

514

515

516

In those instances wherein ‫ שר‬stands alone (and not as part of phrases like ‫שר־הצבא‬, ‫שר־שרים‬, etc.), Th-Dan has consistently employed the equivalent ἄρχοντας “ruler” (9:6, 8; 10:13, 20, 21; 11:5; 12:1), while the og has used δυνάστης “ruler,” “king,” “official” (9:6, 8; 11:5); στρατηγός “captain,” “commander” (10:13, 20); and ἄγγελος “messenger,” “angel” (10:21; 12:1). Montgomery (Daniel, 351) who notes that “[T]he ‘Prince of princes’ is ‘the Prince of the host,’ v. 11, q.v., i.e., God.” Similarly, Collins (Daniel, 341, 331–333) and Goldingay (Daniel, 218). Th-Dan further substituted ἀνδρῶν with πολλῶν, presumably being influenced by the immediate context. The previous clause of the same verse ‫ ובשלוה ישחית רבים‬was rendered with καὶ δόλῳ διαφθερεῖ πολλοὺς in Th-Dan and καὶ δόλῳ ἀφανιεῖ πολλοὺς in og-Dan. As such, the reviser kept his equivalents within the framework required by the context.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 327 ‫( ספר‬document, book)

og

Th

γράμμα character; letter (of the alphabet); epistle (Dan 1:4) γραμματικός literate, scholarly; grammarian (Dan 1:17) βίβλος scroll, book, record (Dan 9:2; 12:1, 4)

γράμμα character; letter (of the alphabet); epistle (Dan 1:4) γραμματικός literate, scholarly; grammarian (Dan 1:17) βίβλος scroll, book, record (Dan 9:2; 12:1, 4)

Th-Dan has undoubtedly followed the og’s pattern of equivalence alternation for ‫ספר‬. Γραμματικός occurs only once elsewhere, in Isa 33:18, where it translates ‫סֵפר‬ ֹ “scribe.”517 Besides βίβλος, which is the main equivalent for ‫ספר‬, lxx contains γράμμα in a few instances.518 It can hardly be coincidental that ThDan has maintained the rare word γραμματικός in 1:17, the rare rendition γράμμα in 1:4, and the main equivalent βίβλος in 9:2; 12:1, 4. The shared interchange of equivalents in the same locations argues for the og’s influence on the reviser’s equivalence choices which, in turn, has hindered stereotyping. By contrast, Aquila’s revision has replaced γραμματικός and γράμμα with βίβλος, obtaining absolute consistency. 12.2.2 General Alternation The influence of og-Dan on Th-Dan is “general” when the latter displays the same interchange of equivalents for a Semitic lexeme in almost the same locations where they are attested in the former. 0‫( דור־‬to dwell) og

Th

[1] οἰκουμένη world (Dan 2:38) [2] οἰκέω to dwell (Dan 3:31[4:37c] cf. Ra: 88 ≠ Mu: pap 967 [κατοικέω])

[1] κατοικέω to settle, dwell, inhabit (Dan 2:38) [2] οἰκέω to dwell (Dan 3:31[98])

517 518

Given its rarity, we have shown elsewhere the quality of γραμματικός as a distinctive agreement. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 51 (No. 16). Josh 15:15–16; Judg 1:11–12; Isa 29:11–12; Esth 6:1; 8:5, 10.

328

chapter 3

(cont.)

og [3] νοσσεύω to build a nest (Dan 4:9[12]) [4] og=0: Dan 4:18[21]; 4:32[35]2X [2] οἰκέω to dwell (Dan 6:26[25])

Th [1] κατοικέω to settle, dwell, inhabit (Dan 4:9[12], 18[21], 32[35]1º) [3] κατοικία dwelling (Dan 4:32[35]2º) [2] οἰκέω to dwell (Dan 6:26[25])

Analysis of the renderings of 0‫ דור־‬reveals that κατοικέω constitutes the stereotyped equivalent in Th-Dan, and its switch with οἰκέω in 6:26[25], represents a significant alternation under the influence of the og. We further contend that the same may be true regarding Dan 3:31[98], where κατοικέω in pap 967 reflects a corruption of the original reading οἰκέω.519 There are several facts that suggest this proposal: (1) κατοικέω is the stereotyped equivalent in Th-Dan whereas οἰκέω is an exception; (2) οἰκέω is found in the og other two times besides the occurrences above, i.e., 4:8[11], 34[37b]; (3) κατοικέω occurs in the og once in Dan 3:1 where it arguably represents a secondary editorial expansion. By contrast, κατοικέω was preferred in Th-Dan 4:9[12] to correct νοσσεύω and in vv. 18[21], 32[35] to fill in the minuses. In addition, the compound κατοικία—a derivate noun from the same constituents as κατοικέω—is attested in Dan 2:11; 4:22[25], 29[32], 32[35]; 5:21, while it is absent from og-Dan.520 ‫( עמד‬to set up)

og

Th

[1] εἰμί to be, exist (Dan 1:4) [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 1:5) [1] εἰμί to be, exist (Dan 1:19) [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 2:2; 8:3–4, 6–7, 15)

[1] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 1:4–5, 19; 2:2; 8:3–4, 6–7, 15, 18, 221º)

519 520

As expected, the apparatus criticus in Th-Dan 3:31[98]; 6:26[25] evidences a harmonizing tendency between κατοικέω and οἰκέω in the history of the ms transmission. Κατοικέω appears over 600 times, while οἰκέω appears only eighty-five times in lxx. Consequently, it can be inferred that the reviser aimed at standardization. As might be expected, the deviation from stereotyping points to a sort of mechanical influence of the base text on the reviser.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 329 (cont.)

og [3] ἐγείρω to raise, lift up (Dan 8:18) [4] ἀναβαίνω to go up, rise up, advance (Dan 8:221º) [5] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 8:222º, 23) [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 8:25; 10:112X) [6] ἀνθίστημι to resist, oppose (Dan 10:13) [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 10:16) [1] εἰμί to be, exist (Dan 10:17) [7] εἶπον to say (Dan 11:1 [‫)]אמר » עמד‬. [6] ἀνθίστημι to resist, oppose (Dan 11:2) [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 11:3) [5] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 11:4) [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 11:6) [5] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 11:7) og=0: Dan 11:8, 11 [8] συνάγω to gather, bring together; compile (Dan 11:13) [5] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 11:142X) [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 11:151º) [6] ἀνθίστημι to resist, oppose (Dan 11:152º, 161º) [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 11:162º) [9] πείθω to persuade; believe; trust (Dan 11:17)

Th

[2] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 8:222º, 23) [1] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 8:25; 10:111º) [2] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 10:112º) [1] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 10:13, 16–17; 11:1)

[2] ἀνίστημι raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 11:2, 3)

[1] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 11:4, 6, 7, 8, 11)

[3] ἄγω to bring, lead, go, celebrate (Dan 11:13) [4] ἐπανίστημι to rise; to turn against (Dan 11:141º) [1] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 11:142º, 152X, 162X)

[5] παραμένω to remain, continue (Dan 11:17)

330

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[5] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 11:20, 21) [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 11:25, 31) [10] παρέρχομαι to pass by, pass away (Dan 12:11º [‫)]יעבר » עמד‬ [2] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 12:12º, 5) [5] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 12:13)

[2] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 11:20) [1] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 11:21, 25) [2] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 11:31; 12:11º) [1] ἵστημι to stand, place, put (Dan 12:12º, 5) [2] ἀνίστημι to raise up, set up, resist, restore, arise (Dan 12:13)

The statistics above convincingly afford the following conclusion: the og has interchangeably employed four main equivalents for ‫( עמד‬i.e., εἰμί, ἀνθίστημι, ἵστημι, ἀνίστημι), while Th-Dan has used ἵστημι most of the time, and ἀνίστημι, rarely.521 However, beside the significant agreement in Dan 11:13,522 the alternation between ἵστημι and ἀνίστημι in several instances in Th-Dan can hardly be viewed as coincidental. One of these regards Dan 8:222º, 23. Considering that the reviser has used ἵστημι eleven times beforehand in Daniel 1–2, 8, the switch to ἀνίστημι corresponds precisely with the first time it was introduced as an equivalent for ‫ עמד‬in the og. Moreover, there are corroborating facts: the equivalence is rare and peculiar to Septuagint Daniel;523 the equivalence was introduced by the og, which features freer lexical choices. It is therefore safe to

521

522

523

As can also be noted, both versions exhibit other equivalents as well. However, for our argument, it is important to note that the reviser aimed to use ἵστημι as much as possible. Consequently, it was employed to replace the og’s equivalents ἀνθίστημι (10:13; 11:152º, 161º); εἰμί (1:4, 19; 10:17); ἐγείρω (8:18); ἀναβαίνω (8:221º); εἶπον (11:1); and παρέρχομαι (12:11º). Ἵστημι was also used to fill in the minuses in og-Dan 11:8, 11. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 83 (No. 58). A further reading that bears the traits of a significant agreement is the pluperfect act. ind. εἱστήκεισαν (ἵστημι) shared by both og/Th-Dan in 12:5. McLay, og and Th Versions, 202, 248, relegates it too easily to the category where dependence is unclear. ‫ עמד‬is attested over 500 times and ἀνίστημι over 450 times. However, the equivalence ‫—עמד‬ἀνίστημι is found only twelve times, mostly in books whose affiliation to og-Dan is suspected: Josh 21:44; Isa 11:10; Ezek 13:5; Job 4:16; Ezra 2:63; 9:9; Neh 7:65; 2Chr 20:5, 23; 24:13, 20; 25:5.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 331

conclude that the alternation of equivalents in 8:222º, 23 is significant. It can be further argued that the mechanical influence of the og on Th-Dan is visible in the shift from παραμένω to ἀνίστημι in 11:20 and from ἵστημι to ἀνίστημι in 12:13, and also perhaps in 11:2, 14.524 0‫( אתה־‬to come, bring) og

Th

Peal [1] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 3:2) [2] og=0: Dan 3:26[93]

Peal [1] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 3:2) [2] δεῦτε come! come, now! (Dan 3:26[93]) [1] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 7:13, 22)

[3] + ‫ הוה‬to be, become—ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 7:13) [1] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 7:22) Haphel/Hophal [1] ἄγω to bring, lead, go (Dan 3:132X) [2] φέρω to bring, carry (Dan 5:2–3) [3] og=0: Dan 5:13 [2] φέρω to bring, carry (Dan 5:23) [3] og=0: Dan 6:17[16], 18[17], 25[24]

Haphel/Hophal [1] ἄγω to bring, lead, go (Dan 3:132X) [2] φέρω to bring, carry (Dan 5:2–3) [1] ἄγω to bring, lead, go (Dan 5:13) [2] φέρω to bring, carry (Dan 5:23) [1] ἄγω to bring, lead, go (Dan 6:17[16], 25[24]) [2] φέρω to bring, carry (Dan 6:18[17])

0‫ אתה־‬occurs thirteen times in mt-Dan, in three different stems: four times in peal (3:2, 26[93]; 7:13, 22); twice in hophal (3:132º; 5:2); and seven times in haphel (3:131º; 5:3, 13, 23; 6:17[16]–18[17], 25[24]). The data clearly indicate that ἄγω and φέρω were used interchangeably for rendering the causative stems. Intriguingly, when Th-Dan and the og line up each with other, they preserve in each location the same equivalence alternation.525 In addition, the interchange

524

525

The presence of the preverb ἐπί in front of ἀνίστημι Dan 11:141º has most likely to do with presence of the prep ‫ על‬in the phrasal ‫יעמדו על‬. The graphic and phonic similarity between ἀνθίστημι and ἀνίστημι may have further triggered the change of equivalents in Th-Dan 11:2. The analysis of Dan 3:26[93] shows that the equivalent intended by the reviser to render 0‫ אתה־‬was ἐξέρχομαι and not δεῦτε as it may appear. See ch. 3 C §13.1.3.1 (0‫)אתה־‬.

332

chapter 3

of equivalents rendering haphel and hophal stems is notable. Ἄγω—which has first been introduced as an equivalent for both stems in 3:131º, 2º—appears to be the preferred rendition in Th-Dan, thrice filling in the og minuses in 5:13; 6:17[16], 25[24]. Consequently, the switch from ἄγω to φέρω in 5:2, 3, where it renders both stems, can hardly be explained as a coincidence.526 The view we take here is that it rather substantiates the og’s influence on ThDan in changing its equivalents. Equally, the use of φέρω in Th-Dan 5:23— considering that it has employed ἄγω beforehand in v. 13 and afterward in 6:17[16] filling in the og’s minuses—may indicate another important alternation.527 ‫( בוא‬to come)

og

Th

Qal [1] παραγίνομαι to come, to appear (Dan 1:1; 2:2) [2] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 8:5, 6, 172X) [3] ἐπέρχομαι to be at hand (Dan 9:13) [2] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 9:23) [4] ἥκω to have come, be present (Dan 9:26) [5] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 10:3; 12) [3] ἐπέρχομαι to come upon, be at hand (Dan 10:13) [2] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 10:14, 201º) [6] εἰσπορεύομαι to enter, go in (Dan 10:202º)

Qal [1] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 1:1; 2:2; 8:5, 6, 172X; 9:13, 23, 26)

526

527

[2] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 10:3) [1] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 10:12, 13, 14, 202X)

Renditions such as ἄγω and φέρω for the causative 0‫ אתה־‬are expected to a certain extent (cf. McLay, og and Th Versions, 138–139. However, the point at stake here is not whether the equivalents are common and, therefore, expected, but the corresponding alternation of the equivalents in both versions. The fact that Th-Dan used φέρω once more in 6:18[17] when og=0 does not contradict the observation that Th–Dan prefers the equivalent ἄγω, i.e., 5:13; 6:17[16], 25[24].

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 333 (cont.)

og

Th

[5] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:61º) [4] ἥκω to have come, be present (Dan 11:71º) [7] og=0: Dan 11:72º [5] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:9–101º) [8] κατά + αὐτός (Dan 11:102º) [5] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:131º)

[2] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:61º) [3] ἥκω to have come, be present (Dan 11:71º) [2] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:72º, 9)

[9] εἶς + αὐτός (Dan 11:132º) [3] ἐπέρχομαι to come upon, be at hand (Dan 11:15) [5] εἰσπορεύομαι to enter, go in (Dan 11:16) [3] ἐπέρχομαι to come upon, be at hand (Dan 11:17) [4] ἥκω to have come, be present (Dan 11:21) [7] og=0: Dan 11:24 [5] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:29) [4] ἥκω to have come, be present (Dan 11:30) [5] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:40) [3] ἐπέρχομαι to come upon, be at hand (Dan 11:41 cf. 88-Syh) [4] ἥκω to have come, be present (Dan 11:45) Hiphil [1] ἀποφέρω to carry off; obtain, win back (Dan 1:21º) [2] ἀπερείδω to fix, settle, support (Dan 1:22º) [3] ἄγω to bring, lead, go (Dan 1:3, 182X) [5] ἐπάγω to bring upon (Dan 9:12, 14) [6] δίδωμι to give (Dan 9:24)

[1] ἔρχομαι to come, go (Dan 11:102X) [4] ἐπέρχομαι to come upon, be at hand (Dan 11:131º) [5] εἰσόδιον entrance (Dan 11:132º) [2] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:15) [5] εἰσπορεύομαι to enter, go in (Dan 11:16) [2] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:17) [3] ἥκω to have come, be present (Dan 11:21, 24, 29)

[5] εἰσέρχομαι to enter (Dan 11:30, 40, 41)

[3] ἥκω to have come, be present (Dan 11:45) Hiphil [1] φέρω to bring, carry (Dan 1:21º) [2] εἰσφέρω to bring in (Dan 1:22º) [3] εἰσάγω to bring in (Dan 1:3, 182X) [4] ἐπάγω to bring upon (Dan 9:12, 14) [1] ἄγω to bring, lead, go (Dan 9:24)

334

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[7] συμπορεύομαι to come with, go with (Dan 11:62º) [1] ἀποφέρω to carry off; obtain, win back (Dan 11:8)

[2] φέρω to bring, carry (Dan 11:62º, 8)

‫ בוא‬appears forty-three times in two different stems: ten times in hiphil and thirty three times in qal. Most of the renditions are expected, but a few shared alternations of equivalents between the og and Th-Dan are significant. The first notable one relates to the change of equivalent for the verb in qal stem in Dan 10:3. After stereotypically utilizing ἔρχομαι for ‫ בוא‬in chs. 1, 2, 8, and 9, the reviser deviates for the first time by retaining the og rendition εἰσέρχομαι, at the beginning of the new translation unit of Daniel 10.528 The reviser’s decision to do so is most likely due to the presence of the preposition ‫ אל‬attached to ‫בוא‬. His stereotyping tendency is visible in further reserving εἰσέρχομαι for the similar prepositional phrases such as ‫( בוא אל‬11:61º) and -‫( בוא ב‬11:72º, 9, 17, 30, 40, 41). Furthermore, at the beginning of Daniel 11, both Greek versions share the new equivalent ἥκω in v. 7.529 Similarly, the og and Th-Dan share the differing equivalent εἰσπορεύομαι in v. 16.530 Lastly, the two versions converge again in vv. 21 and 45 where they share ἥκω, anew.531 As far as the rendering the hiphil stem is concerned, the transition from εἰσφέρω to εἰσάγω in Th-Dan 1:2–3 can likely be explained as because of the influence of the og’s equivalence alternation. Furthermore, the presence of ἐπάγω in both versions in 9:12, 14 also likely bear the same explanation.

528 529

530

531

The observation that in og-Dan 10:12 the equivalent εἰσέρχομαι was employed again, may indicate that it stems from the og. Ἥκω was for the first time employed in og-Dan 9:26, while Th-Dan has maintained its main equivalent ἔρχομαι. Consequently, it can be inferred that ἥκω also stems from the og. Εἰσπορεύομαι was first introduced in 10:202º by og-Dan, suggesting that it emerged from the og as well. The maintenance of εἰσπορεύομαι again in Th-Dan 11:17 presumably relates to the reviser’s tendency to be consistent. Verse 21 represents the next instance after v. 71º wherein ἥκω appears. Significantly, it is shared by the og and Th-Dan. The latter has further maintained it because of consistency in vv. 24, 29. Also important is the switch from εἰσέρχομαι back to ἥκω in v. 45, most

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 335

0‫( בעה־‬to request, look for) og

Th

[1] ζητέω to seek, inquire (Dan 2:13) [2] ἀξιόω to make claim; request, ask (Dan 2:16) [1] ζητέω to seek, inquire (Dan 2:18) [2] ἀξιόω to make claim; request, ask (Dan 2:23, 49) [3] og=0: Dan 4:33[36]

[1] ζητέω to seek, inquire (Dan 2:13) [2] ἀξιόω to make claim; request, ask (Dan 2:16) [1] ζητέω to seek, inquire (Dan 2:18) [2] ἀξιόω to make claim; request, ask (Dan 2:23) [3] αἰτέω to ask (Dan 2:49) [1] ζητέω to seek, inquire (Dan 4:33[36]) [4] + ‫—הוה‬ζητέω to seek, to inquire (Dan 6:5[4]) [3] αἰτέω to ask (Dan 6:8[7])

[4] + ‫—הוה‬βουλεύω to take counsel, to plan (Dan 6:5[4]) [2] ἀξιόω to make claim; request, ask (Dan 6:8[7]) [5] εὔχομαι to wish, pray, long for (Dan 6:12[11]) [2] ἀξιόω to make claim; request, ask (Dan 6:13[12]) [5] εὔχομαι to wish, pray, long for (Dan 6:14[13]) [1] ζητέω to seek, inquire (Dan 7:16)

[2] ἀξιόω to make claim; request, ask (Dan 6:12[11]) [3] αἰτέω to ask (Dan 6:13[12], 14[13])

[1] ζητέω to seek, inquire (Dan 7:16)

The use of ζητέω, αἰτέω, and ἀξιόω denoting “requests” to both humans and God (or gods) suggests that they are free of theological or linguistic exegesis.532 Furthermore, ἀξιόω is specific to the deuterocanonical books, appearing rarely in the other books. It has been clearly demonstrated that in one case it repre-

532

likely under the influence of the og as well. A comparison of the contexts wherein ἥκω appears does not reveal any clear pattern for employing ἥκω exegetically in Th-Dan; rather it reflects mechanical interference from the og. The entreating use of ζητέω for humans is apparent in Th-Dan 4:33[36]), while it is used for heavenly beings in 2:18 and 7:16. Ἀξιόω was employed in both the og and Th-Dan 2:16 for the request of Daniel to the king, while in v. 23 to his request to God. (Once more ThDan uses the word indicating that Daniel is addressing God in 6:12[11]). Similarly, αἰτέω indicating a request made of a man is attested in 2:49, for both gods and men in 6:13[12], and only for God in 6:14[13].

336

chapter 3

sents a significant agreement between the og and Th-Dan.533 Consequently, it stands to reason that the corresponding interchange between ζητέω and ἀξιόω in Daniel 2 bears the hallmark of influence of the og on Th-Dan in its equivalent choices. 12.3 Other Techniques The influence of the base text on Th-Dan is sometimes visible at the level of transpositions and contextual free renditions (e.g., guesses, etc.). While inadvertence accounts for much of the former, the motives for the latter are more nuanced (see below). Whatever rationales may account for the subsequent examples, the og’s interference with and influence on Th-Dan have presumably given rise to the inconsistencies we observe. 12.3.1

Transpositions Dan 1:15

mt

og

‫ ומקצת ימים עשרה נראה‬μετὰ δὲ τὰς \δέκα / ἡμέ:[…] ‫ מראיהם טוב‬ρας/ ἐφάνη ἡ ὄψις αὐτῶν

καλὴ […]

Th καὶ μετὰ τὸ τέλος τῶν \δέκα/ ἡμερῶν/ ὡράθησαν αἱ ἰδέαι αὐτῶν ἀγαθαὶ […].

Both the og and Th-Dan render ‫“ ימים עשרה‬ten days” with ἡμέρας δέκα “days ten” in vv. 12, 14. The change in word order in v. 15 raises the possibility of the influence of the og on Th-Dan.

533

Including og-Dan, ἀξιόω occurs forty-eight times in lxx, and mostly in apocryphal books: Gen 31:28; Num 22:16; 1 Esd 4:46; Esth 4:8; 5:6; 7:8; 8:3; 9:12; Tob 1:22; 1Macc 11:28, 62, 66; 13:45; 2 Macc 2:8; 3:31; 4:19; 5:4; 7:28; 8:14, 29; 9:15, 26; 10:4, 16, 26; 11:17, 24; 12:11, 24, 42; 3 Macc 5:13; 4 Macc 5:17; Wis 13:18; Sir 51:14; Isa 33:7; Jer 7:16; 11:14; LetJer 1:40, 43; Dan 1:8; 2:16, 23, 49; 4:30[33a]; 6:6[5], 8[7]–9[8], 13[12]. The presence of ἀξιόω in the og-Dan may indicate translational affinities with some of these books. For the significance of the agreement ἀξιόω for ‫בקשׁ‬, see ch. 3 B § 6.2 (‫ )בקשׁ‬and Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 82 (No. 56).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 337

Dan 2:45 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ והדקת פרזלא נחשא‬καὶ συνηλόησε \τὸ :[…] ‫ חספא כספא ודהבא‬ὄστρακον/, τὸν σίδηρον

καὶ τὸν χαλκὸν/ καὶ τὸν ἄργυρον καὶ τὸν χρυσόν […].

Th […] καὶ ἐλέπτυνεν \τὸ ὄστρακον/, τὸν σίδηρον, τὸν χαλκὸν/ τὸν ἄργυρον, τὸν χρυσόν […].

There is no doubt that the og reorganizes the material elements of the statue so that they match the reverse order of their introduction (i.e., gold, silver, bronze, iron, clay).534 Th-Dan’s attestation of the same secondary arrangement betrays the og’s influence.535 Dan 3:16 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ נבוכדנצר לא חשחין‬Ναβουχοδονοσορ ‫ אנחנה על דנה פתגם‬Βασιλεῦ, οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν ‫ להתבותך׃‬ἀποκριθῆναί σοι ἐπὶ τῇ

\ἐπιταγῇ/ ταύτῃ/·

Th […] Ναβουχοδονοσορ Οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν ἡμεῖς περὶ τοῦ \ῥήματος/ τούτου/ ἀποκριθῆναί σοι·

Th-Dan revises a transposition in one instance (i.e., it moves ἀποκριθῆναί σοι “to answer you” to the end of the sentence to match ‫ )להתבותך‬but retains the og’s word-order substantive-adjective for ‫דנה פתגם‬. This is the only time when both the og and Th-Dan attest a different word order for a phrase formed by the adj. ‫“ דנה‬this” and a substantive.536 534

535

536

The Peshitta agrees with mt in word order, while the Vulgate with Th-Dan and the og (ms 88 and Syh). Pap 967 attests the order τὸν σίδηρον, τὸ ὄστρακον, which was rightly interpreted by Munnich as a secondary harmonization with v. 35 and mt. See also John E. Goldingay, Daniel, rev. ed., wbc 30 (Grand Rapids, mi: Zondervan, 2019), 182. Obiajunwa has noted the shared transposition between the og and Th-Dan, though problematically questioning its significance: “If θ-Dan were revising the Greek of the lxx towards the mt, why did it not do so here?” “Semitic Interference,” 91–92. There is no need to postulate a different Vorlage to account for the transposed words. The observation applies both when ‫ דנה‬is followed by a substantive (Dan 2:18, 30, 47; 5:7,

338

chapter 3

Dan 7:24 mt

og

‫ וקרניא עשר מנה מלכותה‬καὶ τὰ \δέκα/ κέρατα/ :[…] ‫ עשרה מלכין יקמון‬τῆς βασιλείας, δέκα βασι-

λεῖς στήσονται […]·

Th καὶ τὰ \δέκα/ κέρατα/ αὐτοῦ, δέκα βασιλεῖς ἀναστήσονται […]·

Similar phrases to ‫( קרנין עשר‬lit. “horns ten”) in v. 24 occur twice beforehand. In v. 7, both versions attest the literal translation κέρατα δέκα for ‫קרנין עשר‬. Similarly, in v. 20, ‫ קרניא עשר‬was rendered with τῶν δέκα κεράτων αὐτοῦ (og) and τῶν κεράτων αὐτοῦ τῶν δέκα (Th-Dan). Th-Dan’s change in the word order in v. 24 likely indicates the influence of the base text on the reviser. Dan 8:2 mt

og

Th

[…] καὶ ἤμην ἐν Σού‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואני בשושן הבירה‬ἐμοῦ ὄντος ἐν Σούσοις τῇ βάρει, ἥ ἐστιν ἐν :[…] ‫ אשר בעילם המדינה‬σοις τῇ πόλει, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐν \χώρᾳ/ Ἐλυμαΐδι/ […]· \χώρᾳ/ Αιλαμ/ […]·

The versions (i.e., pap 967 and Th-Dan) share again a transposition over against mt.537 The reviser has apparently taken in the og’s phrase since it is more natural Greek.538

537

538

15, 22, 24; 7:16) and when it is preceded by a substantive (Dan 2:36; 4:15[18], 21[24]; 5:25– 26). Both the og and Th-Dan are devoid of an equivalent for ‫ דנה‬in 6:4[3], 6[5], 29[28], while og-Dan=0 in 4:15[18], 21[24]; 5:7, 15, 22, 24, 25. mss 88-Syh underwent secondary revision towards mt, attesting ἐν Ἐλυμαΐδι χώρᾳ “in the region of Elymais.” We follow both Ziegler’s and Munnich’s reconstructed readings based on pap. 967. Pace Jeansonne assesses the transposition as an indication to the og’s influence on ThDan as well. The Old Greek Translation of Daniel, 50. In view of Th-Dan’s overall tendency to eliminate transpositions, McLay’s case for the expectedness of the word order is less likely. og and Th Versions, 162–163.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 339

12.3.2 Contextual Guesses The influence of the base text on Th-Dan is sometimes visible in contextual guesses, suggesting a broader influence. The freedom of the og translator apparently set an example for the reviser to take an exegetical approach to rendering difficult language in the source text. The subsequent cases argue for this possibility. 0‫( ארע־‬earth) og

Th

ἐλαχύς small, short, little (Dan 2:391) γῆ earth, land (Dan 2:35, 392º; 4:7[10]–8[11], 12[15]1º; 6:26[25]; 7:4, 17, 232X) ἐν αὐταῖς (Dan 3:31[4:37c]) ὄρος mountain, high hill (Dan 4:12[15]2º) og=0: Dan 4:17[20], 19[22]–20[23], 32[35] 2X; 6:28[27]

ἥσσων less, worse (Dan 2:391º) γῆ earth, land (Dan 2:35, 392º; 3:31[98]; 4:7[10]–8[11], 12[15]2X, 17[20], 19[22]–20[23], 32[35]2X; 6:26[25], 28[27]; 7:4, 17, 232X)

Considering the stereotyped usage of γῆ for 0‫ ארע־‬in Th-Dan, the use of ἥσσων in 2:391º is intriguing. The source of the discrepancy demonstrably originates with the peculiar use of the prepositional phrase 0‫ ארע־‬+ 0‫ מן־‬denoting “beneath.”539 To cope with this difficulty, the og’s translator had recourse to etymological exegesis, presumably deriving its meaning from ‫צער‬.540 The reviser allegedly takes in the og’s meaning, though making use of his own equivalent. Indeed, like ἐλαχύς, the equivalent ἥσσων covers the meaning of “less,” “fewer,”541 denoting an “inferior” kingdom in the context of v. 39.542

539 540

541 542

halot, s.v. “‫ ;”ֲא ַרע‬Montgomery, Daniel, 174–175. Support for this suggestion can be adduced from the instances wherein ‫ צער‬was rendered with ἐλαχύς (Gen 25:23; Josh 6:26; 1 Sam 9:21; Isa 60:22; Jer 49:20[30:14]). In addition, the Hebrew cognate may have further influenced the exegesis of the translator. The presence of ‫ צ‬in his “virtual” reading might have been inspired by analogy with ‫ארץ‬. lsj, s.v. “ἥσσων, ἧσσον.” Ἥσσων was employed only in Dan 2:39 in Th, and it further appears thirteen times in lxx: 1 Sam 30:24; 2 Macc 4:40; 5:14; 10:17; 13:22; 15:18, 27; Job 5:4; 13:10; 20:10; Wis 17:12; Isa 23:8; Let Jer 1:35. In Job 20:10 it translates 2‫“ דל־‬poor.”

340

chapter 3 ‫( פת־בג‬portion)

og

Th

τράπεζα table (Dan 1:5) δεῖπνον dinner, supper (Dan 1:8, 13, 15–16) μέριμνα care, anxiety (Dan 11:26)

τράπεζα table (Dan 1:5, 8, 13, 15) δεῖπνον dinner, supper (Dan 1:16) δεῖ it is necessary (Dan 11:26)

We have demonstrated elsewhere Th-Dan’s dependence on the og’s lexical choices τράπεζα and δεῖπνον in Daniel 1, for rendering the difficult ‫פת־בג‬. Significantly, the same problematic lexeme occurs once more in 11:26. Since the previously borrowed equivalents did not fit this context and the og had recourse to the unsatisfactory conjecture μέριμνα, the reviser followed the example set by the og’s translator, coining his own contextual guess, which in fact represents a better approximation of the source text.543 3‫( ציר־‬pain) og

Th

πλευρόν (πλευρά) side; rib; flank (Dan 10:16)

ἐντός (ἐν) (+gen) within, inside (Dan 10:16)

mt-Dan 10:16 features the difficult idiomatic clause ‫“ אדני במראה נהפכו צירי עלי‬I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord” (jps), which was contextually rendered in the versions: Κύριε, καὶ ὡς ὅρασις ἐπεστράφη ἐπὶ τὸ πλευρόν μου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ (og); Κύριε, ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ σου ἐστράφη τὰ ἐντός μου ἐν ἐμοί (Th).544 Since both versions feature independent guesses in the rendering of ‫“ צירי‬my pains” it precisely pinpoints the obstacle in their translation process, 543

544

The reviser’s intuition to select δεῖ for ‫ פת־בג‬was probably influenced by the presence of √‫“ אכל‬to eat” in the immediate context, i.e., ‫“ ואכלי פת בגו ישׁברוהו‬those who eat of his food will ruin him.” For the analysis of ‫פת־בג‬, see ch. 3 B §6.4 (‫פתבג‬/‫ )פת־בג‬and Daniel Olariu, “The Mechanics of the Recensional Process: Theodotion’s Treatment of First-Found Equivalents in Old Greek Daniel,” jscs 52 (2019): 177–195 (191–192). nets indicates difficulty in providing a literal translation of the Greek versions: “Sir, as the vision turned to me, to my flank” (og); “Sir, because of your appearance, everything inside me was upset” (Th).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 341

that is, the lexical difficulty of 3‫ציר־‬. The reviser most likely has rejected the og’s guess,545 applying his principle of restrictive equivalence. Indeed, while πλευρόν was employed in og-Dan to render three distinct Semitic lexemes,546 it occurs in Th-Dan only once, as the expected equivalent for 0‫“ עלע־‬rib.”547 The fact that Th-Dan features his own contextual rendering does not indicate an independent translation. The reviser, not satisfied with og-Dan equivalent, revised it toward what represented in his view a more suitable approximation of the source text, while remaining close to the meaning of the base text.

13

Inconsistencies Influenced by the Difficulties of the Source Text

The nature of certain mt vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, and syntax represents an important feature that gave rise to recensional inconsistency. Predominantly, it gave rise to non-stereotyped equivalents and imprecise renderings. In many of these instances, Th-Dan offers much better approximations of the source text into Greek than og-Dan does. On other occasions, the reviser offers contextual wording that, in his view, represented a more suitable rendering. 13.1 Contextual Exegesis 13.1.1 Additions The additions reflect revising touches which are different from the og. However, as it shall be seen below, the additions are surrounded by recensional corrections and, sometimes, the og’s influence on Th-Dan’s additions is still detected. Th-Dan’s additions are marked as red text in the right column. In the event that a certain rendition in the og may have inspired the reviser to use a similar equivalent as an addition, the og’s plus is also marked as red text.548 545

546 547

548

Alternatively, og-Dan may have derived the word’s etymology from √‫צדד‬, i.e., ‫“ צד‬side,” assuming an interchange between the graphic similar letters ‫ד‬/‫ר‬. This alternative can be further supported by the fact that πλευρόν renders several times ‫ צד‬in Exod 30:4; Ezek 4:4, 6, 82X, 9. In addition to 3‫ציר־‬, og-Dan translates two other Aramaic words with πλευρόν, within a single verse: 0‫“ שׂטר־‬side” and 0‫“ עלע־‬rib” (Dan 7:5). 0‫ עלע־‬constitutes the cognate of the Hebrew ‫צלע‬. Πλευρόν occurs fifteen times outside of og-Dan. It renders on six occasions ‫( צלע‬1 Kgs 6:16; Ezek 41:64X, 26); in other six ‫( צד‬Exod 30:4; Ezek 4:4, 6, 82X, 9); once ‫“ יירכה‬side,” “extreme parts,” “flank” (Ps 48[47]:3); and twice mt=0: 4 Macc 6:6; 11:9. Πλευρόν is derived from πλευρά, which is the main rendition of ‫צלע‬: Gen 2:21–22; Exod 27:7; 2 Sam 16:13; 1 Kgs 6:5, 8; Ezek 41:5; etc. In these instances, wherein the og’s pluses may have influenced Th-Dan, they differ in the words added. Consequently, the og’s influence is likely at the level of translation technique, the reviser has arrived at his own lexical choices.

342

chapter 3

13.1.1.1 Linguistic Elements The subsequent examples show how the reviser has added linguistic elements in order to render phrases from the source text which were problematic to quantitatively translate into the target language. Dan 2:15 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ על מה דתא מהחצפה‬Περὶ τίνος δογματί‫ מן קדם מלכא ]…[׃‬ζεται πικρῶς παρὰ τοῦ

βασιλέως; […]

[…] Why is the decree of the king so urgent?” […]

[…] “Why is it being decreed so harshly by the king?”

Th […] περὶ τίνος ἐξῆλθεν ἡ γνώμη ἡ ἀναιδὴς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ βασιλέως; […] […] why has the shameless opinion gone out from before the king?”

In the interrogative question above, the og has freely changed the grammatical category from noun to verb, i.e., from 0‫“ דת־‬law” to δογματίζω “to ordain,” and the participle derived from 0‫“ חצף־‬to be harsh,” “to be urgent” was taken adverbially. Th-Dan has corrected the grammatical category, but instead of the expected εἰμί “to be” in the nominal clause, it has employed ἐξέρχομαι “to come out,” “to go out.” His decision was demonstrably influenced by the idiomatic phrase ‫ דתא נפקת‬in the immediate context (v. 13).549 Dan 2:38 mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ יהב בידך והשלטך‬παρέδωκεν εἰς τὰς ‫ בכלהון ]…[׃‬χεῖράς σου κυριεύειν πάν-

των, […]

549

Th […] ἔδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρί σου καὶ κατέστησέν σε κύριον πάντων, […].

The og renders the phrase in v. 13 with ἐδογματίσθη “it was decreed,” whereas Th-Dan has τὸ δόγμα ἐξῆλθεν “the decree went out.” Consequently, each version maintains the same equivalence, a translation technique known as textual leveling.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 343 (cont.)

mt

og

Th

[…] into whose hands He has given … and to whom He has given dominion over them all […]

[…] he has delivered […] he has given into them into your hands to your hand, and he has rule over all […]. established you as lord of all […].

The og departs from a literal representation of the root ‫ שׁלט‬in the causative haphel stem, i.e., ‫“ השלטך‬he made you ruler.”550 The reviser was quick to notice the deviation and aimed at a literal translation. However, given the limitation of the Greek language in finding a word-for-word equivalent, he employed twofor-one-word technique. The og’s influence on Th-Dan emerges from the use of the noun κύριον, which was likely inspired by the og’s equivalent κυριεύω “to rule over.”551 Dan 4:5[8] mt

og

‫ ]…[ ודי רוח אלהין קדישין‬og=0 ‫בה ]…[׃‬

[…] in whom the spirit of the holy gods was […].

550 551

Th […] ὃς πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἅγιον ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχει […]. […] who has a holy, divine spirit in himself […].

halot, s.v. “‫שׁלט‬.” There are other hints at Th-Dan’s consultation of the og: (1) like the og, Th-Dan does not represent the preposition or the pronominal suffix of the immediate phrase ‫“ בכלהון‬over them all;” (2) Th-Dan’s use of the equivalent καθίστημι “to put,” “to put in charge,” “to make” in v. 38 was seemingly inspired from v. 48 were the og uses it for ‫ שׁלט‬haphel. Th-Dan keeps the same equivalent in v. 48 as well. However, like the og, it does not add κύριος “lord” as in v. 38, since the word was reserved by the reviser for references to God or to the king.

344

chapter 3

To render the nominal, subordinate clause above, Th-Dan adds the helping verb ἔχω “to have” and not εἰμί “to be,” likely because it renders the meaning of the source text more accurately in the target language.552 Dan 4:24[27] mt

og

Th

‫ ]…[ ]…[ הן תהוא ארכה‬ἵνα ἐπιείκεια δοθῇ σοι […] ἴσως ἔσται μακρόθυ‫]…[ לשלותך׃‬. μος τοῖς παραπτώμασίν

σου ὁ θεός. […] then your serenity may be extended.”

[…] so that equity might be given to you […].

[…] Perhaps God will show forbearance for your transgressions.”

Th-Dan adds θεός due to his difficulty in understanding the Aramaic clause. Demonstrably, the reviser struggled to decode the meaning of 0‫“ שלוה־‬prosperity.” As a result, he has contextually interpreted the clause as referring to “God” who might show restraint for the king’s transgressions. To do so, he has interpreted 0‫“ ארכה־‬extension” in light of ‫“ ארך אפים‬indulgent”553 while 0‫ שלוה־‬was contextually guessed.554 13.1.1.2 Exegetical Elements In a few cases, the reviser has added elements which, at least in his view, would make explicit what was implicit within the (larger) context of the source text.

552

553

554

In the other two instances where the clause appears in Daniel 4, Th-Dan renders it literally, making no use of helping verbs: ὅτι πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἅγιον ἐν σοὶ (vv. 6[9], 15[18]). In both instances the og reflects a different Vorlage. Μακρόθυμος “patient,” “long-suffering,” “enduring” appears about nineteen times in lxx literature. It renders ‫ ארך אפים‬thirteen times (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Pss 86[85]:15; 103[102]:8; 145[144]:8; Prov 14:29; 15:18; 16:32; Sir 5:4; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3); once ‫יקר‬ ‫( רוח‬Prov 17:27); and once ‫( ארך רוח‬Eccl 7:8). mt=0: Ps 7:12; Odes 12:7; Sir 1:23; Wis 15:1. The Hebrew cognate ‫ שׁלוה‬occurs five times and its meaning has been deduced erroneously thrice (Jer 22:21; Prov 1:32; 17:1). In the other two instances, lxx renders it with εὐθηνία (Ezek 16:49; Ps 122[121]:7). In Daniel, ‫ ַשְׁל ָוה‬occurs thrice: in 8:25, Th-Dan adopts the erroneous equivalent δόλος “deceit” from the og; in 11:21, 24, because he singled out an accurate equivalent, Th-Dan corrects the contextual og guess ἐξάπινα “suddenly” with the precise εὐθηνία “prosperity.” See also ch. 3 C § 12.1.3.2 (Dan 8:25b).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 345

Below, Th-Dan’s additions appear as red text in the right-hand column. As above, the og’s elements which possibly inspired the reviser to use a similar equivalent as an addition, are also marked as red text. Dan 1:3 mt ‫ויאמר המלך לאשפנז‬ ‫רב סריסיו להביא מבני‬ ‫ישראל ומזרע המלוכה ומן‬ ‫הפרתמים׃‬

Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, his chief officer, to bring some Israelites of royal descent and of the nobility—

og

Th

αὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Αβιεσδρι τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἀρχιευνούχῳ ἀγαγεῖν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν τῶν μεγιστάνων τοῦ Ισραηλ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ γένους καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιλέκτων

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ Ασφανεζ τῷ ἀρχιευνούχῳ αὐτοῦ εἰσαγαγεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας Ισραηλ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς βασιλείας καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν φορθομμιν

And the king told Abiesdri, his own chief eunuch, to bring to him some of the sons of the nobles of Israel and of royal descent and of the aristocracy:

And the king told Asphanez, his chief eunuch, to bring in some of the sons of the captivity of Israel, both of the seed of the kingdom and of the Phorthommin:

In contrast to the mt reading ‫מבני ישראל‬, both Greek versions reflect a third element in the construct chain, namely, τῶν μεγιστάνων in the og and τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας in Th-Dan. The plus can be interpreted as an exegetical explanatory addition. Given the fact that v. 2 refers to the deportation of only the king, the translator needed to add precision and clarify the target group intended by the king’s command. While og perhaps freely added a word based on the context of the verse, Th-Dan harmonized the expression with 2:25,555 identifying the target group as the “sons of the captivity of Israel.”556

555 556

The Semitic phrase ‫ מן בני גלותא די יהוד‬was rendered similarly in both versions: ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας τῆς Ιουδαίας (Th-Dan); ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας τῶν υἱῶν τῆς Ιουδαίας (og-Dan). For an alternative explanation, see Michael Segal, “The Anchor Bible Commentary on the Book of Daniel,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the sbl, San Diego, CA, 25 Nov 2019.

346

chapter 3

Dan 7:17 mt

og

‫ אלין חיותא רברבתא די אנין‬Ταῦτα τὰ θηρία τὰ ‫ ארבע ארבעה מלכין יקומון‬μεγάλα εἰσὶ τέσσαρες ‫ מן ארעא׃‬βασιλεῖαι, αἳ ἀπολοῦνται

ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς·

“These great beasts, four in number [mean] four kingdoms will arise out of the earth;

“These great beasts are four kingdoms, which shall perish from the earth.

Th Ταῦτα τὰ θηρία [τὰ μεγάλα]Ra τὰ τέσσαρα, τέσσαρες βασιλεῖαι ἀναστήσονται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, αἳ ἀρθήσονται· “These four beasts: four kingdoms will arise upon the earth, which will be destroyed

The addition of αἳ ἀρθήσονται in Th-Dan is contextually motivated, likely inspired by the og’s exegesis. Verses 17–18 contain the first brief explanation of the vision recorded in vv. 2–14. Consequently, the condensed interpretation did not cover all elements of the vision. The first to take issue with the sequence of events in vv. 17–18 was the og translator. In his view, the “holy ones of the Most High” receive the kingdom only after the four kingdoms are destroyed. This is most likely the reason why he renders ‫ יקומון‬with αἳ ἀπολοῦνται “which shall perish.” The reviser corrects αἳ ἀπολοῦνται with the literal ἀναστήσονται, whereas, under the influence of the og, he has demonstrably added αἳ ἀρθήσονται557 with the same effect: to exegetically clarify that the event of receiving the kingdom is preceded by the destruction of the earthly kingdoms.558

557

558

The equivalent αἴρω “to take up” occurs five times in Th-Dan. Twice it renders ‫“ נשא‬to lift,” “to carry,” “to take” in the idiomatic phrase ‫“ ואשא )את( עיני‬and I raised my eyes.” The reviser rejects ἀπόλλυμι “to destroy,” “to ruin” for αἴρω in Dan 7:17, presumably because he has reserved the former entirely for 0‫אבד־‬. It is significant to note that in the other two occurrences, αἴρω was exegetically employed by og-Dan and further taken in by the reviser in Dan 8:13 and 9:27. Th-Dan has also followed og-Dan in rendering ‫“ מלכין‬kings” with βασιλεῖαι “kingdoms,” exegetically influenced by the context of vv. 23, 27. The section comprised of vv. 23–27 represents the second, more elaborate interpretation of the vision.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 347

Dan 12:1 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ]…[ והיתה עת צרה אשר‬ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλί‫ לא נהיתה מהיות גוי עד‬ψεως, οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ‫ העת ההיא ]…[׃‬ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως

τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης· […]

[…] It will be a time of trouble, the like of which has never been since the nation came into being. […]

[…] That is a day of affliction, which will be such as has not occurred since they were born until that day […].

Th […] καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως, οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ᾽ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου· […] […] And there will be a time of affliction such as had not occurred since a nation first came into existence until that time. […]

The addition of ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς in Th-Dan 12:1 probably aimed to spell out a subtle exegetical nuance lost in the og but implied by the source text: while the og suggests that the intensity of the anticipated time of affliction would not be comparable with any distress experienced by the single generation witnessing the events, Th-Dan explains that the afflictions cannot be compared with any past events in the history of nations. 13.1.2 Omissions 13.1.2.1 Linguistic Elements The reviser has rarely omitted elements because of his linguistic limitations in decoding the source text. The subsequent two cases exemplify his recourse to this extreme (by his standards) translational technique. Dan 7:15 mt

og

‫ אתכרית רוחי אנה דניאל‬καὶ ἀκηδιάσας ἐγὼ ‫ בגוא נדנה ]…[׃‬Δανιηλ ἐν τούτοις […].

Th ἔφριξεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τῇ ἕξει μου, ἐγὼ Δανιηλ, […].

348

chapter 3

(cont.)

mt

og

Th

As for me, Daniel, my spirit was disturbed within me […].

And as for me, Daniel, since I was exhausted by these things, […].

As for me, Daniel, my spirit shuddered in my possession, […].

The lexica affirm the quality of 0‫“ נדן־‬sheath” as a Persian loanword, probably of Sanskrit origin.559 Because of its difficulty, the og translator availed himself of etymological exegesis, taking it as the dem. pron. ‫“ דנה‬this,” and presumably omitting 0‫“ גו־‬midst.” Th-Dan’s reviser had recourse to contextual exegesis, transferring more precisely the meaning of the source text into the target language. However, he omitted 0‫ נדן־‬and reworked the word order because of stylistic considerations.560 Dan 8:2 mt

og

‫ ]…[ ואראה בחזון ואני‬v. 2 v. 2 […] ἔτι ὄντος μου ‫ הייתי על אובל אולי׃‬πρὸς τῇ πύλῃ Ωλαμ.

v. 2 […] I saw in the vision that I was beside the Ulai River.

559 560

[…] while I was still by the gate of Olam.

Th v. 2 […] καὶ εἶδον ἐν ὁράματι καὶ ἤμην ἐπὶ τοῦ Ουβαλ. […] and I was by the Oubal.

halot, s.v. “‫ ;” ְנ ַדן‬bdb, s.v. “‫ ;” ִנ ְד ֵנה‬Montgomery, Daniel, 306–307 (who provides a useful summary of the most plausible positions in understanding the word ‫)נדנה‬. Reconstructing the process through which the reviser produced his reading is largely based on intuition. He could have simply guessed contextually that ‫ בגוא נדנה‬relates to ‫ רוחי‬and, thus, intuitively arrived at his rendering “my spirit in my possession.” In this case, he might have omitted 0‫ גו־‬as being redundant. However, the fact that ἕξις “habit,” “use,” “possession” (cf. lsj, s.v. “ἕξις”) was previously employed to render ‫“ גויה‬body” in Judg 14:9 raises the possibility of remote exegesis. In such a case 0‫ נדן־‬was the word left untranslated. We incline toward the latter possibility.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 349

The source language clustered together the difficult words ‫“ אובל אולי‬Ulai River.” As we have seen elsewhere,561 Th-Dan has rejected the og’s etymological conjecture τῇ πύλῃ for ‫אובל‬, deeming instead to transliterate. The reviser has further omitted ‫ אולי‬probably to avoid placing two transliterated words next to each other.562 13.1.3 Substitutions 13.1.3.1 Linguistic Elements Confronted with difficult language, the reviser sometimes departs from precisely or stereotypically rendering the source text. He approximated certain obscure Semitic lexemes, though he was presumably quite confident that his equivalents were superior to those found in the og, fitting better within the context. ‫( חבא‬to hide)

og

Th

σπουδή haste; speed; zeal; pursuit (Dan 10:7)

φόβος fear, terror; reverence (Dan 10:7)

Both versions erroneously render ‫חבא‬, suggesting that their renderings were contextually inferred.563 og-Dan interprets ‫ חבא‬as pertaining to the speed of the action, i.e., ‫“ ויברחו בהחבא‬and they run away in haste.” The reviser infers

561 562

563

See ch. 3 A § 5 (‫)אובל‬. However, accounting for all textual data, the explanation regarding Th-Dan’s omission may point to a different interpretation. Alternatively, the omission could reflect a scribal haplography within the purported original phrase ουβαλουλα (cf. L′–36-88 46). This purported reading lays behind a Latin tradition which alleges that Th-Dan would have read super ubal ulai (seemingly adopted later also by Aquila). Notwithstanding the fact that straightforward equivalents were assigned to ‫ חבא‬in lxx, there are other instances wherein a sort of conjecture is further discernable. The equivalents which properly render ‫ חבא‬include: κρύπτω “to hide” (Gen 3:8, 10; Josh 2:16; 6:25; 10:17; Judg 9:5; 1 Sam 10:22; 13:6; 14:11, 22; 19:2; 2 Sam 17:9; 1 Kgs 18:4, 13; 2Kgs 6:29; 11:3; Isa 42:22; 49:2; Job 5:21; 24:4*; 29:8); κρυφῇ “secretly” (Gen 31:27[26]); κατακρύπτω “to hide” (Josh 10:16; 2 Chr 18:24; 22:12); and ἐγκρύπτω “to hide in,” “to conceal” (Amos 9:3). The renditions which were seemingly approximated contextually include καταφεύγω “to flee” (Josh 10:27); μακαρίζω “to bless” (Job 29:10); καταβαίνω “to come down” (Job 38:30); μεθαχαβιν (transliteration of ‫ מתחבאים‬in 1 Chr 21:20); ἰατρεύω “to heal” (2Chr 22:9). lxx=0: Josh 6:17; 1 Sam 23:23.

350

chapter 3

its meaning from the preceding clause, which depicts the reaction of those with Daniel at the time of the reception of his vision: ‫אבל חרדה גדלה נפלה עליהם‬ “rather a great terror fell upon them.” 1‫( אלם־‬to be dumb) og

Th

σιωπάω to be silent (Dan 10:15)

κατανύσσομαι to stab; to slumber (Dan 10:15)

Th-Dan employs κατανύσσομαι as a consequence of the difficult mt terminology describing the prophet’s reaction in the presence of a heavenly being. mt-Dan reports three such reactions in Dan 8:17–18; 10:8–10, 15–19. In the first two passages, the Hebrew features ‫“ רדם‬to sleep soundly,” “to be dazed/stunned” to describe the prophet’s response.564 In 10:15, the language features 1‫“ אלם־‬to be struck dumb,” which was adequately translated in og-Dan with σιωπάω. Both the rejection of σιωπάω and the use of the rare κατανύσσομαι which was coined by the reviser in 10:9 as an equivalent for ‫ רדם‬indicate his exegetical interest in connecting both responses by lexically leveling the language.565

564 565

See ch. 3 B §§ 8.2 (‫)רדם‬, 8.6 (κατανύσσομαι). There is a high degree of probability that the og-Dan’s σιωπάω represents a contextual approximation. 1‫ אלם־‬is a rare lexeme and, as a rule, the translators came close to its meaning only if the context provided clues, though even so they departed from the lexeme’s semantic range. Consequently, the best contextual approximations are those which exploited poetical parallel lines featuring language that clearly described speechlessness: ἄφωνος “speechless,” “unsounded” (Isa 53:7) and γίνομαι + ἄλαλος “to become speechless” (Ps 31[30]:19). The other guesses include κωφόω “to make dull” (Ps 39[38]:3, 10); ἀποκωφόομαι “to become deaf” (Ezek 3:26; 24:27); and συνέχω “to surround,” “to constrain” (Ezek 33:22). The og translator seemingly arrived at σιωπάω in 10:15 because of the continuation in v. 16 which indicates that the effect of the angel’s touch on the prophet’s lips was recovering his capacity of speech. The reviser seemingly perceived the og’s rendition as a guess and found it more appropriate to interpret and render 1‫ אלם־‬in v. 15 in light of v. 9.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 351

0‫( יכל־‬to be able) og

Th

[1] δύναμαι to be able (Dan 2:10, 47; 3:29[96]; 5:162º) [2] εἰμί to be (Dan 2:27) [3] εἰμί + δυνατὸς strong, able (Dan 3:17) [4] τροπόω to cause to turn away (Dan 7:21) og=0: Dan 4:15[18], 34[37]; 5:161º; 6:5[4], 6:21[20]

[1] δύναμαι to be able (Dan 2:10, 47; 3:29[96]; 4:15[18], 34[37]; 5:162X; 6:21[20]) [2] εἰμί to be (Dan 2:27) [3] δυνατὸς strong, able (Dan 3:17) [4] ἰσχύω to be able, be strong (Dan 7:21) [5] εὑρίσκω (Dan 6:5[4]; ‫)יכלין להשׁכחה‬

Th-Dan has been influenced by the og in Dan 2:27; 3:17, sharing significant equivalents.566 The reviser has probably also followed the og’s pattern in diverging from its main rendition in Dan 7:21. Here, the phrasal ‫ ל‬+ ‫ יכל‬denotes to “prevail against,” “to defeat,” being the only occurrence where ‫ יכל‬departs from its standard meaning in biblical Aramaic, i.e., “to be able.”567 Though Th-Dan uses ἰσχύω instead of τροπόω, they are synonymous, and ἰσχύω still semantically renders ‫יכל‬. Both τροπόω (og) and ἰσχύω (Th-Dan) in 7:21 are unique renditions, but the former greatly departs from the literal meaning. 0‫( אתה־‬to come, bring)568 og

Th

δεῦτε (δεῦρο) come! come, now! (Dan 3:26[93]) → 0‫ אתה־‬was further rendered in peal → 0‫ אתה־‬was further rendered in peal only with ἔρχομαι (Dan 3:2; 7:13 [+ only with ἔρχομαι (Dan 3:2; 7:13, 22), ‫]הוה‬, 22), while in haphel/hophal with while in haphel/hophal with both both ἄγω and φέρω. ἄγω and φέρω. og=0: Dan 3:26[93]

566 567 568

Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 92–93 (No. 68), 102 (No. 82). halot, s.v. “‫יכל‬.” For the detailed statistics, see ch. 3 C § 12.2.2 (0‫)אתה־‬.

352

chapter 3

The only deviation from consistently rendering 0‫ אתה־‬is Th-Dan 3:26[93]. In this context the reviser—like the og translator—was challenged by the nature of the idiomatic command ‫פקו ואתו‬, consisting of the two synonymic words 0‫ אתה־‬+ 0‫נפק־‬. Whereas the og opted to omit 0‫נפק־‬, Th-Dan aimed for quantitative representation. However, since he consistently maintained ἐξέρχομαι for 0‫נפק־‬, the reviser employed δεῦτε instead of its stereotyped ἔρχομαι for 0‫אתה־‬, thus avoiding an artificial rendering, such as ἐξέρχομαι + ἔρχομαι (each in imperative form).569 13.1.3.2 Exegetical Elements The reviser deviates at times from stereotyping in order to underscore contextual exegetical ideas. Some of the exegetical insights can be traced back to the og, though the reviser has employed different equivalents. In other cases, the exegetical ideas are unique, the reviser showing contextual sensitivity and exegetical connections. 1‫( אדם־‬man) og

Th

[1] ἄνθρωπος man, human (Dan 8:16, 17; 10:16, 18)

[1] ἀνήρ man, husband (Dan 8:16) [2] ἄνθρωπος man, human (Dan 8:17; 10:16, 18)

569

0‫ נפק־‬occurs altogether nine times—seven times in peal and twice in haphel—and was translated as follows:

og

Th

Peal [1] + ‫—דת‬δογματίζω to ordain; to teach; to obey regulations (Dan 2:13) [2] προστάσσω to command (Dan 2:14) [3] ἐξέρχομαι to come out, go out (Dan 3:26[93]2X; 5:5) [4] ἐκπορεύομαι to go, come out (Dan 7:10) Haphel [1] φέρω to bring, carry (Dan 5:2) [2] og=0: Dan 5:3

Peal [1] ἐξέρχομαι to come out, go out (Dan 2:13– 14; 3:26[93]2X; 5:5) [2] Th=0: Dan 7:10

Haphel [1] ἐκφέρω to carry out, carry away (Dan 5:2–3)

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 353

In light of Th’s tendencies toward stereotyping and standardization, the variation of its equivalence for an otherwise common word is intriguing.570 Furthermore, the use of ἀνήρ and ἄνθρωπος in og-Dan and Th-Dan alleviates the possibility of assuming that Th could have freely employed ἀνήρ in Dan 8:16.571 We suggest that the variation is exegetical, probably inspired by og-Dan’s exegesis of the context. Dan 8:15 introduces the figure of angelus interpretum by the language ‫“ והנה עמד לנגדי כמראה גבר‬there appeared before me one who looked like a man.” Verse 16 introduces a new figure: ‫“ ואשׁמע קול אדם בין אולי‬I heard a human voice from the middle of Ulai.” By employing ἄνθρωπος for both 1‫ גבר־‬in v. 15 and 1‫ אדם־‬in v. 16, og-Dan exegetically connects these figures as being one and the same person. Th-Dan seemingly follows the og’s literary strategy, leveling 1‫ גבר־‬and 1‫ אדם־‬in translation with ἀνήρ. Although the reviser employs ἀνήρ in v. 15 in conformity with his revising techniques, he maintains it in v. 16, demonstrably for exegetical reasons.572

570

571

572

The standard equivalent for 1‫ אדם־‬in lxx is ἄνθρωπος, cf. Gen 1:26–27; 2:5, 7–8, 15–16, 18– 21; Exod 4:11; 8:13–14; 9:9–10, 19, 22, 25; 12:12; 13:2, 13, 15; Lev 1:2; 5:3–4, 22; 7:21; 13:2, 9; 16:17; 18:5; 22:5; 24:17, 20–21; Num 3:13; 8:17; 12:3; 16:29, 32; 18:15; 19:11; Deut 4:28, 32; 5:24; 8:3; 20:19; 32:8; Judg 16:7; etc. Consequently, the translation of 1‫ אדם־‬in Th-Dan reflects a variation of equivalents, whereas og-Dan shows both stereotyping and standardization. The possibility that the use of ἀνήρ in Dan 8:16 is merely incidental is mitigated by the following considerations: (1) whereas ἄνθρωπος seems to be favored by og-Dan—it appears thirty-nine times and renders various Hebrew/Aramaic words, ἀνήρ appears twenty-five times in Th-Dan, consistently rendering 0‫ גבר־‬in the Aramaic section and ‫ אישׁ‬in the Hebrew part; the only exception to this consistent pattern in Th-Dan is the use of ἀνήρ for 1‫ אדם־‬in 8:16; (2) ἄνθρωπος was used freely in og-Dan, whereas in Th-Dan it consistently translated the Aramaic 0‫ אנשׁ־‬and its Hebrew semantic equivalent, 1‫אדם־‬. See ch. 3 A §§ 1.1.1.2 (0‫)גבר־‬, 1.2.1.1 (ἄνθρωπος). The only exception to this pattern is reflected in Dan 8:16, wherein Th employs ἀνήρ for 1‫ אדם־‬instead of the expected ἄνθρωπος. We present the text of Dan 8:15–16 in both versions, for comparative purposes: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔστη κατεναντίον μου ὡς ὅρασις ἀνθρώπου (1‫)גבר־‬. καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἀνθρώπου (1‫ )אדם־‬ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ Ουλαι (og); καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔστη ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ ὡς ὅρασις ἀνδρός (1‫)גבר־‬. καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἀνδρὸς (1‫ )אדם־‬ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ Ουβαλ (Th). We can arguably determine that Th’s use of ἀνήρ in its textual leveling process was due to its revising mechanics: since Th consistently employed ἀνήρ for 1‫( גבר־‬including v. 15; see ch. 3 A §1.1.1.2 [0‫)]גבר־‬, it was natural that ἀνήρ be maintained in v. 16. Furthermore, the switch to ἄνθρωπος in v. 17 could be explained either as a shift toward standardization (see above) or as an exegetically motivated decision. In the latter case, the exegetical trigger would have been the phrase ‫ בן־אדם‬which also occurs in 10:16 and is implied in 10:18. Similarly, the Aramaic cognate ‫בר‬/‫בני אנשׁא‬ ‫אנשׁ‬, was translated with οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (2:38); οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (5:21), and υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου (7:13).

354

chapter 3

0‫( דין־‬judgment) og

Th

κριτήριον judgment-seat, tribunal, case (Dan 7:10) κρίσις judgment, decision, legal case; meaning (Dan 7:22, 26) og=0: Dan 4:34[37]

κριτήριον judgment-seat, tribunal, case (Dan 7:10, 26) κρίμα judgment, decree, decision (Dan 7:22) κρίσις (κρίνω) judgment, decision, legal case; meaning (Dan 4:34[37])

Th-Dan shows contextual sensitivity in the translation of the idiomatic phrase ‫דינא יתב‬in Daniel 7.573 That the reviser relied on og-Dan in v. 10 is demonstrated by their shared significant equivalent κριτήριον,574 which refers to a courtroom in session, in conformity with the source text context. The further use of κριτήριον in v. 26 reflects the reviser’s desire to exegetically link the vision and its interpretation. 0‫( פלח־‬to serve) og

Th

[1] λατρεύω to serve, worship (Dan 3:12, 14 [+ 0‫]איתי־‬, 18 [+ 0‫]איתי־‬, 28[95]; 6:17[16], 21[20]; 7:14) [2] + 0‫—אנחנא־‬φοβέω to fear; frighten, terrify (Dan 3:17) [3] ὑποτάσσω to subject; to submit (Dan 7:27)

[1] λατρεύω to serve, worship (Dan 3:12, 14 [+ 0‫]איתי־‬, 17, 18 [+ 0‫]איתי־‬, 28[95]; 6:17[16], 21[20]) [2] δουλεύω to serve as a slave (Dan 7:14, 27)

573

574

Whereas the phrase ‫ דינא יתב‬is attested in vv. 10 and 26, in v. 22 we have the phrasal construction -‫דינא יתב ל‬, having the “Ancient of Days” as subject and the “holy ones of the Most High” as complement. Various proposals have been suggested to decode the phrase’s meaning in v. 22, e.g., “to pronounce judgment in favor of,” “power,” “rule,” etc. (halot, s.v. “‫)”דין‬. This difficulty apparently caused the reviser to reject κριτήριον and employ κρίμα, which is a synonymous equivalent of the og’s κρίσις in v. 22. See ch. 3 B §10.1.1 (0‫)דין־‬. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 56–57 (No. 24).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 355

The reviser’s departure from the consistent use of λατρεύω for 0‫ פלח־‬in Daniel 7 documents his sensitivity to different contexts. While λατρεύω in Daniel 3 and 6 matches the plot and theme of both narratives, which revolve around worship, δουλεύω more accurately fits the language of royalty and dominion evoked by Dan 7:14, 27.575 ‫( מרגלות‬at the feet)

og

Th

πούς foot (Dan 10:6)

σκέλος leg (Dan 10:6)

The term derives from the primary noun ‫“ רגל‬foot,” “leg,” which was consistently rendered with the expected πούς. The use of σκέλος in 10:6 is all the more intriguing as we observe it accords with neither the reviser’s own technique of using standard equivalents nor the wording of og-Dan, which employs the expected πούς. However, it appears that the reviser’s maneuver aimed to linguistically differentiate between ‫ מרגלות‬and ‫ רגל‬in the target language. Since Greek did not allow for a derivate from πούς, Th-Dan equivalent was influenced from the remote context of lxx-Ezek 1:7.576 0‫( שׁנה־‬to change) og

Th

[1] διαφέρω to be better, to differ, spread, carry over (Dan 7:3) [2] διαφόρως [adv.] differently, variously, excellently (Dan 7:7) [3] διαφθείρω to destroy (Dan 7:19) [1] διαφέρω to be better, to differ, spread, carry over (Dan 7:23)

[1] διαφέρω to be better, to differ, spread, carry over (Dan 7:3, 7) [2] διάφορος [adj.] different, superior; unlike (Dan 7:19) [3] ὑπερέχω to excel, exceed, be better than (Dan 7:23) [4] ὑπερφέρω to surpass (Dan 7:24)

575

576

By means of his equivalence choices, the reviser seemingly underscored that Dan 7:14, 27 deals with the nations subjection to the rulership of “Son of Man”/“holy people of the Most High” rather than their worship. We have argued elsewhere for Th-Dan’s use of the remote context of Ezekiel 1: ch. 3 B § 10.1.2 (‫ ;)קלל‬B § 11 (σκέλος).

356

chapter 3

(cont.)

og

Th

[1] διαφέρω to be better, to differ, spread, carry over (Dan 7:24) [4] ἀλλοιόω to change, alter, reject, alienate (Dan 7:25) [1] διαφέρω to be better, to differ, spread, carry over (Dan 7:28)

[5] ἀλλοιόω to change, alter, reject, alienate (Dan 7:25, 28)

We have argued elsewhere that διαφέρω is a significant equivalent.577 It was also shown that Th-Dan’s equivalence alternation ἀλλοιόω (Daniel 2–6), διαφέρω (Dan 7:3, 7, 19)578 and back to ἀλλοιόω (Dan 7:25, 28) happened under the influence of the og. However, the reviser’s use of ὑπερέχω in v. 23 and ὑπερφέρω in v. 24 is intriguing. Notwithstanding that they might suggest some sort of translational freedom, we maintain that his deviation from stereotyping involves exegesis. In v. 23, the reviser opts for ὑπερέχω demonstrably because he wants to emphasize progression. Consequently, the fourth beast is depicted not merely as ‫“ די תשׁנא מן כל מלכותא‬being different from all the kingdoms” but as ἥτις ὑπερέξει πάσας τὰς βασιλείας “surpassing all the kingdoms.”579 By means of the new equivalent in v. 24, the reviser aims to take the progression to a new level. In the context in question, ὑπερφέρω is employed to boost the profile of the little horn as exceeding the others: ‫—והוא ישׁנא מן קדמיא‬ὃς ὑπεροίσει κακοῖς πάντας τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν “who shall surpass in evil all the previous ones.”580

577 578 579

580

Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 64–67 (No. 36). See ch. 3 B § 6.3 (0‫)שׁנה־‬. The same exegetical effect was obtained in v. 7 by a different technique. While introducing the fourth beast of the vision, the reviser used an added adverb to boost the profile of the dragon over the other deformed animals: ‫ ;והיא משׁניה מן כל חיותא‬καὶ αὐτὸ διάφορον περισσῶς παρὰ πάντα τὰ θηρία “it was exceedingly different from all the beasts”. The reviser’s dependence on og-Dan is clearly visible in the borrowing of the explicating exegetical addition κακός “evil.” The effect of this addition was to illuminate that the nature of the horn’s supremacy relates to its wicked behavior.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 357 ‫( דבר‬word, speech; thing, something)

og

Th

[1] πρόσταγμα command (Dan 9:2, 12, 232X, 25; 10:13X, 112X, 15; 12:4, 9) [2] λαλιά speech (Dan 10:6, 91º) [3] ῥῆμα word, thing (Dan 10:122X) [4] τρόπος way, manner; customs, kind of life, deportment (Dan 1:14) [5] λόγος word, speech, message, argument; book, volume (Dan 1:20) og=0: Dan 1:5; 10:92º

[1] λόγος word, speech, message, argument; book, volume (Dan 9:2, 12, 231º, 25; 10:11º, 2º, 6, 91º, 112X, 122X, 15; 12:4, 9) [2] ῥῆμα word, thing (Dan 1:20; 9:232º) [3] ὁ the, who, which (Dan 1:5) Th-Dan=0: Dan 1:14; 10:13º, 92º

og-Dan demonstrably distinguishes among the words or speech of three agents: God, majestic heavenly beings, and Daniel.581 On the other hand, ThDan works toward stereotyping and standardization,582 showing less concern to differentiate who is speaking. There is, however, an exegetical input from the reviser: the semantic differentiation between the two meanings of ‫דבר‬ as “word” and “thing.” For the latter he uses ῥῆμα,583 while for the former he employs λόγος.

581

582

583

The correlation between the og’s equivalents and the speaking entities becomes apparent considering the following observations: πρόσταγμα designates the revelation received by the prophets from God—Daniel included among them (see the explicating addition παρὰ κυρίου in Dan 9:23, which clearly endorses such a conclusion); λαλιά renders the speech of the heavenly entity described in Dan 10 (vv. 6 and 91º); and ῥῆμα indicates the words of Daniel. This suggestion further explains the absence of λόγος as a main equivalent in og-Dan: since it was used in Dan 1:20 with the meaning of “argument,” “topic,” it was subsequently avoided in order to keep his exegetical agenda. Out of the twenty-one occurrences of ‫ דבר‬in mt-Dan, Th-Dan renders it fifteen times with its main equivalent in lxx, i.e. λόγος (Gen 29:13; 34:18; Exod 4:28; 5:9; 18:19; 19:7–8; 20:1; 24:3, 8; 33:17; 34:27; etc.); and twice with ῥῆμα, which also frequently renders ‫ דבר‬in lxx (Gen 15:12X;; 18:14, 25; 19:21; 20:8; 21:11; 22:1, 16, 20; 24:9, 28, 30, 33, 52, 66; 27:34, 42; etc.). For another instance, where Th-Dan ostensibly employs ῥῆμα for ‫ דבר‬having the meaning of “thing,” “something,” see ch. 3 B § 9.2.1 (προσταγή).

358

chapter 3

0‫( צלם־‬image) og

Th

εἰκών image (Dan 2:312X, 32, 34, 35; 3:1, 2, 32º, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18) μορφή form, appearance (Dan 3:19) og=0: Dan 2:32; 3:31º

εἰκών image (Dan 2:312X, 32, 34, 35; 3:1, 2, 32X, 5, 7, 10[11], 12, 14, 15, 18) ὄψις face (Dan 3:19)

Both og and Th-Dan deviate from their stereotyped εἰκών “image” for 0‫ צלם־‬in Dan 3:19 because of exegesis. Throughout Daniel 2 and 3 the term 0‫ צלם־‬denotes an idol statue, but in 3:19 it was used in reference to a human face. Hence, the og employed μορφή and Th used ὄψις.584 0‫( חזה־‬to see) og

Th

[1] + 0‫—הוה־‬θεωρέω to see, observe (Dan 4:10[13]; 7:2, 4, 6–7, 9, 111º, 13) [2] + 0‫—הוה־‬ὁράω to see, view, perceive (Dan 2:31, 34) [3] + 0‫—הוה־‬κατανοέω to understand, consider (Dan 7:21) [4] ὁράω to see, view, perceive (Dan 2:26, 41, 43, 45; 3:25[92] cf. Ra ≠ Mu; 4:2[5], 20[23]; 5:5; 7:1) [5] δεῖ it is necessary (Dan 3:19) [6] θεωρέω to see, observe (Dan 3:27[94]) og=0: Dan 2:8, 412º; 4:6[9], 7[10], 15[18], 17[20]; 5:23; 7:112º [+ 0‫]הוה־‬

[1] + 0‫—הוה־‬θεωρέω to see, observe (Dan 2:31, 34; 4:7[10], 10[13]; 7:2, 4, 6–7, 9, 111º, 13, 21) [2] + 0‫—הוה־‬ἐκεῖνος that, that one, he (Dan 7:112º) [3] ὁράω to see, view, perceive (Dan 2:8, 26, 412X, 43, 45; 3:25[92]; 4:2[5], 6[9], 15[18], 17[20], 20[23]; 7:1) [4] τέλος end, goal; tribute (Dan 3:19) [5] θεωρέω to see, observe (Dan 3:27[94]; 5:5) [6] βλέπω to see (Dan 5:23)

584

See ch. 3 B §§ 8.2 (μορφή); 6.2 (0‫)זיו־‬.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 359

The translation technique analysis of 0‫ חזה־‬reveals a clear pattern in the og: when it appears in the phrase ‫חזה הוית‬, it was rendered with θεωρέω;585 when it stands alone, the preferred equivalent was ὁράω. The pattern was adopted by Th-Dan and implemented it with greater consistency. In view of these observations, the deviation of Th-Dan from the revising pattern in 3:19, 27[94]; 5:5, 23 and 7:112º need an explanation. In the case of 5:5, we contend that the reviser maintained θεωρέω for theological reasons. Possibly the reviser perceived that the king was privy to a special revelation by observing the hand which was writing on the wall. Consequently, in order to distinguish it from the ordinary act of seeing, he has employed θεωρέω. The use of βλέπω in v. 23 likely marks another subtle exegetical distinction: this is the only case where 0‫ חזה־‬has as referent the idols, to whom the author denies the ability of seeing.586 0‫( חיל־‬strength, might) og

Th

[1] ὄχλος people (Dan 3:4) [2] + 0‫ גבר־‬warrior—ἰσχυρός adj. superl. the strongest (Dan 3:201º) [3] δύναμις power; (military) force (Dan 3:202º) [4] φωνή voice + μέγας great (Dan 5:7) og=0: Dan 4:11[14], 32[35]

[1] ἰσχύς strength, might (Dan 3:4, 202º; 4:11[14]; 5:7) [2] + 0‫ גבר־‬warrior—ἰσχυρός strong, might (Dan 3:201º) [3] δύναμις power; (military) force (Dan 4:32[35])

Th-Dan consistently revises the free renditions in og-Dan,587 excepting Dan 4:32[35] which he appears to render contextually in order to distinguish between human forces and “the host of heaven” (‫—חיל שׁמיא‬τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ οὐρανοῦ).588

585 586

587

588

See ch. 3 B § 8.2 (θεωρέω). For the blatant deviation of the equivalent in Th-Dan 7:112º, see ch. 4 §1.2 (Dan 7:11). Τέλος was contextually used in Dan 3:19 because of the difficult nature of the source language. The agreement between the og and Th in Dan 3:27[94] has the traits of an important agreement. See ch. 3 B § 8.2 (θεωρέω). Th-Dan succeeds even in keeping the same register of equivalents in Dan 3:20, in which the collocation ‫ גברי חיל די בחילה‬presented a challenge for translation. See ch. 3 B §7 (0‫ גבר־‬+ 0‫)חיל־‬. It appears that δύναμις was similarly employed in Dan 8:9 where, in rendering the difficult

360

chapter 3

13.1.3.3 Theological Elements There are no unique theological substitutions in Th-Dan. The only apparent case of a unique substituted theological element is the transliteration of ‫מעוז‬ with μαωζιν in Dan 11:38. The case, however, was dealt with in ch. 3 A § 5 (‫)מעוז‬. 13.2 Synonymous Semitic Lexemes In documenting stereotyping, we have indicated the reviser’s tendency to restrict Greek equivalents for Semitic words.589 The subsequent examples suggest that the reviser sometimes allows the use of a single equivalent for multiple synonymous Semitic roots. Several observations characterize this recensional inconsistency: (1) the relationship of synonymity between the Semitic words presumably raised problems and affected the reviser’s literal agenda; (2) the nature of the problem in dealing with the source text sometimes caused the reviser to adopt the og’s technique of lexical leveling, employing one Greek equivalent for multiple Semitic words; (3) in some other cases, it can be determined that lexical leveling has occurred as a result of the reviser’s application of the principle of standardization, the equivalents being already employed in lxx to translate specific roots. ἀλήθεια (truth, truthfulness) og

Th

[1] 0‫ יציב־‬certain (Dan 2:8) [2] 0‫ קשׁט־‬truth (Dan 2:47) [3] ‫ אמת‬truth (Dan 8:26; 10:21; 11:2) mt=0: Dan 2:5

[1] 0‫ יציב־‬certain (Dan 2:8) [2] 0‫ קשׁט־‬truth (Dan 2:47) [3] ‫ אמת‬truth (Dan 8:26 [ἀληθής]; 9:13; 10:21; 11:2)

The reviser allowed one equivalent to render multiple Semitic words presumably because of the synonymous relationship between them. We have argued elsewhere that the equivalency 0‫—יציב־‬ἀλήθεια is significant.590 In addition to

589 590

word 1‫“ צבי־‬beauty,” the Th-Dan reviser used etymological exegesis, deriving its meaning from the root ‫ צבא‬under the influence of the context. Indeed, ‫ צבא‬occurs four times within the contours of mt-Dan 8:9–13, and once in the phrase ‫( צבא השׁמים‬v. 10), which was rendered in Th-Dan with τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ as in Dan 4:32[35]. Ch. 3 A § 1.2. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 54 (No. 21).

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 361

2:47, Th-Dan employs ἀληθινός (adj.) for 0‫ קשׁט־‬once more in 4:34[37], while the use of ἀλήθεια for ‫ אמת‬is expected since it constitutes its standard equivalent in lxx.591 δόξα (glory) og

Th

[1] 0‫ יקר־‬honor (Dan 2:37; 7:14) [2] 0‫זיו־‬catss/0‫הדר־‬hrcs (Dan 4:33[36]) [3] ‫ הדר‬majesty (Dan 11:20) [4] 1‫ הוד־‬splendor (Dan 11:21) [5] ‫ כבוד‬glory (Dan 11:39) [6] ‫ גורל‬lot (Dan 12:13) mt=0: Dan 4:26[29]; 27[30], 28[31]2X, 29[32], 30[33c]

[1] 0‫הדר־‬/‫ הדר‬majesty (Dan 4:27[30]; 5:18; 11:20) [2] 1‫ הוד־‬splendor (Dan 10:8; 11:21) [3] ‫ כבוד‬glory (Dan 11:39)

Δόξα was strictly employed by the reviser to render three synonymous words, yet in accordance with his standardization agenda. In lxx, it stereotypically represents ‫“ כבוד‬glory,”592 and constitutes the main equivalent for both ‫הדר‬ “majesty”593 and 1‫“ הוֹד־‬splendor.”594 591

592

593

594

Gen 24:27, 48; 32:11; 47:29; Deut 22:20; Josh 2:14; 9:15; 1Sam 12:24; 2Sam 2:6; 1Kgs 2:4; 2Kgs 20:3; Isa 10:20; etc. Furthermore, in Dan 9:13, Th-Dan corrects the rare og equivalent δικαιοσύνη “righteousness” for ‫ אמת‬with ἀλήθεια. The reviser’s use of ἀλήθεια for three Semitic roots, which are rendered in the same og locations with the same equivalent, could hardly be coincidental; it rather evidences the influence of the og on Th-Dan’s equivalence selection. Gen 31:1; 45:13; Exod 16:7, 10; 24:16–17; 29:43; 33:18, 22; 40:34–35; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10, 21– 22; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6; 24:11; Deut 5:24; Josh 7:19; 1 Sam 2:8; 4:22; 6:5; 1Kgs 3:13; 8:11; Isa 3:8; 4:2, 5; 6:3; 8:7; 10:3, 16; 17:4; 21:16; etc. ‫ הדר‬occurs thirty times outside Daniel and was rendered with δόξα in seven instances: Isa 2:10, 19, 21; 53:2; Ezek 27:10; Ps 149:9; Prov 20:29. It was also rendered variously with μεγαλοπρέπεια “majesty” (Pss 21[20]:6; 29[28]:4; 111[110]:3; 145[144]:5, 12); εὐπρέπεια “beauty” (Ps 104[103]:1; Prov 31:25; Lam 1:6); τιμή “honor” (Isa 35:21º; Ps 8:6; Job 40:10); κάλλος “beauty” (Deut 33:17; Ps 45[44]:4); ὡραῖος “beautiful” (Lev 23:40); ἔνδοξος “honored” (Isa 5:14); ὕψος “height” (Isa 35:22º); εὐπρέπεια “beauty” + ὡραιότης “beauty” (Ezek 16:14); ὡραιότης “beauty” (Ps 96[95]:6); λαμπρότης “brightness” (Ps 110[109]:3); ἔπαινος “praise” (1Chr 16:27). On three occasions, ‫ הדר‬was seemingly translated with etymological derivates: Mic 2:9; Pss 45[44]:5; 90[89]:16. Outside of Daniel, 1‫ הוד־‬occurs twenty-two times and has δόξα as its equivalent in seven instances (Num 27:20; Isa 30:30; Ps 21[20]:6; Job 39:20; 40:10; 1Chr 16:27; 29:25). It was fur-

362

chapter 3

συμπατέω (to trample on) og

Th

og=0 0‫רפס־‬/‫רמס‬ [1] καταπατέω to trample on, oppress (Dan 7:7, 19; 8:10) [2] συντρίβω to crush, to break (Dan 8:7) 0‫דוש־‬ [1] ἀναστατόω to agitate, subvert, overthrow (Dan 7:23)

[1] 0‫רפס־‬/‫ רמס‬to trample (Dan 7:7, 19; 8:7, 10, 13) [2] 0‫ דוש־‬to trample (Dan 7:23)

Συμπατέω does not occur in og-Dan but only in Th-Dan, where it renders synonymous words.595 Both roots √‫ רמס‬and √‫ דוש‬were mainly rendered with derivates from πατέω.596 ὥρα (hour) og

Th

[1] 0‫ שׁעה־‬immediately (Dan 5:5) [2] ‫ עת‬hour, time, moment (Dan 8:17, 19 [+ καιρός]; 9:21; 11:6, 40; 12:1)

[1] 0‫ עדן־‬time (Dan 3:5) [2] 0‫ שׁעה־‬hour, time, moment (Dan 3:6, 15; 4:16[19], 30[33]; 5:5)

595

596

ther rendered with ἐξομολόγησις “confession” (Pss 96[95]:6; 104[103]:1; 111[110]:3; 148: 13); κατάκαρπος “fruitful” (Hos 14:7); ἀρετή “moral excellence” (Hab 3:3; Zech 6:13); εὐπρέπής “beautiful” (Zech 10:3); μεγαλοπρέπεια “majesty” (Ps 8:2); ὡραιότης “beauty” (Ps 45[44]:4); ἁγιωσύνη “holiness” (Ps 145[144]:5); τιμή “honor” (Job 37:22); ζωή “life” (Prov 5:9); and ἰσχύς “strength” (1 Chr 29:11). lxx=0: Jer 22:18. The terms 0‫ רפס־‬and ‫ רמס‬represent variant forms of the same word, which indicates the action of “trampling with one’s feet.” According to halot, s.v. “‫רמס‬,” the root (‫ רפס)שׂ‬represents a western variant form of ‫רמס‬. Outside of Daniel, ‫ רמס‬was rendered five times with συμπατέω (2Kgs 7:17, 20; 9:33; 14:9; Nah 3:14); twice with πατέω “to trample” (Isa 1:12; 26:6); eight times with καταπατέω (Isa 16:4; 28:3; 41:25; Ezek 26:11; 34:18; Pss 7:6; 91[90]:13; 2Chr 25:18); and once each with καταθλάω “to crush,” “to break in pieces” (Isa 63:3) and διαστέλλω “to order,” “to command” (Mic 5:7). √‫ דוש‬occurs another sixteen times and was rendered most of the time with unique equivalents, excepting derivates of πατέω: 2 Kgs 13:7; Isa 25:102X; Job 39:15*.

the characterization of the revisional process in th-daniel 1–12 363 (cont.)

og

Th

[3] ‫ מועד‬appointed time (Dan 11:35) [4] 3‫ עד־‬until, as far as (Dan 11:45) mt=0: Dan 4:14[17a], 16[19], 23[26]; 12:13

[3] ‫ עת‬time (Dan 9:21)

While og-Dan employs ὥρα in both the Hebrew and Aramaic sections,597 ThDan primarily uses it for 0‫שׁעה־‬.598

D

Evaluation

This chapter sought to characterize the revisional process in Th-Daniel 1–12. The high number of significant agreements between Th-Dan and the og warranted the assessment of their disparities from a recensional standpoint. The analysis of the differences evidenced a certain pattern: they emerged from systematic revisional corrections applied to the og. The reviser worked toward bringing the og to conform, quantitatively and qualitatively, to the mt-like Vorlage of his day. The corrections reveal consistency which manifested in recensional norms like stereotyping, quantitative representation, linguistic accuracy, word order, and transliteration (ch. 3 A §§1–5). The character of Th-Dan as a revision is further supported by mechanical recensional patterns (ch. 3 B §§6–11). They reveal the reviser’s attitude toward his base text. He constantly consulted with it to single out lexical choices. This attitude is visible in the way he treated the og’s first-found equivalents

597

598

The different Semitic Vorlage alleged for og-Daniel 4 presumably displayed the reading 0‫ שׁעה־‬for all the pluses against mt. Note, for instance, that both versions of the story contain the depiction of Daniel as “marveling” or “being mute” for ὥραν μίαν (4:16[19]), presupposing the phrase ‫שׁעה חדה‬. We have pointed out elsewhere that Th-Dan depends on the og in 9:21. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 62 (No. 33). The use of ὥρα for 0‫ עדן־‬in Dan 3:5 was apparently due to linguistic exegesis. Twice the reviser had to diverge from stereotypically representing 0‫ עדן־‬with καιρός because it constitutes an integral part of the adverbial phrase ‫בעדנא‬ ‫( די‬Dan 3:5, 15). In v. 5, he produced the Hebraized translation ᾗ ἂν ὥρᾳ, while in v. 15 he renders it adverbially as ὡς ἂν, probably to avoid clustering ὥρα twice in the immediate context.

364

chapter 3

for a Semitic lexeme, its partly maintained-partly revised equivalents, and its use of the immediate and larger contexts. The reviser’s reworking reflects his desire to replace the og’s unusual stock of equivalents with standard renditions employed in the Septuagint tradition, which he highly regarded. The same concern is visible in the reviser’s recourse to remote passages in order to determine suitable renditions. He was also sensitive to the linguistic transformations of his time and place. Whenever his linguistic feeling required, the reviser updated certain og equivalents with synonymous ones. The analysis of inconsistencies points in the same direction (ch. 3 C §§ 12– 13). Theoretically, they are expected to permeate through a literal recension (e.g., Aquila). However, the assessment of Th-Dan’s inconsistencies indicated two factors which led to their appearance: the og’s influence on Th-Dan and the nature of the source text. The constant consultation of the base text created the ideal conditions that contextual exegetical elements from the og to sneak into Th-Dan—intentionally or inadvertently. The presence in Th-Dan of interchanges of equivalents and transpositions from the og corroborate this inference. The og influence on the reviser likely extended to the level of translation technique (e.g., contextual guesses, transpositions). The sometimes-difficult nature of the words in the source languages gave rise to some unique recensional exegetical elements. These unique elements offer rare glimpses of the exegetical sensitivities of Th-Dan’s literalist reviser.

chapter 4

The Nature of Th-Dan’s Vorlage This chapter seeks to investigate the putative Semitic text which lay in front of the reviser. There are two important contributions to the textual study of Daniel in undertaking such an analysis. First, it advances the discussion regarding translation-revision theory. In the previous chapter we assumed a similar character between mt-Dan and Th-Dan’s Vorlage. However, the comparison of the two texts also points to differences in lexemes, words, and phrases, which demonstrably emerged from the reviser’s source text. Since these incongruences are not the result of recensional techniques, they were grouped here separately, as readings mirroring a differing Vorlage.1 Second, the investigation affords valuable insights regarding the characterization of Th-Dan’s Vorlage in relation to mt-Dan. As it will be shown, there is a considerable number of cases which indicate that Th-Dan’s Vorlage reflects more original readings than mt. In weighing variants, the subsequent analysis relies on several methodological guidelines. First, it takes into account the overall character of Th-Dan. The text is regarded as a literal revision. Based on our previous investigation, it is assumed that the reviser had little interest in harmonizing, adding or subtracting words over against his Vorlage. His primary objective was rather to render word-for-word his source text. This observation is important particularly in assessing certain differences that could have been introduced by either a Hebrew scribe in Th-Dan’s Semitic source text or by the reviser himself. Based on the overall characterization of Th-Dan, we give precedence to the first possibility. Second, the differences between Th-Dan and mt-Dan featuring textual corruption in one of the text forms are interpreted as secondary readings. Consequently, pluses in Th-Dan that ostensibly resulted from parablepsis in mt-Dan (i.e., minuses developed from secondary factors such as homoioteleuton and homoioarcton) are interpreted as reflecting original readings. Third, as a corollary of the assumptions above, Th-Dan’s minuses are generally assessed as reflecting the reviser’s Vorlage, especially when they presumably emerged from parablepsis. However, in the absence of such an explana1 Theoretically, in addition to incongruences stemming from differing Vorlagen, Th-Dan may further differ from mt-Dan because of differences stemming from inner-Greek scribal corruptions. Appendix 2 exemplifies this type of incongruence.

© Daniel Olariu, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004527881_005

366

chapter 4

tion, most of Th-Dan’s minuses are assessed as being the result of secondary pluses in mt. This judgment is based on the stereotyped tendency of the reviser, as well as on the secondary nature presupposed by each individual case. Though these rules function as general methodological guidelines, they do not overrule the specifics of each example that will be dealt with subsequently. The textual data is presented in charts consisting of parallel columns. The evidence is usually cited from mt, fragments from Qumran scrolls, the og, and Th-Dan. When there are no readings preserved, the second column which presents evidence from the scrolls is omitted. Similarly, reconstructed readings are omitted as well. In the case of Th-Dan, given the intricacies of each example, we have cited, at times, the reconstructed text from both standard editions, namely, Ziegler’s and Rahlfs’s editions. The length of each biblical passage cited is to provide enough context so that the reader may follow both the issues which were raised and the solutions which were suggested. For the sake of clarity, the texts reproduced are divided into discernable units (usually words or lexemes) which are aligned with each other. Furthermore, in order to easily single out the equivalency under discussion, each discernable unit is treated as a line, to which a number is assigned (e.g., l. 2 refers to the second discernable unit in the alignment; ll. 3–4 refers to the third and fourth; etc.).

1

Minuses in Th-Dan

In the course of our investigation, we identified a significant number of instances where Th-Dan deviates from mt in minuses or pluses. The analysis of the most notable deviations leads to the conclusion that they reflect a different Semitic text, frequently shorter. This explains the missing readings in Th-Dan’s revision, and the secondary nature of mt-Dan’s pluses will be shown below. The minuses have been divided according to their potential relevance to certain scribal patterns. Consequently, a Th-Dan minus is considered “recurring” only when it repeatedly occurs, reflecting obvious patterns of scribal intervention. The other occasional minuses are referred to below as “random.” It should be noted that both categories have bearings on the characterization of the nature of Th-Dan’s Semitic Vorlage. 1.1 Recurring Minuses Three recurring minuses in Th-Dan are dealt with subsequently: the formulaic ‫ענה … ואמר‬, the phrase ‫גבריא אלך‬, and ‫ואראה בחזון‬. It will be shown that in each case mt reflects an expansion.

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

367

1.1.1 ‫( ענה…ואמר‬in Reply … He Said)2 This phrase is part of the verba dicendi in mt-Dan. Its Hebrew cognate, i.e., ‫ויען‬ ‫… ויאמר‬, is amply attested in mt, mainly as a chain of perfect tenses.3 However, the phrase is restricted to the Aramaic section of mt-Dan, and moreover, its vocalization indicates a chain of participles ‫ָﬠ ֵנה … ְואַָמר‬. The construction appears thirty times in the book and presents certain patterns: (1) when it introduces plural subjects, the chain is always made of verbs in the perfect tense, followed by a participle, i.e., ‫( ֲﬠנוֹ … ְואְָמ ִרין‬2:7, 10; 3:9, 16; 6:13[12]). This aspect may provide information regarding the reconstructed original vocalization of ‫ ענה‬as a perfect when introducing a single speaker.4 (2) The word-order basically follows the pattern ‫ ענה‬+ subject (and complement) + ‫ ואמר‬+ complement, which closely corresponds to the Hebrew cognate phrase. (3) There are instances in which, instead of the complete formula, mt-Dan features a short one (i.e., ‫ענה ואמר‬, ‫)ענו ואמרין‬, which does not display any subject and/or complement between the verbs or after the second verb. Intriguingly, wherever the short formulaic language occurs, Th-Dan systematically attests complete minuses (2:15; 3:9; 6:21[20]), short readings (2:20; 3:19, 24[91]2X, 25[92], 26[93]; 5:7, 10, 13, 17; 6:13[12], 17[16]), or, once, a divergent reading (7:2). We argue that they are indicators of a short Vorlage which, probably, is anterior to mt. (4) The Semitic phrase has been understood by some as a hendiadys.5 However, even if this is the case, the versions sometimes agree in rendering the phrase word-forword, while at other times they render it independently, suggesting that they did not have a problem in clustering verba dicendi in translation.6

2 Appendix 3 is designed to assist the reader in the analysis of the phrase ‫ענה … ואמר‬. It collates the data from mt, the scrolls from Qumran, og-Dan, and Th-Dan, and organizes it in parallel columns. 3 For statistics and extended discussion, see Stendebach, “‫ָﬠ ָנה‬,” 11:215–230. 4 Montgomery (Daniel, 147) refers to T. Nöldeke as being the first to suggest that ‫( ענה‬sing.) should be pointed as perfect ‫ֳﬠ ָנה‬. It is a likely conjecture that the phrase under discussion originally comprised ‫ ענה‬in perfect and ‫ אמר‬in participle when introducing both sg. and pl. subjects. The tendency then was for ‫( ענה‬pf. sg.) to be pronounced/vocalized as the sg. ptc., probably under the influence of ‫( אמר‬ptc.). The form ‫( ענו‬pf. pl.) was not vocalized as participle since its consonantal form did not allow for that. However, the last stage of this process would be to change even the form ‫( ענו‬pf. pl.) into the pl. ptc. This final stage in the process is seemingly reflected in Dan 3:24[91]2º wherein both the mt and 1QDanb agree in displaying ‫ ענין‬instead of ‫ענו‬. 5 C.J. Labuschagne, “‫ענה‬,” tlot 2:926–930 (929). 6 For instances wherein the og and Th-Dan agree word for word in rendering the phrase, see Dan 2:7, 26, 27, 47; 3:14, 16, 28[95]; 4:27[30]. Independently, the phrase was quantitatively rendered by the og in 2:5, 15, 20; 3:9; 5:13; 6:13[12], 17[16], while by Th-Dan in 2:8, 10; 4:16[19]2X; 6:14[13].

368

chapter 4

We will focus our analysis on the recurring differences between mt-Dan and Th-Dan pertaining to the phrase ‫ענה … ואמר‬. Out of the thirty occurrences in mt-Dan, both texts agree in thirteen cases (Dan 2:5,7 7–8, 10, 26–27, 47; 3:14, 16, 28[95]; 4:16[19], 27[30]; 6:13[12]). The remaining seventeen cases which are of importance for the characterization of Th-Dan’s Vorlage will be discussed below. 1.1.1.1 Complete Minuses The phrase under discussion consists of three elements: the roots ‫ ענה‬and ‫אמר‬ and the connective particle ‫ ְו‬. By “complete minuses,” we refer to those cases in which all the elements are absent in Th-Dan as compared with mt. Dan 2:15 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6

mt

og

Th

‫ ענה‬καὶ ἐπυνθάνετο

αὐτοῦ ‫ ואמר‬λέγων ‫לאריוך‬ ‫שׁליטא‬ :[…] ‫די מלכא‬

Ἄρχων τοῦ βασιλέως, […].

This is the first instance where the verba dicendi reflect a short formula. The omission in Th-Dan ll. 1–4 cannot be explained as stemming from a scribal error in its Vorlage. Furthermore, the presence of ‫ ענה ואמר לאריוך‬is redundant within the context, considering that v. 14 introduces Daniel’s address, which purportedly starts with the words ‫ שׁליטא די מלכא‬in v. 15.8 It therefore stands to reason

7 We follow Rahlfs’s reconstruction in Dan 2:5. Since 0‫ ענה־‬has the peculiarity of occurring in mt-Dan only in the phrase ‫ענה … ואמר‬, it mitigates the possibility that the reviser had in his Vorlage the phrase ‫ ענה מלכא‬and not the complete one, ‫ענה מלכא ואמר‬. Furthermore, when Th-Dan has only one equivalent in Greek for the two Semitic verbs of the phrase, ThDan invariably displays λέγω “to say” (2:20; 3:19, 24[91]2X, 25[92], 26[93]; 5:7, 10, 13; 6:13[12], 17[16]). We posit therefore that Th-Dan’s original reading in 2:5 originally included καὶ εἶπεν, as attested by most of Th-Dan’s mss, and which was rightly reconstructed in Rahlfs’s edition. Ziegler’s reconstruction was seemingly influenced by B Q LaW and Hippol. 8 Verse 14 reads: ‫באדין דניאל התיב עטא וטעם לאריוך רב טבחיא די מלכא די נפק לקטלה לחכימי‬ ‫“ בבל‬When Arioch, the commander of the king’s guard, had gone out to put to death the wise men of Babylon, Daniel spoke to him with wisdom and tact” (niv). After the introduction in

369

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

that the minus in Th-Dan points to an earlier stage of mt-Dan, while ‫ענה ואמר‬ ‫ לאריוך‬most likely reflects a scribal addition, resuming who is speaking, given the long introductory direct speech phrase of v. 14.9 Dan 3:9 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

mt

4QDand ‫ענו‬ ‫ואמרין‬ ‫לנבוכדנצר‬ ‫מלכא‬ ‫מלכא‬ ‫לעלמין‬ ‫חיי׃‬

og

Th

καὶ ὑπολαβόντες εἶπαν τῷ βασιλεῖ Ναβουχοδονοσορ Κύριε βασιλεῦ, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ‫ ̊ח ̊י ̊י‬ζῆθι·

Βασιλεῦ, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ζῆθι·

The Chaldeans’ accusation of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego before the king commences in v. 9, after the long direct speech introduction of v. 8. Demonstrably, Th-Dan’s Vorlage reflects a reading free of the intrusive formula ‫ענו ואמרין‬, which breaks the narrative flow, and which was added for acute explication.10 The lack of representation of ‫ לנבוכדנצר‬in og-Dan is interpreted as a

9

10

v. 14, Daniel’s speech starts in v. 15, which reads according to Th-Dan, “Magistrate of the king, why has the shameless opinion gone out from before the king?” (nets). The phrase ‫ התיב עטא וטעם‬function to introduce Daniel’s wise response, i.e., “he made a wellcounseled and prudent answer.” Montgomery, Daniel, 155. For an alternative explanation, see Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 45, who suggests that the phrase means to “send a report (or: instruction) and counsel.” The implication of our reading of vv. 14–15 is that they form a coherent unit, v. 14 introducing Daniel’s address to Arioch and v. 15 reporting the content of his address. For the broader discussion regarding the possibility of the secondary insertion of vv. 14(15)–24(25) and its precise extent, see Segal, Dreams, Riddles, and Visions, 32–54. The og agrees with mt in the secondary reading but evades translating ‫ לאריוך שׁליטא די מלכא‬by simply using αὐτοῦ (l. 2). For og’s tendency to omit repeating information, see ch. 3 A §2.2.1.3. Verse 8 reads: ‫“ כל קבל דנה בה זמנא קרבו גברין כשׂדאין ואכלו קרציהון די יהודיא‬Seizing the occasion, certain Chaldeans came forward to slander the Jews.” We suggest that the introduction to the Chaldeans’ speech also includes the words ‫ לנבוכדננצר מלכא‬from v. 9. This is supported by the idiomatic phrase ‫ואכלו קרציהון‬, which takes a double object, namely, “[…] certain Chaldeans […] accused the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar, the king” (vv. 8–9).

370

chapter 4

condensed translational rendering,11 while Th-Dan’s transposition of equivalents in ll. 3, 5 can be explained as due to style, to avoid collocating two occurrences of βασιλεύς next to each other.12 Dan 6:21[20] l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15

mt

4QDanb ‫וכמקרבה‬ ‫לגבא‬

‫לדניאל‬ ‫בקל‬ ‫עציב‬ ‫זעק‬ ‫ענה‬ ‫מלכא‬ ‫ואמר‬ ‫לדניאל‬ :[…] ‫דניאל‬

og

‫ וכמ̊ק]רבה‬τότε

[‫לגבא‬ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκάλεσε ‫ לדניאל‬τὸν Δανιηλ ‫ בקל‬φωνῇ ‫ עציב‬μεγάλῃ μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ ‫זעק‬ ‫ענה‬ ‫מלכא‬ ‫ ואמר‬λέγων ‫ל]דניאל‬ ‫ דניאל‬Ὦ Δανιηλ, […].

Th καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν τῷ λάκκῳ ἐβόησεν φωνῇ ἰσχυρᾷ

Δανιηλ […].

mt-Dan, 4QDanb and og-Dan feature the expansionistic tendency to add ‫ענה‬ ‫מלכא ואמר לדניאל‬. The phrase appears next to ‫“ זעק‬he cried out,” which makes 11

12

For the og’s tendency to condense, see ch. 3 A § 2.2.1.2. Alternatively, it can be posited that ‫ נבוכדננצר‬dropped out of the og’s Vorlage in the purported original ‫למלכא נבוכדננצר‬ ‫( מלכא‬see n. below). The og has solved the problem, rendering 0‫“ מלך־‬king” once with κύριος “lord,” “master” and once with βασιλεύς. Prone to consistency, the reviser rejected such a solution and figured out another way to produce an acceptable revision. Alternatively, it can be argued that the transposition may reflect the original word order, assuming that Th-Dan did not have a problem repeating the same word, i.e., the word “king” in Dan 6:13[12], 22[21]. Considering that the standard phrase in Daniel 3 is ‫( נבוכדננצר מלכא‬vv. 1, 22X, 3, 5, 7, 24[91], 31[98]), it is likely that the putative original ‫למלכא‬ ‫ נבוכדננצר‬in v. 9 underwent contextual harmonization. Verse 16 attests ‫למלכא נבוכדננצר‬ in a similar formula, and both the og and Th-Dan render τῷ βασιλεῖ Ναβουχοδονοσορ (while Peshitta reflects harmonization). For v. 16, see the comments of Montgomery (Daniel, 208) and Hartman and Di Lella (Daniel, 157).

371

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

it redundant and odd. Th-Dan follows the og in transposing the equivalent for ‫( זעק‬ll. 4, 9) and demonstrably attests the putative shorter, original reading. 1.1.1.2 Partial Minuses The cases above documented the tendency of scribes to insert the verba dicendi after a long direct speech introductory formula. This maneuver was likely motivated by the desire to obtain acute precision, even at the expense of interrupting the narrative flow. The next examples demonstrate mt’s tendency to add ‫ ענה‬when only ‫ אמר‬occurred in the putative original Vorlage. Out of the twelve cases wherein ‫ ענה‬was added in mt, we have selected four cases which exemplify this scribal tendency. Dan 2:19–20 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

mt

4QDana ‫ ]…[ אדין‬v. 19 ‫דניאל‬ ‫ברך‬ ‫לאלה‬ ‫שׁמיא׃‬ ‫ ענה‬v. 20 ‫דניאל‬ :[…] ‫ואמר‬

og v. 19 […] τότε Δανιηλ εὐλόγησε ‫ לאלה‬τὸν κύριον .‫ ̊שמיא‬τὸν ὕψιστον ‫ ענה‬καὶ φωνήσας ]‫דניא ̇ל‬ ‫ וא[̊מר‬εἶπεν […]

Th v. 19 […] καὶ εὐλόγησεν τὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Δανιηλ v. 20 καὶ εἶπεν

The verb ‫“ ברך‬praised” in l. 3 is seconded by ‫“ ואמר‬and said” in l. 8, and the two introduce Daniel’s praise to God for revealing the dream of the king. Th-Dan attests only ‫ואמר‬, while mt, 4QDana, and the og harmonistically add ‫ ענה‬to attain the complete formula. It appears that mt harmonistically adds ‫ דניאל‬in l. 2 to make even more explicit who is the agent of speaking.13

13

It is difficult to assess whether the og translator had a Vorlage attesting ‫ דניאל‬once or twice. Both alternatives are possible. In the former case, it could be assumed that the og’s Vorlage had ‫ דניאל‬in l. 7 but transposed it in l. 2 to bring the subject closer to the predicate. In the latter case, though the og’s Vorlage had ‫ דניאל‬twice in ll. 2, 7, the translator did not represent ‫ דניאל‬twice, in accordance with his tendency to omit repeating information. In such a case, he possibly omitted ‫ דניאל‬in l. 7.

372

chapter 4

Dan 3:19 l.

mt ‫באדין‬ ‫נבוכדנצר‬ ‫התמלי‬ […] ‫חמא‬ ‫ענה‬ ‫ואמר‬ ‫למזא‬ :[…] ‫לאתונא‬

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

og

Th

τότε Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἐπλήσθη θυμοῦ […]

τότε Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἐπλήσθη θυμοῦ […]

καὶ ἐπέταξε καῆναι τὴν κάμινον […].

καὶ εἶπεν ἐκκαῦσαι τὴν κάμινον […].

The secondary nature of mt’s addition of ‫ ענה‬in l. 5 is endorsed by its lack of representation in both og/Th-Dan. Apparently, ‫ ענה‬was mechanically copied in v. 19: this is the only instance when the phrase does not introduce direct speech. Dan 3:24[91]a l.

mt

1QDanb

4QDand

og

‫ ]…[ אדין‬τότε ‫ נבכדנצר‬Ναβουχοδο-

Th

1 2

‫אדין‬ ‫נבוכדנצר‬

‫אדין‬ ‫נבכדנצר‬

3 4

‫מלכא‬ ‫תוה‬

‫מלכא‬ ‫תוה‬

‫ מל̇כ̇א‬ὁ βασιλεὺς ‫ ]…[ ̊ת ̊ו̊ה‬ἐθαύ-

5 6 7 8 9

‫וקם‬ ‫בהתבהלה‬ ‫ענה‬ ‫ואמר‬ ‫להדברוהי‬ ‫]…[׃‬

‫וקם‬ ‫ב◦]תבהלה‬

‫ ̊וקם‬καὶ ἀνέστη ‫ ̊ב◦]תבהלה‬σπεύσας

[…] καὶ ἐθαύμασεν καὶ ἐξανέστη ἐν σπουδῇ

καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ

καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μεγιστᾶσιν αὐτοῦ

νοσορ

μασε

Καὶ Ναβουχοδονοσορ

The presence of ‫ ענה‬in l. 7 presupposes a dialogue, having the king “replying” to someone. However, within the context, the formula at this point merely marks the beginning of a conversation and not a continuing one. The agreement in minus between the og and Th-Dan in l. 7 is supported by the Vulgate.

373

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

Dan 3:24[91]b l.

mt

4QDand ‫]…[ ענין‬ ‫ואמרין‬ ‫למלכא‬ ‫יציבא‬ ‫מלכא׃‬

1 2 3 4 5

og ‫ענין‬ ‫ואמרין‬ ‫למלכא‬ ‫י̇צ ̊י̊ב̊א‬ ‫מלכא‬

Th

[…] καὶ εἶπαν τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀληθῶς, βασιλεῦ.

When introducing plural referents, ‫ ענה‬appears consistently as a third person pl. pf. (2:7, 10; 3:9, 16; 6:13[12]). The only exception to the rule is ‫ ענין‬in l. 1, which seemingly betrays a later, harmonistic scribal hand. The other cases which indicate recurring, partial minuses in Th-Dan’s Vorlage are 3:25[92], 26[93]; 5:7, 10, 13, 17; 6:13[12], 17[16] (see Appendix 3). For all of these, we maintain the same judgment: they are the result of harmonistic expansions in mt. 1.1.1.3

Different Reading Dan 7:1–2

l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

mt

4QDanb

‫( ]…[ באדין‬v. 1) ‫חלמא‬ ‫כתב‬ ‫ראשׁ‬ ‫מלין‬ ‫אמר׃‬

og

Th

τότε Δανιηλ ‫ חלמ[א‬τὸ ὅραμα, ὃ εἶδεν, ‫ כתב‬ἔγραψεν εἰς κεφάλαια λόγων

καὶ

‫( ענה‬v. 2) ‫דניאל‬ ‫ואמר‬

‫חזה הוית ]…[׃‬

τὸ ἐνύπνιον ἔγραψεν

Ἐγὼ Δανιηλ Επὶ τῆς κοίτης μου ‫ הוית ב[̊חזוי‬ἐθεώρουν […]

ἐθεώρουν […]

374

chapter 4

Th-Dan’s Vorlage reflects a different reading instead of the introductory direct speech phrase ‫ענה דניאל ואמר‬. We contend that in l. 9, the first com. sg. pronoun ‫ אנה‬originally stood, corresponding to Th-Dan’s equivalent Ἐγώ. Because of the interchange between ‫ א‬and ‫ע‬, mt developed the peculiar ‫ענה‬. This probably explains the expansionistic addition of ‫ ואמר‬to round out the direct speech formula.14 In addition, the reconstructed reading ‫ אנה דניאל‬is supported internally within the framework of the same chapter, i.e., vv. 15, 28, and subsequent ones (8:1, 15, 27; 9:1–2; 10:2, 7; 12:5). The secondary nature of the mt reading in ll. 6–8 is apparent too. Whereas v. 1 specifically asserts that Daniel “wrote down the dream,” the interpolator’s hand is visible in the way he managed to also portray Daniel as orally conveying the dream, i.e., ‫ראשׁ מלין אמר‬.15 Presumably, both phrases, ‫ ענה דניאל ואמר‬and ‫ראשׁ מלין אמר‬, reflect secondary attempts to connect vv. 1 and 2.16 1.1.2 ‫( גבריא אלך‬These Men)17 Th-Dan features intriguing variant readings over against mt (and the og) regarding the phrase ‫“ גבריא אלך‬these men.” Though in several cases scribal errors may be alleged, both the cumulative effect and the recurring nature of the minuses in Th-Dan corresponding to this phrase point to a different explanation. At odds with the literalistic tendencies displayed by Th-Dan, the phrase

14

15

16

17

The og’s addition επὶ τῆς κοίτης μου in v. 2 reflects contextual harmonization with v. 1. The translator has presumably added the words to smooth the connection between vv. 1 and 2, whose Vorlage erroneously omitted ll. 1–3 due to haplography: ‫( ראשׁ מלין אמר‬v. 2) ‫( ענה דניאל ואמר‬v. 1). However, such a solution requires the concession that the haplography can be assumed even in the absence of any attested equivalent for ‫אמר‬, as usually is expected to appear. Furthermore, the absence of any og equivalent for ‫אמר‬, which was presumably attested in its Vorlage, must also be assumed, on the grounds that it was omitted as redundant. Driver, Daniel, 72. Collins (Daniel, 274) claims that “4QDanb does not appear to have enough room” for ‫ראשׁ מלין אמר‬. Collins reconstructs, “Thereupon he wrote down the dream: I watched and […].” Collins’s exclusion of Daniel from the reconstructed “I, Daniel” is problematic considering he is mainly using Th-Dan as the basis of his reconstruction. Charles (Daniel, 1929, 175) and Hartman and Di Lella (Daniel, 202) also reject the phrase ‫ ענה דניאל ואמר‬in v. 2 as a gloss. However, while Hartman and Di Lella maintain the integrity of the phrase ‫ ראשׁ מלין אמר‬in v. 1, Charles maintains the same judgment only for ‫ראשׁ מלין‬. Montgomery (Daniel, 284) notes the secondary nature of ‫ אמר‬in l. 8, though he problematically prefers mt’s reading in ll. 9–11 “for its genuine Aramaic flavor.” In his analysis, he is followed by Goldingay (Daniel, 144). Appendix 4 is designed to assist the reader in the analysis of the phrase ‫גבריא אלך‬. It collates the data from mt, the scrolls from Qumran, og-Dan, and Th-Dan, and organizes it in parallel columns.

375

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

in its complete form is represented in only three out of ten instances (3:21; 6:12[11], 16[15]); five times it lacks a correspondent (3:12, 13, 22, 23; 6:6[5]); and twice it was partly represented (3:27[94]; 6:25[24]). The three cases of complete agreement between mt-Dan and Th-Dan make it likely that the reviser understood the phrase. As a matter of fact, the phrase collocates common lexemes.18 This rules out the possibility that the lack of an equivalent for the phrase is due to the reviser struggling to render it;19 we argue that the recurring differences between Th-Dan over against mt are indicative of the unharmonized nature of Th-Dan’s Vorlage. 1.1.2.1

Complete Minuses Dan 3:12

l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

18

19

mt ‫איתי‬ ‫גברין‬ ‫יהודאין‬ ‫די‬ ‫מנית‬ ‫יתהון‬ ‫על‬ ‫עבידת‬ ‫מדינת‬ ‫בבל‬ ‫שדרך‬ ‫מישך‬ ‫ועבד נגו‬

og

Th

εἰσὶ δέ τινες ἄνδρες Ιουδαῖοι, οὓς κατέστησας

εἰσὶν ἄνδρες Ιουδαῖοι, οὓς κατέστησας

ἐπὶ

ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῆς χώρας Βαβυλῶνος, Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω,

τῆς χώρας τῆς Βαβυλωνίας, Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω,

In addition to the translation of the phrase itself, evidence from the translation technique of the lexemes 0‫ גבר־‬and 1‫ גבר־‬confirms the reviser’s competence to render ‫גבריא אלך‬. Whereas the lexemes were stereotypically translated with ἀνήρ (ch. 3 A §1.1.1.2), Th-Dan twice rendered the phrase in its complete form (6:12[11], 16[15]), without having a corresponding og reading to rely on. Even if the reviser indeed did not understand the text, several techniques which were employed elsewhere in the recensional process could have been employed in these cases. We have already documented, for instance, the reviser’s tendency to use the immediate and wider og-Dan contexts to find equivalents (see ch. 3 B §§6–7). Similarly, if the phrase was problematic, the reviser could have employed the technique of adopting the firstfound equivalent from og-Dan 3:12. For this technique, see ch. 3 B §6.

376

chapter 4

(cont.)

l.

mt ‫גבריא‬ ‫אלך‬ ‫לא‬ ‫שמו‬ ‫עליך‬ ‫מלכא‬ ‫טעם ]…[׃‬

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

og

Th

οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐκεῖνοι οὐκ ἐφοβήθησάν σου

οἱ

τὴν ἐντολὴν […].

οὐχ ὑπήκουσαν, \_ βασιλεῦ, τῷ δόγματί \σου/, […].

We agree with Ziegler’s reconstruction of Th-Dan in ll. 14–15; he rightly rejects the reading οι ανδρες εκεινοι “these people” that is attested in certain witnesses. Two considerations bolster Ziegler’s reconstruction: the problematic character of these witnesses and the redundant nature of the phrase within the Aramaic text itself. As opposed to Rahlfs, Ziegler judiciously rejects the evidence from A′’ O L-311-88-Ziv C′ 230′ 380 407 534 588 742 Bo Arab Chr. Tht. because of their secondary, recensional character. Furthermore, there is no syntactical need for further determination following the proper names ‫שדרך מישך ועבד נגו‬ “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego” in ll. 11–13. The addition of ‫ גבריא אלך‬is a contextual harmonization within mt.20 Dan 3:13 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20

mt ‫באדין‬ ‫נבוכדנצר‬ ‫ברגז‬ ‫וחמה‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫להיתיה‬ ‫לשדרך‬

og

Th

τότε Ναβουχοδονοσορ θυμωθεὶς ὀργῇ προσέταξεν ἀγαγεῖν τὸν Σεδραχ,

τότε Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἐν θυμῷ καὶ ὀργῇ εἶπεν ἀγαγεῖν τὸν Σεδραχ,

The relative pronoun οἱ, which follows the names of the protagonists in Th-Dan’s story, was probably taken in from the og, from stylistic considerations or by inadvertence.

377

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage (cont.)

l.

mt

og

Th

‫ מישך‬Μισαχ, ‫ ועבד נגו‬Αβδεναγω· ‫ באדין‬τότε

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Μισαχ καὶ Αβδεναγω, καὶ

\ἤχθησαν/ ‫ גבריא‬οἱ ἄνθρωποι ‫אלך‬ ‫_ היתיו‬/ ‫ קדם‬πρὸς ‫ מלכא׃‬τὸν βασιλέα.

ἤχθησαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως.

mt’s plus in ll. 11–12 is deemed secondary, while Th-Dan’s minus is taken as reflecting a Semitic text that was not harmonized. The tendency to fill in the lacuna in Th-Dan is visible in the Hexaplaric recensional mss v-62-147 (and 534), which add οἱ ἄνθρωποι as in the og. Other witnesses such as L′’-Ziv Arab revise the minus with οἱ ἄνδρες ἐκεῖνοι reflecting more precisely Th-Dan’s style.21 Both streams of textual tradition reflect secondary tendencies whose readings were rightly rejected by both Ziegler and Rahlfs in their reconstruction. Dan 3:22–23 l.

mt

1

‫( כל‬v. 22) ‫קבל דנה מן די‬ ‫מלת‬

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

21

1QDanb v. 22

‫מלכא‬ ‫מחצפה‬ ‫ואתונא‬ ‫אזה‬ ‫יתירא‬

Cf. Th-Dan 3:21; 6:12[11], 16[15].

4QDand

og

v. 22 v. 22 ἐπειδὴ τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ βασιλέως ἤπειγεν καὶ ἡ κάμινος ἐξεκαύθη ὑπὲρ τὸ πρότερον

Th v. 22 ἐπεὶ τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ βασιλέως ὑπερίσχυεν, καὶ ἡ κάμινος ἐξεκαύθη ἐκ περισσοῦ.

378

chapter 4

(cont.)

l.

mt

1QDanb

9 10 11 12 13

‫גבריא‬ ‫אלך‬ ‫די‬ ‫הסקו‬

(v. 23)

29 30

‫וגבריא‬ ‫אלך‬ ‫תלתהון‬

31 32 33

‫שדרך‬ ‫מישך‬ ‫ועבד נגו ]…[׃‬

Th

οἱ προχειρισθέντες συμποδίσαντες αὐτοὺς καὶ προσαγαγόντες τῇ καμίνῳ ἐνεβάλοσαν εἰς αὐτήν.

15 16

‫לשדרך‬ ‫מישך‬ ‫ועבד נגו‬ ‫קטל‬ ‫המון‬ ‫שביבא‬ ‫די‬ ‫נורא׃‬

og ἑπταπλασίως, καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες

14

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4QDand

‫ד[י‬ .[ ‫נ ̇ו̊ר]א‬ v. 23

v. 23 v. 23 τοὺς μὲν οὖν ἄνδρας τοὺς – ‫– מישך‬ ‫– ועבד נגו‬

v. 23

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι Σεδραχ, Μισαχ καὶ Αβδεναγω […].

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

379

The next two instances where the phrase ‫ גבריא אלך‬is not attested in Th-Dan relate to a long minus in vv. 22–23. Though it may be convenient to posit haplography in Th-Dan’s underlying text,22 a closer look at the problems involved rather suggests a shorter text, twice lacking ‫גבריא אלך‬, as opposed to a longer text, as indicated by mt (and 1QDanb). There are several important considerations that oppose the view that haplography is the cause of the long minus in Th-Dan’s Vorlage: (1) According to both Montgomery and Collins, the scribal oversight involved ‫ גבריא אלך‬in ll. 10–11 and ‫ גבריא אלך‬in ll. 28–29. However, even if we posit that the alleged haplography involved only one of the two words, the data stands against such solutions: Th-Dan twice lacks the translated phrase—not merely once as a such scribal error would require. (2) Furthermore, Th-Dan’s Hexaplaric ms v preserves an asterisk before the text added to fill in the minus in v. 22, indicating that the minus was also extant in the received form of Th-Dan in Origen’s time. The fuller text was further preserved in mss that betray Hexaplaric influence, such as A′’ O L′’ 233 588 Arab. Comparable secondary harmonistic corrections are attested by Th-Dan’s mss at the beginning of v. 23, attempting to compensate for the absence of any rendering for ‫גבריא אלך‬. (3) In our view, Th-Dan’s wording καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι precisely parallels ‫ ותלתהון‬and represents a shorter beginning of v. 23.23 The use of both the def. art. οἱ and the near demonstrative οὗτοι for the third masc. pl. pron. suf. ‫ –הוֹן‬seems to be a good context-oriented rendering, considering the challenging nature of ‫ ותלתהון‬for the reviser’s goal of producing a consistent recension.24 In contrast, the phrase ‫ גבריא אלך‬in mt— added next to the phrase ‫ ותלתהון‬and to the protagonists’ names in ll. 31–33—is redundant and points to textual expansions. The putative original—reflected by Th-Dan—featured a text free of the embellished motif that the executioners were killed by the flames of the blazing fire.25 The addition of the motif in mt in ll. 20–27 gave rise to an internal

22

23 24 25

For instance, following Torrey’s proposal of a transcription accident (Charles Cutler Torrey, “Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 15 [1909]: 241–282 [264, n. 2]), Montgomery (Daniel, 214) further explains that “[T]he omission is to be explained as a case of haplography, an early scribe having passed over the first of two equal lines, each beginning with ‘those men’ […].” The same argument is maintained by Collins (Daniel, 178). Against catss’s alignment, which implies the equivalency ‫—אלך‬οὗτοι. For a comparable example, see the translation of ‫ והילדים האלה ארבעתם‬in Dan 1:17 (ch. 3 A § 2.2.1.1) and Eccl 4:3. Th-Dan reads: “(v. 22) When the king’s word prevailed, the furnace was also heated excessively, (v. 23) and these three, Sedrach, Misach, Abdenago, fell down, bound, into the middle of the blazing furnace.” Perhaps the secondary addition is due to the influence

380

chapter 4

contradiction: the soldiers who executed the king’s command were immediately consumed by the fire, while the king could freely approach the furnace’s door.26 Presumably, the og (or its Vorlage) attempted to solve another exegetical problem resulting from mt’s addition, namely, the sequence of the actions. How could the report about the executioner’s death come before the report about the dropping of the bound protagonists into the burning furnace? Consequently, the og reflects a reworking of vv. 22–23, changing the sequence of actions.27 Dan 6:6[5] l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

26

27

mt

og ‫ אדין‬καὶ ‫גבריא‬ ‫אלך‬ ‫ אמרין‬εἶπαν ‫די לא‬ ‫נהשכח‬ ‫לדניאל‬ ‫דנה‬ ‫כל‬ ‫עלא‬ ‫להן‬ ‫השכחנה‬ ‫עלוהי‬ ‫בדת‬ ‫אלהה׃‬

Th καὶ

εἶπον οἱ τακτικοί Οὐχ εὑρήσομεν κατὰ Δανιηλ

πρόφασιν εἰ μὴ

ἐν νομίμοις θεοῦ αὐτοῦ.

of Daniel 6, in which those who wanted to kill Daniel were thrown into the lion’s den. mt-Dan reads: “(v. 22) Because the king’s order was urgent, and the furnace was heated to excess, a tongue of flame killed the men who carried up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. (v. 23) But those three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, dropped, bound, into the burning fiery furnace. (…) (v. 26) Nebuchadnezzar then approached the hatch of the burning fiery furnace (…).” og-Dan reads: “(v. 22) Because the king’s command was insistent, the furnace was also heated sevenfold more than before, and the men who had been selected, after they had tied and brought them to the furnace, threw them into it. (v. 23) Then the flame coming out from the furnace burned and killed the men who tied those with Azarias, but they were preserved.”

381

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

Notwithstanding Th-Dan’s reading in l. 5, there are reasons to assume that οἱ τακτικοί “the tacticians” was not intended as an equivalent for ‫“ גבריא אלך‬these men.”28 A first hint in this direction is the very placement of οἱ τακτικοί after εἶπον and not before it, as the word order would require. Seemingly, the reviser had a source text devoid of the phrase ‫גבריא אלך‬, as also implied by the og. The addition of οἱ τακτικοί in Th-Dan would then reflect an exegetical addition under the og’s influence. This judgment is supported by the faulty nature of the addition within the immediate context. Indeed, the tacticians and the satraps are described as conceiving together the plot in the surrounding verses (i.e., vv. 5[4] and 7[6]) of both mt and Th-Dan. The only exception is v. 6[5], which restricts the plot to a single group (i.e., “the tacticians”), thus creating a narrative discontinuity and ambiguity in Th-Dan about the actual participants in the plot. Significantly, the plot in the og version centers around only the two men appointed with Daniel over the satraps, and they correspond precisely to the group of tacticians in Th-Dan’s version. Consequently, it can be inferred that the reviser, in the absence of an explicit referent in v. 6[5], added “the tacticians” under the influence of the og’s exegesis.29 Apparently, the secondary addition of ‫ גבריא אלך‬in mt was meant to make explicit the referents as well, though in a more neutral, covert manner.30 1.1.2.2 Partial Minuses In two instances, Th-Dan reflects only one of the two elements which form mt’s phrase ‫גבריא אלך‬, namely, 0‫“ גבר־‬man.” Dan 3:27[94] l. 1 2 3 28

29

30

mt

1QDanb ‫ומתכנשין‬ ‫אחשדרפניא‬ ‫סגניא‬

og

Th

καὶ συνήχθησαν οἱ ἔπαρχοι, τοπάρχαι

καὶ συνάγονται οἱ σατράπαι καὶ οἱ στρατηγοὶ

Such an equivalence is implied by the catss database in the alignment ‫—גבריא אלך‬ οἱ τακτικοί. The same alignment is implied by hrcs, s.v. “τακτικός,” which suggests that τακτικός renders 0‫ גבר־‬in Dan 6:6[5]. As detailed above, we reconstruct the alignment differently. Though as tempting as may be to posit that οἱ τακτικοί may reflect ‫ סרכין‬in l. 5, this is less likely. That would suppose to further assume that ‫ סרכין‬comes after ‫ אמרין‬which would result into an odd word order. The subject is expected to precede ‫ אמר‬and not conversely. For the textual complexity surrounding the motif of the plot in Daniel 6, see further Segal, “The Old Greek Version and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6,” 414–416, 425–428.

382

chapter 4

(cont.)

l.

mt

1QDanb

4

‫ופחותא‬

5 6

‫והדברי‬ ‫מלכא ]…[׃‬

og

Th

‫ ופחותא‬καὶ ἀρχιπατριῶ-

καὶ οἱ τοπάρχαι

ται ‫ והדברי‬καὶ οἱ φίλοι ‫ מל]כא‬τοῦ βασιλέως

[…]. καὶ ἐθεώρουν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐκείνους, ὅτι τὸ πῦρ οὐχ ἥψατο

‫חזין‬ ‫לגבריא‬ ‫אלך‬ ‫די‬

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

‫לא‬ ‫שלט‬ ‫נורא‬ ‫בגשמהון ]…[׃‬

τοῦ σώματος αὐτῶν, […].

καὶ οἱ δυνάσται τοῦ βασιλέως […]. καὶ ἐθεώρουν τοὺς ἄνδρας ὅτι οὐκ ἐκυρίευσεν τὸ πῦρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτῶν, […].

Dan 6:25[24] l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

mt

og ‫ ואמר‬τότε ‫מלכא‬ ‫והיתיו‬ ‫גבריא‬ ‫אלך‬ ‫די‬ ‫אכלו קרצוהי‬ ‫די‬ ‫דניאל ]…[׃‬

οἱ δύο ἄνθρωποι ἐκεῖνοι οἱ καταμαρτυρήσαντες τοῦ Δανιηλ, […].

Th καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς, καὶ ἠγάγοσαν τοὺς ἄνδρας τοὺς διαβαλόντας τὸν Δανιηλ, […].

383

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

When Th-Dan partially reflects mt’s phrase, it twice displays ἀνήρ, purportedly representing only 0‫( גבר־‬Dan 3:27[94]; 6:25[24]). As in the case of the complete minuses, we contend that the partial representation of the Aramaic phrase stems from the shorter readings of a different Vorlage.31 1.1.3 ‫( ואראה בחזון‬i Saw in the Vision) The phrase ‫(“ ואראה בחזון‬and) I saw in the vision” occurs twice in a single verse along with another similar phrase, namely, ‫“ ויהי בראתי‬while I was seeing.” Significantly, none of these phrases has a correspondent in Th-Dan, which naturally raises the question of a shorter Vorlage. It will be shown that these phrases reflect secondary additions in mt, presumably stemming from scribal exegesis. Dan 8:2 l.

mt

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

‫ואראה‬ ‫בחזון‬ ‫ויהי‬ ‫בראתי‬ ‫ואני‬ ‫בשושן‬ ‫הבירה‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫בעילם‬ ‫המדינה‬ ‫ואראה‬ ‫בחזון‬ ‫ואני הייתי‬ ‫על‬ ‫אובל‬ ‫אולי׃‬

4QDana ‫[ואראה‬ ‫בחזון‬ ‫ויהי‬ ‫בראתי‬ ‫ואני‬ ‫בשושן‬

4QDanb

‫[ברא]ותי‬ ‫בשו[שן‬ ‫הבירה‬ ‫אשר‬

‫[בחזון‬ ‫בח[זון‬ ‫ואני הי]יתי ואני הייתי‬ ‫על‬ ‫אובל‬ .‫אולי‬ ‫[אולי‬

og

ThZi

ThRa

καὶ εἶδον ἐν τῷ ὁράματι τοῦ ἐνυπνίου μου ἐμοῦ ὄντος ἐν Σούσοις τῇ πόλει, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐν χώρᾳ Ἐλυμαΐδι,

καὶ ἤμην ἐν Σούσοις τῇ βάρει, ἥ ἐστιν ἐν χώρᾳ Αιλαμ,

καὶ ἤμην ἐν Σούσοις τῇ βάρει, ἥ ἐστιν ἐν χώρᾳ Αιλαμ, καὶ εἶδον ἐν ὁράματι καὶ ἤμην ἐπὶ τοῦ Ουβαλ

ἔτι ὄντος μου πρὸς τῇ πύλῃ Αιλαμ

καὶ ἤμην ἐπὶ τοῦ Ουβαλ

The previous attempts to account for the textual differences in Dan 8:2 have failed to recognize Th-Dan’s minus in ll. 1–4 as potentially pointing to a shorter 31

Additional support for the short variant readings can be adduced from the other instances wherein the Hebrew-Aramaic text employs only 0‫ גבר־‬or 1‫ גבר־‬without the demonstrative, as in Dan 2:25; 3:8, 121°, 20, 24[91], 25[92]; 5:11; 8:15.

384

chapter 4

source text that stood before the reviser.32 We suggest that this shorter Vorlage has been expanded into the extant mt form. It appears that v. 2 was supplemented in two stages. The first stage involved the addition of ‫ואראה בחזון ויהי‬ ‫ בראתי‬in ll. 1–4, which is supported by the combined evidence of 4QDana, 4QDanb, and the og.33 The second stage was the addition of ‫ ואראה בחזון‬in ll. 11–12, which is (partially) supported by 4QDana and 4QDanb but is lacking in the og. The latter agrees with Th-Dan in ll. 11–12 in a minus. The necessity for supplementing v. 2 with visionary formulae was generated by the exegetical problem of whether the prophet was in corpore or in spiritu “in the fortress of Shushan, in the province of Elam” or “beside the Ulai River.” The reconstructed original ‫ואני בשושן הבירה אשר בעילם ואני הייתי על אובל אולי‬, as reflected by Th-Dan, suggests the presence of the prophet in corpore. This shorter reading gave rise to an early interpretation34 which further manifested in the old tradition about Daniel’s tomb residing in Susa.35 However, with the addition of the chronological reference in v. 1 that set the date for the vision in the third year of the Chaldean king Belshazzar, there was an exegetical need to make explicit Daniel’s presence in corpore in Babylon. After all, how could he have returned so quickly to his business (v. 27) if he was physically away in the remote province of Elam? The first documented attempt to solve this exegetical ambiguity was the scribe that added the supplement in ll. 1–4. The formulae were cleverly worked out combining language from vv. 1 and 15,36 with 32

33

34

35 36

McLay’s comment on Th-Dan’s minus in ll. 1–4 is far from the mark: “However, any minus in Th against og, especially one as large as l. 12–15 [ll. 1–4], has to be regarded as distinctive disagreement. If Th were merely revising og, then virtually every translation equivalent in og that can be positively linked to mt should be represented in some way in Th.” og and Th Versions, 163. Note that the Vulgate (vidi in visione mea “I saw in my vision”) and Peshitta (營‫ ܒܚܠܡ‬狏‫ܝ‬熟‫ܚ‬. “I saw in my dream”) appear to render only ‫ואראה בחזון‬, raising the question of whether phase one reflects two stages as well, the phrase ‫ ויהי בראתי‬being added later. Otherwise, it must be assumed that the Vulgate and Peshitta selectively represented the addition in ll. 1–4. Josephus (Ant. 10.272) sets the geographical context of the vision in Daniel 8 in Susa: “Daniel wrote that he saw these visions in the plain of Susa; and he hath informed us that God interpreted the appearance of this vision after the following manner:—He said that the ram signified the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians (…).” For the English translation of the works of Josephus, we follow the edition of William Whiston, The New Complete Works of Josephus, rev. and enl. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999). Montgomery, Daniel, 10–11. Cf. ‫“ חזון נראה אלי‬a vision appeared to me” in v. 1; and ‫“ ויהי בראתי‬while I was seeing” in v. 15. These phrases suggest in their contexts that the information they introduce subsequently is taking place in a vision. As such, the conflation of both phrases in v. 2 aimed to doubly underscore to readers that the prophet is taken in Elam in vision (for comparison,

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

385

the effect of underscoring that the prophet was transported in spiritu in Susa, while seeing the vision. The same exegetical motivation is reflected in the addition of ‫ואראה בחזון‬ in ll. 11–12. Seemingly, this scribal touch37 aimed at clearing from the putative original in the last part of v. 2 any implication of the presence in corpore of the prophet “beside the Ulai River.” Consequently, ‫“ ואני הייתי על אובל אולי‬and I was beside the Ulai River”38 developed into ‫“ ואראה בחזון ואני הייתי על אובל אולי‬I saw in the vision that I was beside the Ulai River.” The mt’s secondary addition is (partly) reflected by 4QDana, 4QDanb, Vulgate, and Peshitta. Ziegler differs from Rahlfs on the reconstruction of the original in ll. 11–12. Several aspects corroborate Ziegler’s reconstruction. Since the reading καὶ εἶδον ἐν ὁράματι is attested in mss like A′’ O L′’ C′ 230′’ 393 407 410 534 Bo Arab Chr. (= i 893) Polychr. Tht., it rather indicates Hexaplaric influence. Indeed, the reading appears as asterisked material in the og’s mss 88-Syh, implying that it was added by Origen. Equally revealing is the evidence from translation technique. While Th-Dan stereotypically uses ὅρασις for ‫חזון‬,39 ὅραμα was the main equivalent of the og. Consequently, the asterisked reading was presumably copied by Origen from ll. 1–2 into ll. 11–12 in order to fill in the gap, and it further made its way into the Th-Dan group of mss previously mentioned. Even more telling, some of Th-Dan’s mss40 of the same group fill in the minus in ll. 1–4 with και ειδον εν τη ορασει και εγενετο εν τω ιδειν με, constituting a supplement closer to Th-Dan’s style, employing ὅρασις and not ὅραμα.41

37

38 39 40 41

see Ezek 8:3; 11:1). This clarification was considered important, especially since the content of the vision referred to Media and Persia. Josephus probably is the only writer to put on record the early interpretation which circulated in his time that the prophet’s presence in Elam was factual. Cf. Josephus’s note that “when Daniel was become so illustrious and famous, on account of the opinion men had that he was beloved of God, he built a tower at Ecbatana, in Media: it was a most elegant building, and wonderfully made, and it is still remaining, and preserved to this day (…).” Ant. 10.264 (Engl. trans. by Whiston, Works of Josephus). Scholars (e.g., Newsom, Daniel, 254; Collins, Daniel, 325; Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 221) usually assume that ‫ ואראה בחזון‬in l. 11–12 was added due to the accidental repetition of ll. 1–2, that is, dittography. We suggest here the opposite process, that a scribe deliberately inserted the phrase for exegetical reasons. My own translation. See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.1 (‫)חזון‬. A′’ O L′’ Chr. Tht. For whatever reason, Montgomery failed to recognize the value of Th-Dan as a witness to a shorter Vorlage. As a result, he is sometimes inconsistent in assessing the evidence. For instance, on the one hand, he acknowledges the problematic nature of mt: “Textually

386

chapter 4

1.2 Individual Minuses Th-Dan at times displays a random minus over against mt. However, their analysis points to the secondary nature of the pluses in mt. Dan 2:21 l. 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

mt

4QDana ‫והוא‬ ‫מהשנא‬ ‫עדניא‬ ‫וזמניא‬ ‫מהעדה‬ ‫מלכין‬ ‫ומהקים‬ ‫מלכין‬ ‫יהב‬ ‫חכמתא‬ ‫לחכימין‬ ‫ומנדעא‬ ‫לידעי‬ ‫בינה׃‬

‫] [והוא‬ ]‫משנא‬ ‫עד[ניא‬ ‫וזמניא‬ ‫מהעדה‬ ‫]מ[לכין‬ ‫ומהקים‬ ‫מלכין‬ ‫יהב‬ ‫חכמתא‬ ‫לחכימין‬ ‫ומנדעא‬ ‫לידעי‬ .‫ב]י[נה‬

og

ThZi

καὶ αὐτὸς ἀλλοιοῖ καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους, μεθιστῶν βασιλεῖς καὶ καθιστῶν,

καὶ αὐτὸς ἀλλοιοῖ καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους, καθιστᾷ βασιλεῖς καὶ μεθιστᾷ,

διδοὺς σοφοῖς σοφίαν καὶ σύνεσιν τοῖς ἐν ἐπιστήμῃ οὖσιν·

διδοὺς σοφίαν τοῖς σοφοῖς καὶ φρόνησιν τοῖς εἰδόσιν σύνεσιν·

The internal logic of v. 21 leads to the conclusion that ‫ מלכין‬was secondarily added in l. 9 in mt to restructure the number of words within a stich. Originally, each stich comprised three words as the last two stichs in ll. 10–15 now stand in mt: ‫ ומנדעא לידעי בינה‬/ ‫“ יהב חכמתא לחכימין‬He gives the wise their wisdom / And knowledge to those who know.” A similar poetic structure is implied by Th-Dan (and the og) in ll. 1–8: καὶ αὐτὸς ἀλλοιοῖ καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους, / καθιστᾷ βασιλεῖς καὶ μεθιστᾷ “And he changes seasons and times; / he sets up kings and deposes.” However, with the addition of ‫מלכין‬, the stichs were reshaped to include two words each: ‫ ומהקים מלכין‬/ ‫ מהעדה מלכין‬/ ‫ עדניא וזמניא‬/ ‫והוא מהשנא‬. The two-

our passage reads very awkwardly with its repeated ‘seeing’.” On the other hand, Th-Dan’s minus in ll. 1–4 did not alert him to a differing Vorlage since he gratuitously charges the reviser with a “notorious habit of simplification of repetitions.” Not only does his description rather reflect the og’s idiosyncrasy, but his concession that the shared minus between og and Th-Dan in ll. 11–12 is superior also points to his inconsistency in assessing the data. Montgomery, Daniel, 326.

387

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

word structure is secondary, leaving one stich without a verb, as opposed to the original structure, which was meant to include a verb at the beginning of each stich. Dan 7:11 l.

mt

4QDanb ‫חזה הוית‬ ‫באדין‬ ‫מן‬ ‫קל‬ ‫מליא‬ ‫רברבתא‬ ‫די‬ ‫קרנא‬

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

‫ממללה‬ ‫חזה הוית‬ ‫עד‬ ‫די קטילת‬ ‫חיותא‬ ‫והובד‬ ‫גשמה‬

17 18 19

‫ויהיבת‬ ‫ליקדת‬ ‫אשא׃‬

og

Th

ἐθεώρουν τότε

ἐθεώρουν τότε ἀπὸ φωνῆς τῶν λόγων τῶν μεγάλων, ὧν τὸ κέρας ἐκεῖνο ἐλάλει,

τὴν φωνὴν \τῶν μεγάλων/ λόγων/, ὧν ‫ [◦רנא‬τὸ κέρας ἐλάλει, καὶ ἀπετυμπανίσθη τὸ θηρίον, καὶ ἀπώλετο τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός.

ἕως ἀνῃρέθη τὸ θηρίον καὶ ἀπώλετο, καὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός.

mt, og-Dan and Th-Dan display two important differences in ll. 8–11: Th-Dan has a plus against mt and the og in l. 9, while Th-Dan and the og seemingly have a minus against mt in l. 11. The plus can be explained as due to haplography in the purported original phrase, either ‫ די קרנא דא ממללה‬or ‫די קרנא דכן ממללה‬. The omission of the demonstrative in each case probably happened because of graphically/phonetically similar letters,42 and their reconstruction can be cor-

42

For ‫קרנא דא‬, the interchange ‫ר‬/‫ ד‬is assumed (together with identical ‫א‬/‫)א‬, while for ‫קרנא‬ ‫ דכן‬the interchanges ‫ר‬/‫ד‬, and ‫א‬/‫( כ‬together with identical but transposed ‫נ‬/‫)נ‬.

388

chapter 4

roborated contextually.43 Of the two, we prefer the latter, since the equivalent ἐκεῖνος which appears as a plus in l. 9 also renders ‫ דכן‬in v. 21.44 The minus in l. 11 shared by og and Th-Dan is probably indicative of another secondary development in mt. We suggest that originally the text read ‫די קרנא‬ ‫“ דכן ממללה הות‬which the horn was speaking.” That is to say, the periphrastic construction ‫ ממללה הות‬which originally constituted a verbal form was altered by the insertion of ‫ חזה‬next to ‫הות‬, under the influence of ‫( חזה הוית‬the visionary formula in l. 1) and the immediate context.45 Not only does ἐλάλει support ‫ ממללה הות‬but the lack of representation of ‫ חזה הוית‬in both og-Dan and Th-Dan would also have been odd, considering that elsewhere both versions consistently rendered ‫ חזה הוית‬with θεωρέω.46 This suggested reading passes the tests of linguistic and textual plausibility47 and fits within the context.48 Finally, the Vulgate and Peshitta offer mixed evidence. The later displays a shorter reading resulted from a haplography.49 The Vulgate presupposes both

43

44

45 46 47

48

49

The reconstruction ‫ דא‬can be corroborated with the phrase ‫ואלו עינין כעיני אנשא בקרנא‬ ‫[“ דא‬T]here were eyes in this horn like those of a man” in v. 8, while ‫ דכן‬with ‫חזה הוית‬ ‫[“ וקרנא דכן‬I] saw this horn” in v. 21. However, ‫ דא‬was translated with οὗτος “this” in v. 8 and not with ἐκεῖνος. Another possibility is to interpret the addition of ἐκεῖνος in l. 9 as stemming from Th-Dan’s Vorlage. In such a case, the phrase ‫ חזה הוית וקרנא דכן‬of v. 21 may have caused the addition of ‫ דכן‬in v. 11, a process known as harmonization. However, we reject this possibility, basing our argument on Th-Dan’s literal style and on the fact that within the same verse mt would rather reflect harmonization (see further the explanation regarding the phrase ‫)חזה הוית‬. The phrase ‫ חזה הוית‬appears thirteen times in mt-Dan, mostly in Daniel 7. i.e., 2:31, 34; 4:7[10], 10[13]; 7:2, 4, 6–7, 9, 112X, 13, 21. For the analyses of 0‫ חזה־‬and θεωρέω, see ch. 3 C §13.1.3.2 and B §8.2, respectively. The 3rd fem. sg. pf. peal form of ‫ הות‬is reconstructed based on 2:35; 7:19; Ezra 4:24; 5:5. The graphic similarity between the forms ‫( הות‬peal pf. 3rd fem. sg.) and ‫( הוית‬peal pf. 1st com. sg.) suggests that it was textually plausible that such an alteration occurred. The reading we suggest makes the flow of the text read smoothly. The opposite is true for mt, which twice collocates in a short space the visionary formula, which regularly is meant to introduce a new scene (cf. 7:4, 6–7, 9, 111º, 13). Here, in v. 112º, it rather interrupts the idea that the little horn continues the boastful speaking until when the beast is destroyed by fire (i.e., “Then, I looked on because of the arrogant words that the horn spoke until the beast was killed, its body was destroyed and it was consigned to the flames” [translation mine]). The haplography can be interpreted as reflecting both mt and the alleged original reading. In the former case, the slip of the eye would have occurred in a text like ‫… חזה הוית‬ ‫חזה הוית‬/[狏‫ܐ ܗܘܝ‬熟‫ … ]ܚ‬狏‫ܐ ܗܘܝ‬熟‫“( ܚ‬I was looking … I was looking”). In the latter case, it would presuppose a text like ‫חזה הוית … הית‬/[‫ … ]ܗܘܬ‬狏‫ܐ ܗܘܝ‬熟‫ܚ‬.

389

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

Th-Dan (cf. illud “that” in l. 9) and mt (cf. et vidi “and I saw” in l. 11), being instructive about its relationship with each of the two texts. Dan 8:3 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

mt 4QDana ‫]…[ והנה‬ ‫איל‬ ‫אחד‬ ‫עמד‬ ‫לפני‬ ‫האבל‬ ‫ולו‬ ‫קרנים‬ ‫והקרנים‬ :[…] ‫גבהות‬

‫גד[ול‬ ‫עמד‬ ‫לפני‬ ‫האבל‬ ‫ולו‬ ‫קרנים‬ ‫קרנים‬

4QDanb

‫א[חד‬ ‫גדול‬ ‫עומד‬ ‫ל]פני‬ ‫ו[לו‬ ‫קרנים‬ ‫ק]ר[נים‬

og

Th

[…] κριὸν ἕνα μέγαν ἑστῶτα ἀπέναντι τῆς πύλης, καὶ εἶχε κέρατα

[…] καὶ ἰδοὺ κριὸς εἷς

ὑψηλά, […]

ὑψηλά […]

ἑστηκὼς πρὸ τοῦ Ουβαλ, καὶ αὐτῷ κέρατα

It is difficult to precisely determine the nature of the plus of ‫ והקרנים‬in l. 10. The addition can be explained in several ways: (1) it secondarily infiltrated mt due to dittography; (2) it was secondarily omitted in the og’s and Th-Dan’s Vorlagen due to haplography;50 (3) it was intentionally not rendered in the og because of its superfluous nature, and the reviser mistakenly relied on the og, copying the short reading. We contend that the least likely option is the last one, while of the first two, the most likely is that Th-Dan and the og indicate the original shorter reading. Indeed, not only is the minus of ‫ והקרנים‬supported by the Peshitta and Vulgate, the reading ‫קרנים קרנים‬, attested by 4QDana and 4QDanb further suggests the probability of a dittography.51

50

51

Instead of ὑψηλά, the mss 88 and Syh attest the asterisked phrase καὶ τὰ κέρατα ὑψηλά, indicating that the shorter reading predates Origen’s time. Similar support comes from Th-Dan’s witnesses which attests the reading καὶ τὰ κέρατα ὑψηλά in Hexaplaric influenced mss: A′’ O L-88–449c C′ 46c 230′’ 393 407 Chr. Polychr. Tht. Both scrolls were probably freezing the dittography in the form ‫קרנים קרנים‬. See Ulrich, Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 768–769. mt adds -‫“ וה‬and the” in front of the repeated word in l. 10, probably reflecting a later scribal touch to smooth the text.

390

chapter 4

Dan 10:1 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ ואמת‬καὶ ἀληθὲς ‫הדבר‬ ‫וצבא‬ ‫גדול‬ ‫ובין‬ ‫את הדבר‬ ‫ובינה‬

τὸ ὅραμα καὶ τὸ πρόσταγμα, καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τὸ ἰσχυρὸν διανοηθήσεται τὸ πρόσταγμα, καὶ διενοήθην

‫ לו‬αὐτὸ ‫ במראה׃‬ἐν ὁράματι.

Th […] καὶ ἀληθινὸς ὁ λόγος, καὶ δύναμις μεγάλη

καὶ σύνεσις ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ.

Considering both the attestation of the minus in the og and the plausibility of the mt reading,52 it seems to suggest that there are only two likely alternatives that may account for the differences between mt and Th-Dan: (1) ThDan’s Vorlage omitted the phrase ‫ ובין את־הדבר‬due to haplography between ‫ ובין‬in l. 6 and ‫ ובינה‬in l. 8; (2) the alleged omission occurred during the transmission history of Th-Dan’s Greek witnesses due to haplography.53 In view of Th-Dan’s overall literalness and the curious absence in Th-Dan’s mss of any reading that would correct the minus toward mt, we opt for the former explanation.

52

53

The possibility that Th-Dan preserves a shorter, original reading in contrast with mt, which may have been subjected to internal harmonization, is less probable. A comparable collocation of these words occurs in the previous chapter ‫ובין בדבר והבן במראה‬, which was literally reproduced in Th-Dan with καὶ ἐννοήθητι ἐν τῷ ῥήματι καὶ σύνες ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ (ch. 3 A § 2.2.1.6 [Dan 9:23]). The missing phrase in Th-Dan appears once more within Daniel 10 and was there reproduced literally: ‫—הבן בדברים‬σύνες ἐν τοῖς λόγοις (v. 11). The omitted phrase ‫ וִּבין ֶאת־ַה ָדָּבר‬can be reliably reconstructed in Th-Dan based on identical equivalents, such as και συνες τον λογον (Dan 9:23; 10:11). Consequently, the full phrase would have read καὶ σύνες τὸν λόγον καὶ σύνεσις ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ (where the red text indicates the words that are susceptible to haplography).

391

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

Dan 10:8 l.

mt

4QDanc

6QpapDan

og

Th […] καὶ οὐχ ὑπελείφθη

1 2

‫]…[ ולא‬ ‫נשאר‬

‫ולא‬ ‫נשאר‬

3 4 5 6

‫בי‬ ‫כח‬

‫בי‬ ‫כח‬

‫והודי‬

‫והודי‬

[…] καὶ οὐκ ἐγκατελείφθη ἐν ἐμοὶ ἰσχύς, καὶ ἰδοὺ πνεῦμα

7 8 9

‫נהפך‬ ‫עלי‬ ‫למשחית‬

‫נהפך‬ ‫עלי‬ ‫למשחית‬

ἐπεστράφη ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ‫ ל[מ]ש[חית‬εἰς φθοράν,

‫ולא‬ ‫עצרתי‬ ‫כח׃‬

[‫ול]א‬

10 11 12

‫ ו]לא‬καὶ οὐ

κατίσχυσα.

ἐν ἐμοὶ ἰσχύς, καὶ ἡ δόξα μου μετεστράφη εἰς διαφθοράν, καὶ οὐκ ἐκράτησα ἰσχύος.

Th-Dan agrees with the Peshitta in a minus in l. 8 over against mt, 4QDanc, the og, and the Vulgate (in me “in me”54). However, 1qha 13:34 quotes ll. 6–9: ‫[“ ויחשך מאור פני לאפלה והודי נהפך למשח ̊י̊ת‬T]he light of my face darkened into gloom, and my radiance changed into disfigurement.” The implicit quotation of Dan 10:8 in 1qha 13:34 functions as an external witness to the putative Hebrew and corroborates Th-Dan’s minus.55 ‫ עלי‬was presumably added secondarily in mt, due to harmonization with the similar verbal phrase ‫ נהפכו צירי עלי‬in Dan 10:16.

54 55

The preposition was contextually rendered in Vulgate under the influence of the mt’s prep. ‫“ בי‬in me” in l. 8. The decision to assess ‫ והודי נהפך למשח ̊י̊ת‬as an implicit quotation is based on the fact that the phrase contains two relatively rare nouns ‫“ הוד‬splendor” (twenty-four times) and ‫“ משׁחית‬destruction” (twenty times), coordinated by the same verb ‫“ הפך‬to turn.” In addition, the construction is idiomatic and, in this form, is attested only in Daniel.

392 2

chapter 4

Pluses in Th-Dan

Th-Dan at times features pluses which reflect a different Vorlage. The analysis of these pluses suggests that the minuses in mt are secondary, occurring because of parablepsis or for exegetical reasons. Dan 5:17 l.

mt

4QDana

og

1

‫]…[ מתנתך‬

‫]…[ מ]ת[נת]ך‬

2 3 4

‫לך‬ ‫להוין‬ ‫ונבזביתך‬

‫לך‬ [‫להוין‬ ‫ונבזבתך‬

5 6

‫לאחרן‬

‫לאחרן‬

[…] ‫הב‬

[…] ‫הב‬

Th

Different Literary Edition

[…] Τὰ δόματά σου σοὶ ἔστω, καὶ τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς οἰκίας σου ἑτέρῳ δός· […]

The longer Th-Dan reading καὶ τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς οἰκίας σου in l. 4 is most likely the result of a differing Semitic Vorlage. Demonstrably, the reviser has faithfully rendered the variant reading ‫“ נבזבת ביתך‬the present of your house.”56 This reading likely underwent scribal corruption in mt, i.e., ‫ונבזביתך » ונבזבת ביתך‬ (haplography of the group of letters ‫ בת‬and ‫)בית‬.57 Furthermore, ‫ נבזבה‬appears for the first time in 2:6 and, like in 5:17, it was rendered in Th-Dan with δωρεά “gift,” “bounty.”58 This indicates that the reviser came across with ‫ נבזבה‬in both

56

57 58

halot, s.v. “‫ ְנִב ְזָבּה‬.” Though the etymology of the word ‫ נבזבה‬is uncertain (Montgomery, Daniel, 150), it demonstrably represents a foreign loanword. It is debated, however, whether it stems from the Akkadian nibzu “clay tablet, document, and also the goods mentioned in the document,” the Imperial Aramaic ‫“ נבז‬receipt,” or the Persian nibhēz or nibazna. 4QDana reflects the final stage of the alteration process. The scribe did not represent yod in ‫ ונבזבתך‬presumably because he assimilated the word with ‫ מתנתך‬in l. 1. mt-Dan 2:6 reads ‫“ מתנן ונבזבה ויקר שגיא תקבלון‬you shall receive from me gifts, presents, and great honor.” The og apparently has guessed at the meaning of ‫נבזבה‬, freely rendering the phrase with λήψεσθε δόματα παντοῖα καὶ δοξασθήσεσθε ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ “you will receive all kinds of gifts, and you will be glorified by me.” By contrast, the reviser rendered literally: δόματα καὶ δωρεὰς καὶ τιμὴν πολλὴν λήμψεσθε παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ “gifts and rewards and great honor you will receive from me.”

393

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

instances, in 5:17 the word being used in conjunction with ‫ביתך‬. This solution would adequately account for the extant form of ‫ נבזביתך‬in l. 4 as compared with the expected ‫ נבזבה‬attested in 2:6.59 Dan 6:19[18]–20[19] l.

mt

4QDanb

1 2 3 4

‫ אדין‬v. 19 ‫אזל‬ ‫מלכא‬ ‫להיכלה‬

5 6 7

‫ובת‬ ‫טות‬ ‫ודחון‬

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

59

‫לא‬ ‫הנעל‬ ‫קדמוהי‬ ‫ושנתה‬ ‫נדת‬ ‫עלוהי׃‬

og

‫באדין‬ ‫אזל‬ ‫מלכא‬ ‫להיכלא‬

τότε ὑπέστρεψεν ὁ βασιλεὺς εἰς τὰ βασίλεια αὐτοῦ ‫ וב]ת‬καὶ ηὐλίσθη νῆστις ‫ ודחו[ן‬καὶ ἦν λυπούμενος

‫לא‬ ‫הנעל‬ [‫קדמוה]י‬ ‫ושנתה‬ ‫נדת‬ .‫ עלוהי‬περὶ τοῦ

Δανιηλ. ὁ δὲpap 967 (τότε88-Syh) θεὸς τοῦ Δανιηλ πρόνοιαν ποιούμενος αὐτοῦ ἀπέκλεισε

ThZi

ThRa

καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ὁ βασιλεὺς εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκοιμήθη ἄδειπνος, καὶ ἐδέσματα

καὶ ἀπῆλθεν βασιλεὺς εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκοιμήθη ἄδειπνος, καὶ ἐδέσματα

οὐκ εἰσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ, καὶ ὁ ὕπνος ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

οὐκ εἰσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ, καὶ ὁ ὕπνος ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. καὶ

ἀπέκλεισεν ὁ θεὸς

An alternative explanation is to suggest the opposite situation, that is, 5:17 contained the paired words ‫ מתנה‬and ‫ נבזבה‬with 2nd sing. pronominal suffix, without “house” as in 2:6. Because of its rarity and foreign origin, the form ‫“ נבזבתך‬your present” was misread/reinterpreted and further copied as ‫“ נבזבת ביתך‬the present of your house.”

394

chapter 4

(cont.)

l.

mt

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

‫ באדין‬v. 20 […] ‫מלכא‬

4QDanb

og

τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων, καὶ οὐ παρηνώχλησαν τῷ Δανιηλ. ‫ באדין‬v. 20 v. 20 καὶ ‫ מל]כא‬ὁ βασιλεὺς

ThZi

ThRa τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων, καὶ οὐ παρηνώχλησαν τῷ Δανιηλ. v. 20 τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς […].

Δαρεῖος […].

Th-Dan displays a substantial plus against mt only once, namely, in 6:19[18] (cf. ll. 14, 19–25). The supplement specifies that “God shut the mouths of the lions, and they did not bother Daniel.” Several aspects indicate that Th-Dan’s Aramaic source text reflects the original reading. First, there is a high degree of probability that mt arrived at a shorter reading due to parablepsis. We suggest that mt originally displayed ‫ אדין‬at l. 14, which demonstrably triggered the slip of the eyes of a copyist from ‫ אדין‬in l. 14 to ‫באדין‬ in l. 20. The reading in l. 14 can be confidently retroverted based on Th-Dan, which renders ‫ אדין‬in the same verse in l. 1 with the connective particle καί.60 Second, Th-Dan’s longer reading benefits from the support of the majority and most important mss (including codices B and A′’),61 while the shorter reading is supported mainly by recensions, which were set to programmatically revise Th-Dan toward the mt of their times.62 In our view, Ziegler’s reconstruction of Th-Dan’s original is problematic in v. 19[18] since it too easily assumes that the addition is secondary and, consequently, reflects a contam60

61

62

This retroversion is supported by further instances wherein ‫ אדין‬was translated with καί, cf. Th-Dan 2:17, 19, 48; 3:24[91]; 5:8–9; 6:4[3]–6[5], 13[12], 22[21]; 7:19. In addition, καί further renders ‫ באדין‬in 3:26[93]; 4:4[7]. The Göttingen edition lists the following witnesses as preserving the longer Th-Dan reading: και απεκλεισεν (εκλεισεν Β Α῎) ο θεος (ο δε θεος απεκλ. pro και απεκλ. ο θ. 541) τα στοματα (το στομα pro τα στομ. v 311 26 130) των λεοντων και ου παρηνωχλησαν τω (τον 590 762) δανιελ rel.: ex ο′. The shorter ending of v. 19[18] is supported by the Hexaplaric witness 62′, Lucianic group L–36 -449, and 230 LaS Hippol. Chr. Tht.

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

395

ination of Th-Dan with an og reading.63 The addition rather indicates that the reviser accepted the og’s standard equivalents whenever possible,64 but also reworked them to match his Semitic original.65 While it is expected to detect contamination from Th-Dan into the og, it is less probable to the other way around. Third, the supplement fits the mt context. In v. 17[16], after the king has exhausted all possible means to save Daniel, he encourages Daniel by underscoring the ability of God to deliver: “Your God, whom you serve so regularly, will deliver you.” The sealing of the pit with the signet ring may indicate both the king’s hope in a miracle and the fear regarding the intentions of his nobles (v. 18[17]). The king’s anguish about the fate of Daniel is contrasted with the narratorial information offered to the reader in the longer addition, that God indeed acted miraculously (ll.14, 19–25). The same hope permeates through the king’s address to Daniel at the pit, which carries more rhetorical nuances: “Daniel, servant of the living God, was the God whom you served so regularly able to deliver you from the lions?” (v. 21[20]).66

63 64

65

66

Montgomery, Daniel, 278. Th-Dan’s addition consists of eight discernible translational elements (ll.14, 19–25), and all of them constitute common equivalents and, thus, are expected to appear. The only exception is παρηνώχλησαν, which occurs rarely (eleven times in lxx: Judg 14:17; 16:16; 1Sam 28:15; 1 Macc 10:35, 63; 12:14; 2 Macc 11:31; Ps 35[34]:13; Job 16:3*; Mic 6:3; Jer 46[26]:27). However, παρηνώχλησαν can be interpreted as a significant equivalent shared between the og and Th-Dan. There are also important differences between the og and Th-Dan that demonstrably evidence revising activity in Th-Dan. Beside the equivalents he accepted from the og (see n. above), the reviser eliminated og explicating additions (ll. 16–18, 28), filled in minuses (ll. 8–12), and reordered words (cf. ll. 14–15 og and l. 20 Th) in accordance with his Vorlage. Replying to the king in v. 23[22], Daniel clarifies that God has sent an “angel” (mt=Th-Dan) to rescue him, while the og maintains that the miracle was performed by God. The lack of mention on an angel in the og could be due to the translator’s preference to harmonize the verse with the previous ones by omitting the angel. Alternatively, the mention of the angel can be viewed as a secondary inner-mt harmonization (or assimilation) with Dan 3:28[95] (cf. Segal, “Old Greek Version,” 419–422). If the motif of God performing the miracle is original as compared to that involving the angel (as Segal contends), then its attestation in the plus of both Th-Dan and og-Dan may further support its original character. Consequently, Th-Dan preserves the original, unharmonized version of the story in which both God (v. 21[20] and ll. 19–25) and His angel (v. 23[22]) are involved in Daniel’s deliverance. mt incidentally omitted ll. 19–25 by haplography (or, alternatively, intentionally deleted it because of theological reasons). The og reflects harmonization in the opposite direction, assimilating v. 23[22] with v. 21[20] and ll. 19–25.

396

chapter 4

Dan 9:22 l.

mt

og ‫ יבן‬καὶ προσῆλθε

1 2 3 4 5

‫ וידבר‬καὶ ἐλάλησε ‫ עמי‬μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ‫ ויאמר ]…[׃‬καὶ εἶπεν […]

Th καὶ συνέτισέν με καὶ ἐλάλησεν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ εἶπεν […]

We have elsewhere assessed the difference between the og over against mt and Th-Dan in l. 1.67 However, Th-Dan’s addition of με in l. 2 requires explanation. Taking into consideration both the causative aspect of ‫ בין‬in hiphil, which demands a direct object, and the probability that disappearance of the pronominal suffix ‫ני‬- was caused by haplography of identical and similar letters in the phrase ‫( ויבינניוידבר‬wherein the cluster of letters marked in red formed a typical environment which attracted textual corruption), we suggest that the purported original form was preserved in Th-Dan (and the Vulgate).68 Dan 11:8 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

mt

og ‫ וגם‬καὶ ‫ אלהיהם‬τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν

καί γε τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν

καταστρέψει ‫ עם‬μετὰ ‫ נסכיהם‬τῶν χωνευτῶν αὐτῶν

μετὰ τῶν χωνευτῶν αὐτῶν,

καὶ τοὺς ὄχλους αὐτῶν ‫ עם‬μετὰ ‫ כלי‬τῶν σκευῶν ‫ חמדתם‬τῶν ἐπιθυμημάτων

αὐτῶν,

67 68

Th

Ch. 3 A § 3.3 (Dan 9:22). Charles, Daniel, 1929, 236.

πᾶν σκεῦος ἐπιθυμητὸν αὐτῶν

397

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage (cont.)

l.

mt ‫כסף‬ ‫וזהב‬ ‫בשבי‬ ‫יבא‬ ‫מצרים ]…[׃‬

11 12 13 14 15

og

Th

τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὸ χρυσίον, ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ ἀποίσουσιν εἰς Αἴγυπτον· […].

ἀργυρίου καὶ χρυσίου, μετὰ αἰχμαλωσίας οἴσει εἰς Αἴγυπτον· […].

Th-Dan reflects a variant reading in ll. 8–10, namely, (‫“ כל כִלי )חמדתם‬each (of their precious) vessel.”69 The omission of ‫ כל‬likely occurred in both mt and the og’s underlying text because of haplography, i.e., ‫כלי » כל כלי‬.70 Furthermore, ‫ עם‬in l. 7 can be explained as an explicating syntactical harmonization with ‫עם‬ in l. 4 in both mt and the og.71 Dan 12:13 l. 1 2 3 4

69

70

71

mt

og ‫ ואתה‬καὶ σὺ ‫ לך‬βάδισον ‫לקץ‬ ‫ ותנוח‬ἀπώθου·

ThZi

ThRa

καὶ σὺ δεῦρο

καὶ σὺ δεῦρο

καὶ ἀναπαύου·

καὶ ἀναπαύου·

The reconstructed reading is supported by Hos 13:15 and Nah 2:10, which both attest the phrase ‫כל־כִלי חמדה‬. Th-Dan’s reviser offered the most literal rendering of the reading, translating πᾶν σκεῦος ἐπιθυμητὸν αὐτῶν “each of their desired vessel” (against nets’s “all of their precious vessels”) as compared with καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύη τὰ ἐπιθυμητὰ αὐτοῦ (Hos 13:15) and πάντα τὰ σκεύη τὰ ἐπιθυμητὰ αὐτῆς (Nah 2:10). For similar cases of omitting ‫ כל‬in the phrase ‫כל כלי‬, see Exod 31:8 for mt. For lxx (or its Vorlage), see Exod 31:7; 39:33; Lev 15:12; Jer 28[35]:3; 1Chr 28:13; 2Chr 29:182X; 32:27 (here in the phrase ‫)ולכל כֵלי חמדה‬. Considering that the nature of the omitted word also invites harmonization between similar passages in both mt and lxx, it is difficult to clearly ascertain which of these readings—the longer or the shorter—is closer to the original. In the case in question, evidence from both the overall character of Th-Dan and the use of the singular σκεῦος, instead of a plural form (as an alledged harmonization introduced by the reviser would likely require), implies that the variation is rather due to a different Vorlage. The reviser further eliminates the og’s additions in ll. 3, 6 (ch. 3 A §2.1.1.2 [Dan 11:8]) and revises the grammatical categories from singular to plural in l. 10, i.e., from ἐπιθυμημάτων to ἐπιθυμητὸν.

398

chapter 4

(cont.)

l. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

mt

og

ThZi

ἔτι γάρ εἰσιν ἡμέραι καὶ ὧραι εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν συντελείας καὶ ἀναπαύσῃ ‫ ותעמד‬καὶ ἀναστήσῃ καὶ ἀναστήσῃ ‫ לגרלך‬ἐπὶ τὴν δόξαν σου εἰς τὸν κλῆρόν σου ‫ לקץ‬εἰς συντέλειαν εἰς συντέλειαν ἡμερῶν. ‫ הימין׃‬ἡμερῶν.

ThRa ἔτι γάρ ἡμέραι εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν συντελείας [καὶ ἀναπαύσῃ] καὶ ἀναστήσῃ εἰς τὸν κλῆρόν σου εἰς συντέλειαν ἡμερῶν.

The differences in ll. 3, 5–11 between mt, the og, and Th-Dan manifest in the differing ways Th-Dan’s text was reconstructed. The incongruences were assessed in several ways: the og plus in ll. 5–11 actually reflects the original og translation of mt in ll. 12–15;72 the plus was secondarily added in og as compared to mt;73 or, the plus stemmed from the og that secondarily entered Th-Dan.74 None of the explanations completely consider the diversity of textual variants which is now available in the Göttingen edition. The comparison of the textual variants recorded for both the og and Th-Dan considerably enhances the recovery of the earliest proto-mt. Furthermore, this comparison indicates that the versions stand in a translation-revision relation-

72

73

74

This view is advocated by McLay, og and Th Versions, 184–185, 194–196. According to him, the og in ll. 11–14 is in the character of a double reading, copied from Th-Dan. McLay’s interpretation is further reflected in nets translation of v. 13, wherein the og’s translation reflects his reconstruction while the translation of ll. 11–14 is placed in parenthesis. However, McLay’s proposal is problematic because the og in ll. 4–10 does not match the mt in ll. 12–15, and further, McLay does not discuss Th-Dan’s readings at all. Montgomery (Daniel, 477–478) who maintains with Marti, Bevan, and Smith that ‫ לקץ‬in l. 3 constitutes an inadvertent copying error from the last part of the verse, i.e., ‫לקץ ותנוח‬ in ll. 14–15. This is implied by Ziegler’s reconstruction and his editorial comment after recording the data from Th-Dan’s mss, suggesting that the addition represents an excerpt from the og (see below).

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

399

ship based on a different Vorlage.75 We suggest that the og plus is the result of parablepsis in mt’s reconstructed original: ‫ למלאות‬76‫ן‬/‫ואתה לך ותנוח כי עוד ימים‬ ‫“ לקץ ותנוח ותעמד לגרלך לקץ הימין‬But you go and rest! For there are yet days to be fulfilled to the end; you shall rest and arise to your destiny at the end of the days.”77 As a result of a scribal haplography between the words marked in red, the mt original was reduced to ‫ואתה לך ותנוח ותעמד לגרלך לקץ הימין‬. The addition of ‫ לקץ‬after ‫ לך‬in l. 3, as now stands in mt, reflects secondary harmonization. Not only is the use of ‫ לקץ‬in context questioned by scholars,78 its absence is corroborated by the og (88-Syh), Th-Dan, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta. Regarding the og text, the fact that pap 967 displays ἀπώθου in l. 4 instead of ἀναπαύου, as in 88-Syh, convincingly indicates the influence of Th-Dan on the latter. That is to say, the evidence negates the possibility that καὶ ἀναπαύου was secondarily added in Th-Dan from the og. Moreover, the attestation of the Hexaplaric obelus in mss 88 and Syh comprising ll. 5–10 merely witnesses to a shorter mt in Origen’s day, having no bearing on our reconstructed mt original. Turning now to Th-Dan, the plus in ll. 5–11 is too widely attested79 to be dismissed, as Ziegler problematically does. Consequently, we endorse Rahlfs’s reconstruction with the observation that his rejection of καὶ ἀναπαύσῃ in l. 11 is problematic as well. Rahlfs’s reconstruction was probably influenced by the absence of καὶ ἀναπαύσῃ in mss B 230 LaS Hippol. However, its absence in these mss is tantamount to an inner Greek haplography due to the graphically similar words presupposed in ll. 11–12 (i.e., καὶ ἀναπαύσῃ καὶ ἀναστήσῃ).80 75

76

77 78

79

80

Charles (Daniel, 1929, 341) intuitively asserts that the og addition “may go back to the original.” However, he does not explicate his assertion or discuss the textual differences. Our view supports Charles’s claim but attempts to explain the intricacies regarding the diverging mt, og and Th-Dan readings. It is difficult to decide whether to reconstruct ‫ ימין‬as in l. 15 or ‫ ימים‬as in vv. 11–12. We would prefer the latter assuming that the plural ending ‫ין‬- of the former represents an Aramaic influence, but not necessarily positing an Aramaic original behind the Hebrew sections as Di Lella does. Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 314–315. Translation mine. Nowhere else does ‫ לך לקץ‬signify “death.” Montgomery rightly contends that the word “is of doubtful import.” He further explains: “A suggestion from W. Robertson Smith, accepted by Bev[an], Mar[ti], is followed above: that ‫ לקץ‬has been inadvertently copied in here after ‫ לך‬from the similar combination just below ‫[ לגרלך לקץ‬ll. 13–14]. This happy suggestion is actually supported by the orig. text of 𝔊 [og-Dan] Θ [Th-Dan].” Montgomery, Daniel, 477. The full catalog of Th-Dan’s readings which were collated in the Göttingen apparatus for the plus in ll. 5–11 reads as follow: ἀναπαύου Ir.lat Hi.↓] + ἔτι γὰρ (+ εισιν v lI 26 46′’ 239 verss.p) ἡμέραι (+ εισιν A′; + και ωραι Bmg-26-130 v 393 Bo Aeth Arab Arm) εἰς (προς 230′’) ἀναπλήρωσιν συντελείας (σωτηριας 541) καὶ ἀναπαύσῃ (-σης 584; -σεις Chr.; om. καὶ ἀναπαύσῃ B 230 LaS Hippol.; tr. καὶ ἀναπαύσῃ post ἀναστήσῃ 239) rel. (Aug.civ.20,23): ex o′. Consequently, we believe that Rahlfs’s reconstruction is closer to the putative Th-Dan orig-

400

chapter 4

The catalogue of Th-Dan equivalents shows recensional techniques, the reviser retaining the og’s forms in ll. 1, 5, 7, 9–12, 14–15, replacing the forms in ll. 2, 4, 13, and eliminating the expanded readings in ll. 6, 8. In view of our discussion above, we recommend the emendation of the mt and the correction of the reconstructed Th-Dan text.

3

Differences in Words

In addition to minuses and pluses, Th-Dan’s Vorlage differs at times from mt in words. Whereas the first two examples indicate that (expected) scribal interchanges of consonants in mt gave rise to such differences, the last two examples deal with more complex cases of variant readings. Dan 8:13 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

mt

4QDanb ‫]…[ עד‬ ‫מתי‬ ‫החזון‬

‫מ[תי‬

‫התמיד‬ ‫והפשע‬ ‫שמם‬ ‫תת‬ ‫וקדש‬ ‫וצבא‬ ‫מרמס׃‬

‫וקודש‬ ‫וצבא‬ .[ ]‫מרמס‬

og

Th

[…] Ἕως τίνος τὸ ὅραμα στήσεται καὶ ἡ θυσία ἡ ἀρθεῖσα καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐρημώσεως ἡ δοθεῖσα, καὶ τὰ ἅγια ἐρημωθήσεται εἰς καταπάτημα;

[…] Ἕως πότε ἡ ὅρασις στήσεται, ἡ θυσία ἡ ἀρθεῖσα καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐρημώσεως ἡ δοθεῖσα, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἡ δύναμις συμπατηθήσεται;

The noun ‫“ מרמס‬trampling” was translated in Th-Dan with the verbal form συμπατηθήσεται—3rd sg. fut. pass. ind. The form most likely indicates a different reading caused by the interchange between ‫ מ‬and ‫ת‬, i.e., ‫ תרמס‬3rd fem. sg. qal/niphal. Considering that the interchange can develop both ways, it is

inal. However, the rejection of καὶ ἀναπαύσῃ (l. 11) in his reconstruction is problematic and was likely influenced by its absence from ms B, which was highly regarded by him.

401

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

difficult to precisely ascertain which of the two readings represents the original one. However, two factors suggest the reading presupposed by Th-Dan’s Vorlage: (1) the syntax would require rather a verb than a noun; (2) the similar language in v. 10 attests √‫ רמס‬as verb, functioning as an analogous case to shape our understanding about the expected grammatical form in v. 13.81 Dan 8:14 l.

mt

og

Th

‫ ויאמר‬καὶ εἶπεν ‫ אלי ]…[ ׃‬αὐτῷ […]

1 2

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ […]

Both Th-Dan and the og reflect either ‫“ אלו‬to him,” or ‫ אליו‬in its plene orthography. The context presents two heavenly beings conversing with each other. Verse 13 records the question of one of them, the answer to which follows in v. 14. Consequently, it is more likely that the answer is directed “to him,” the heavenly being, and not “to me,” the presumed author of the vision.82 The mt reveals the copying error of interchange between ‫ ו‬and ‫ י‬in the transmission history.83 Dan 11:1 l. 1 2 3 4 5 81

82 83

mt

4QDanc ‫ואני‬ ‫בשנת‬ ‫אחת‬ ‫לדריוש‬ ‫המדי‬

og

‫בשנת‬ ‫אחת‬ ‫לדריוש‬ ‫המדי‬

ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῷ πρώτῳ Κύρου τοῦ βασιλέως

Th καὶ ἐγὼ ἐν ἔτει πρώτῳ Κύρου

An alternative explanation would be to posit that the reviser had to resort to linguistic exegesis to decode the meaning of ‫מרמס‬. However, since √‫ רמס‬was properly understood everywhere else in mt-Dan, this option seems unlikely. See ch. 3 B §10.1.1 (‫ ;)רמס‬C §13.2 (συμπατέω). Cf. also the Peshitta and Vulgate. See Sharon Pace Jeansonne, “The Stratigraphy of the Text of Daniel and the Question of Theological Tendenz in the Old Greek,” bioscs 17 (1984): 15–35 [23]; Montgomery, Daniel, 342; Charles, Daniel, 1929, 211. The other option to regard ‫ אלי‬as the original seems less convincing, e.g., Goldingay, Daniel, 198; Lacocque, Daniel, 143–164.

402

chapter 4

(cont.)

l. 6 7 8 9

mt

4QDanc ‫עמדי‬ ‫למחזיק‬ ‫ולמעוז‬ ‫לו׃‬

og ‫ עמדתי‬εἶπέν μοι ‫ למחזק‬ἐνισχῦσαι ‫ ולמעוז‬καὶ ἀνδρίζεσθαι. .‫לו‬

Th ἔστην εἰς κράτος καὶ ἰσχύν.

mt, the og, and Th-Dan present an intriguing textual problem in 11:1. The og lacks any equivalent for ‫ ואני‬and ‫ לו‬in ll. 1, 9; mentions “Cyrus, the king” instead of “Darius the Mede” in ll. 4–5; and imprecisely translates ‫ עמדי‬with εἶπέν μοι in l. 6. While Th-Dan agrees with the og’s minus in l. 9 and Κύρου in l. 4, it does not have any correspondent for ‫ המדי‬in l. 5. Th-Dan further disagrees with both mt and the og in ll. 6–9, in one case changing the grammatical category from verb to noun. As might be expected, scholars have addressed the textual disparities in varying ways.84 Among the solutions, two widely accepted contentions permeate the scholarly literature. First, it is claimed that the passage 10:20b–11:2 seems to gather together dislocated or disorder material.85 Second, because of its intrusive character, it was conjectured that the phrase “and as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede” in ll. 1–5 bears the traits of an interpolation and, thus, has to be extracted.86

84

85

86

Most of the time, scholars have selectively commented only on the glaring differences in ll.4–6 (e.g., Goldingay, Daniel, 276–277). For analyses which have addressed most of the disparities, see Montgomery, Daniel, 416–419 and Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel, 119–121. However, the line of their discussions differs from the explanation proposed here. E.g., Driver, who maintains that “21b should follow immediately on 20”; “21a […] should stand at the beginning of xi. 2 instead of the clause which appears there”; and 11:1a should be deleted. Driver, Daniel, 117. Consequently, he reconstructs the following putative original for 20b–xi. 2: “When I go forth, lo, the prince of Greece shall come, 21b and there is none that holdeth with me against these, but Michael your prince, x. 1b who standeth up to confirm and strengthen me. 2 But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth. Behold there shall stand up yet, &c.” Ibid., 118. See further, Norman W. Porteous, Daniel, otl (London: scm, 1965), 155; Sibley W. Towner, Daniel, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 153. Besides the literature mentioned in the previous footnote, see also Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 285–286 (and 256, 266); Montgomery, Daniel, 416; Lacocque, Daniel, 215; Bevan, Daniel, 171.

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

403

However, considering the available textual data, we posit a solution which both upholds the integrity of the narrative sequence of 10:20b–11:2 and reconstructs the original reading in 11:1a.87 The following process may account for the differences: The putative original, which has undergone corruptions in mt, and the underlying texts of the og and Th-Dan, was ‫ובשׁנת אחת לכורשׁ ִﬠָמּ ִדי למחזק‬ ‫“ ולמעוז לי‬that in the first year of Cyrus (he) was with me to strengthen and fortify me.” The secondary reworkings were seemingly triggered by the presence of a chronographic reference in 11:1, which is in the middle of the discourse that commences in 10:1 and ends in 12:4. Later scribes or editors have erroneously divided the discourse, reworking the chronographic reference in analogy with other dates in the book (cf. 7:1; 8:1; 9:1–2; 10:1).88 Unsurprisingly, the phrase was then adjusted to serve as a new introductory formula for Daniel 11. This might explain the addition of ‫ אני‬in l. 1 in both mt and Th-Dan’s Vorlage,89 as well as its absence in pap 96790 and (possibly further in) 4QDanc.91

87

88

89

90 91

The approach that interprets ll. 1–5 as part of the putative original is also reflected in Collins, Daniel, 376, who asserts that “[T]he argument that this half-verse is a gloss, introduced by analogy with the beginning of other chapters, is undermined by 4QDanc, because this verse does not begin a new unit in the scroll. The date serves to identify the speaker with Gabriel (cf. 9:1).” However, Collins does not explain the textual problems, confining himself only to listing some of the differences. Ibid., 362. Goldingay (Daniel, 276) similarly notes that “the phrase’s [in the first year of Darius the Mede] similarity to introductory dates elsewhere (e.g., 10:1) presumably led to the anomalous chap. division here [11:1]. evv [English Versions] remove as a gl[oss] and emend v. 1 in varying ways.” Alternatively, it may be suggested that 11:1 may have started with ‫ ויהי‬which subsequently was changed into ‫ ואני‬as in mt and Th-Dan. The reading ‫ ויהי‬is implied by εγενετο, which is preserved in certain witnesses such as L-88 233′410 LaW Aethp Chr. Tht. (= ii1488). In this instance, we assume that the Lucianic recension preserve the original reading. The omission of ‫ ואני‬is not attested by the Peshitta, as Montgomery (Daniel, 418) erroneously implies. Taylor, Peshiṭta of Daniel, 283. Both suggestions—the lack of ‫ אני‬or the presence of ‫ ויהי‬in l. 1—as putative original readings fit contextually. However, two of the og’s witnesses, ms 88 and Syh, attest καί (= ‫) ְו‬, probably as a reminiscence of the reconstructed original ‫ובשׁנת‬. Discussing 4QDanc, Ulrich notes that “[T]here are no preserved indications that the scribe left blank space to indicate paragraphing.” Eugene Ulrich, “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran, Part 2: Preliminary Editions of 4QDanb and 4QDanc,” basor 274 (1989): 3–26 (17). Perhaps the only exceptions are the spaces before 10:7 and presumably before 11:1. In the latter case, this is true if the omission of ‫ ואני‬is posited on the base that no ink is visible on the affected scroll to betray its presence. See further Paul Joseph Lambach, “A Detailed Comparison of 4QDanc and the Other Qumran Texts of Daniel with the Masoretic Text of Daniel” (PhD diss., Mid-America Baptist Seminary, 1997), 68–72. The photographs of the scroll can be consulted at the following link: https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore‑the​ ‑archive/image/B‑284883.

404

chapter 4

The name of the king, Cyrus, was secondarily harmonized in certain mss, e.g., mt and 4QDanc, with Darius, most likely to align with 6:1[5:31-6:1] and 9:1–2. The maneuver reflects the desire of a scribe to clarify that there was another king preceding Cyrus, namely, “Darius, the Mede.”92 Furthermore, we suggest that the reading ‫( המדי‬mt, 4QDanc) as well as the infinitive ‫( עמדי‬mt) reflect contextual corruptions of the reconstructed original ‫“ ִﬠָמּ ִדי‬with me.” The scribes have lightly reworked ‫ ִﬠָמּ ִדי‬to adapt it to their purposes: while ‫ ָﬠְמ ִדי‬presupposes different vocalization,93 ‫ המדי‬involves the interchange of ‫ ע‬with ‫ה‬. Both mt and 4QDanc apparently reflect a double reading, the latter updating ‫ ָﬠְמ ִדי‬to ‫“ עמדתי‬I stood.” As far as the versions are concerned, whereas Th-Dan’s ἔστην agrees with 4QDanc, the og attests εἶπέν μοι, implying ‫אמרי‬.94 Lastly, both versions agree in a minus in l. 9. The mt ‫(“ לו‬to) him” was probably developed secondarily from ‫(“ לי‬to) me,” while in og and Th-Dan, ‫ לי‬was likely left out as redundant. The proposed putative original fits adequately the context.95 Daniel 10 sets the vision in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. As a result of the vision of the majestic being (vv. 5–6), Daniel was physically weakened and emotionally distressed, but he received strength and courage from an angelic being. He fully recovers his power in v. 19, wherein he addresses the angel, “Speak on, my lord, for you have strengthened me!” Consequently, beginning with v. 20, the assisting angel starts a lengthier discourse which ends in 12:4. The angel says he won’t return to fighting with the princes of Persia and Greece until he has disclosed to Daniel “what is recorded in the book of truth” (v. 20–21a). He then reminds Daniel that the only help he receives against these princes is from “Michael, your prince.” According to our reading, the putative original phrase, ‫ובשׁנת אחת לכורשׁ ִﬠָמּ ִדי‬ ‫“ למחזק ולמעוז לי‬that in the first year of Cyrus (he) was with me to strengthen 92

93

94 95

Consequently, it is here admitted that both the og and Th-Dan’s reviser had a Vorlage attesting ‫לכורשׁ‬. The fact that the og adds τοῦ βασιλέως may count as a harmonistic expansion influenced by 10:1 (by either the og or a Hebrew copyist). The only alternative left if the original ‫ לדריוש‬is maintained is to posit that Th-Dan has depended on the og for the reading Κύρου. Pace Jeansonne similarly defends the priority of the Greek versions over mt and 4QDanc. However, we contend that the replacement of ‫ לכורשׁ‬with ‫ לדריוש‬constitutes an intentional editorial alteration rather than “a Hebrew copyist’s error.” The Old Greek Translation of Daniel, 120. The vocalization was seemingly influenced by the larger context, i.e., Dan 8:17–18. However, in these verses ‫ ָﬠְמ ִדי‬stands as an infinitive plus pron. suf., “my standing.” The immediate context of 11:4 displays ‫( וְּכָﬠְמדוֹ‬inf. constr), which could have represented another influence on how to “decode” ‫ עמדי‬in 11:1. Interchanges between ‫ ע‬and ‫( א‬phonetic similarity) and ‫ ד‬and ‫( ר‬graphical similarity). Consequently, we find wanting the dislocation and interpolation proposals. Of course, after the secondary readings are singled out and viewed alongside the reconstruction of the original ones, the first part of v. 1 fits into the context both logically and linguistically.

405

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

and fortify me,” was meant to offer background information about the help he had received from Michael in the first year of the king Cyrus as well.96 Subsequently, the discourse then resumes detailing the “truth” from “the book of truth” (cf. 10:21; 11:2). Dan 12:7 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

mt

og ‫ ]…[ ]…[ וככלות‬ἡ συντέλεια

ThZi

ThRa

[…] ἐν τῷ συντελεσθῆναι

[…] ἐν τῷ συντελεσθῆναι

διασκορπισμὸν

γνώσονται

διασκορπισμὸν χειρὸς λαοῦ ἡγιασμένου γνώσονται

πάντα ταῦτα.

πάντα ταῦτα.

χειρῶν ‫ נפץ‬ἀφέσεως ‫יד‬ ‫ עם‬λαοῦ ‫ קדש‬ἁγίου, ‫ תכלינה‬καὶ συντελεσθή-

σεται ‫ כל‬πάντα ‫ אלה׃‬ταῦτα.

Th-Dan features several problematic readings in v. 7b: the presence of γνώσονται in l. 7; the lack of representation of ‫ תכלינה‬in l. 8; and the overall uncertainty regarding the purported original text of Theodotion in ll. 4–8.97 We suggest that Th-Dan’s Vorlage underwent secondary developments and that these trans-

96

97

The alternative reconstruction beginning with ‫( ויהי‬e.g., … ‫“ ויהי בשׁנת אחת‬who was in the first year …”) also has the same effect, introducing background information about Michael. As an analogous example of ‫( ויהי‬together with ‫ )עמדי‬introducing background information, see Gen 35:3, which reads ‫ונקומה ונעלה בית אל ואעשה שם מזבח לאל הענה‬ ‫אתי ביום צרתי ויהי עמדי בדרך אשר הלכתי‬. Note also the sequence of tenses, i.e., yiqtol (‫)ואעשה‬, participle (‫)הענה‬, and wayyiqtol (‫)ויהי‬, which matches the sequence of tenses in Dan 10:21–11:11, i.e., yiqtol (‫)אגיד‬, participle (‫)מתחזק‬, and wayyiqtol (the putative ‫)ויהי‬. For ‫ עמדי‬not immediately following the verb, see Ruth 1:8; Gen 28:20. The disparities between the editions of Rahlfs and Ziegler indicate this uncertainty. The former allows for the longer reading χειρὸς λαοῦ ἡγιασμένου γνώσονται as the original, while the latter favors the shorter γνώσονται in ll. 4–8. However, in view of Th-Dan’s programmatic effort to quantitatively represent the parent text, the conjecture of a shorter reading seems less plausible unless it points to a shorter underlying text.

406

chapter 4

formations were “frozen” in the double translations attested by Th-Dan’s witnesses. We propose the following textual development: (1) mt preserves the putative original in the form ‫וככלות נפץ יד עם קדש‬ ‫“ תכלינה כל אלה‬and when the breaking of the power of the holy people comes to an end, then shall all these things be fulfilled.” The og supports mt.98 (2) The reviser worked on a slightly different source text, which was affected by scribal errors, i.e., ‫ובכלות נפץ יד עם מקדשׁ כל אלה‬. The plausible transformations involve the interchange between ‫ כ‬and ‫ב‬, resulting in ‫ ובכלות‬in l. 1;99 the dittography of ‫מ‬, the letter being appended to ‫קדשׁ‬ in l. 6, i.e., ‫ ;עם מקדש‬and the omission of ‫ תכלינה‬in l. 8, probably due to parablepsis in the phrase ‫( תכלינה כל אלה‬ll. 8–10).100 We suggest that this corrupted Hebrew reading is reflected by the reconstructed original Theodotion ἐν τῷ συντελεσθῆναι διασκορπισμὸν χειρὸς λαοῦ ἡγιασμένου,101 benefitting from the support of many witnesses.102 (3) The last phase emerges as a further corruption within the transmission of the textual tradition underlying Th-Dan’s recension. Because of different word division, the reading ‫ ובכלות נפץ יד עם מקדשׁ כל אלה‬perhaps became ‫ובכלות נפץ ידעום מקדש כל אלה‬. That is, the words of the phrase ‫יד‬ ‫ עם‬in ll. 4–5 were bound together, emerging into the new form ‫ידעום‬.103 This perhaps explains the presence of the equivalent γνώσονται in certain Th-Dan witnesses; it was perhaps introduced as a correction to replace χειρὸς λαοῦ in light of the new word. Γνώσονται further found its way into mss such as B-26 LaS Aeth Hippol. Cypr. Ir. lat, probably leading to the

98 99

100

101

102 103

The og’s transposition between l. 2 and l. 4 is translational in nature and doesn’t have any bearing on the og’s Vorlage. The og ignores the preposition ‫ כ‬in ‫וככלות‬. However, it cannot be precisely determined whether it reflects a translational omission or a scribal haplography between two identical letters, i.e., ‫וככלות‬. The omission of ‫ תכלינה‬must have happened at this stage since the most reliable Th-Dan witnesses do not attest any equivalent for it. Its attestation only comes form seemingly og influenced mss such as L’ Chr. Tht., which contain lectio duplex, i.e., χειρος (> 48–763 Tht.) λαου ηγιασμενου γνωσονται αγιον και συντελεσθησεται (-σονται 88 Tht.). Alternatively, it can be contended that ‫ תכלינה‬was harmonistically added in mt and the og’s Vorlage (under the influence of ‫ וככלות‬in l. 1). The reviser apparently read a pual passive participle (cf. ἡγιασμένου pf. pass. ptc. masc. sg.). Ἁγιάζω “to sanctify” further renders ‫ מקדשׁ‬in the pual stem in Isa 3:3; Ezek 48:11; Ezra 3:5; 2 Chr 26:18. Cf. χειρος (> A) λαου ηγιασμενου (αγιου 393? = o′; + και A) A′’ Q-230′’ lI C′ 393 410 534 Bo Arab Arm. E.g., Deut 29:25; 32:17; Jer 19:4; 44[51]:3; Zech 7:14.

the nature of th-dan’s vorlage

407

elimination of ἡγιασμένου and the lack of translation of ‫ קדשׁ‬as no longer fitting within the context.104 Considering our analysis, neither Ralphs’s nor Ziegler’s editions properly reconstruct the putative Th-Dan text. Whereas the former accepts χειρὸς λαοῦ ἡγιασμένου but also includes the secondary γνώσονται, the latter’s edition problematically accepts only ἡγιασμένου.105

4

Evaluation

This chapter aimed to search for the putative Semitic text which laid in front of the reviser. Usually, the reviser’s source text resembled mt but was not identical to it. This situation accounts for certain differences extant between Th-Dan and mt. Furthermore, the investigation of these differences leads to the conclusion that Th-Dan’s Vorlage occasionally featured shorter, original readings. It was devoid of the mt’s harmonistic and exegetical expansions. At times, it reflects a better-preserved text, free of haplographies. Intriguingly, in most of the cases which were discussed above, Danielic Qumran scrolls agree with mt. The agreement between the scrolls and mt over against Th-Dan, when the original character of the latter can be demonstrated, raises the possibility that the reviser’s source text reflects an earlier stage than both mt and the Danielic Qumran scrolls. We contend that an in-depth study of the scrolls compared with mt and Th-Dan would produce additional valuable results pointing into the same direction. 104 105

Note, however, that the lectio duplex recorded in some mss—among these, the Lucian recension—display also an equivalent for ‫קדשׁ‬, namely, αγιον. Overall, the commentaries do not present any resolution to the problem. They either limit themselves to only listing various readings (e.g., Montgomery, Daniel, 476), or completely ignore the Theodotionic variants (e.g., Charles, Daniel, 1929, 334–335).

chapter 5

Summary of Results and Conclusions The objective of this study was to advance our knowledge regarding the character of Th-Dan within the larger framework of Theodotionic problem. Ch. 1 comprehensively presented the issues involved. To begin with, the patristic sources evidence conflicting accounts regarding the person and literary legacy of Theodotion.1 In scholarly research on Th-Dan, two major paradigm shifts have shaped assessments of his version. The first centered on the postulation of a Proto-Th text.2 The second stemmed from the rise of the Kaige(-Th) theory. Analyzing the Greek scroll from Naḥal Ḥever, Barthélemy contended that the newly uncovered text reflects a textual tradition more in the nature of a recension. He coined the appellative Kaige and assigned Th-Dan to it.3 The latest scholarship on Th-Dan reflects the three types of reactions to Barthélemy’s claims: (1) the positive acceptance view, which was first championed by Grélot and holds that Proto-Th and Th-Dan were the same textual tradition and formed a single member of the larger Kaige group;4 (2) the disputation by Schmitt and McLay of Barthélemy’s claims that Th-Dan is part of Kaige and, consequently, of Th-Dan’s character as a revision;5 (3) the accommodation of the four entities associated with Theodotion’s name (i.e. ProtoTh, Kaige[-Th], Th-Dan, and the historical Theodotion’s revision) into a single, coherent model.6 As might be expected, these general reactions gave rise to

1 Ch. 1 § 1.1. 2 Ch. 1 § 1.2. Identifying Th-Dan readings in compositions antedating the historical Theodotion as known from the patristic sources, scholars assumed ex hypothesis a precursor text to ThDan, that is, Proto-Th. The pre-Theodotionic quotations captured the scholarly attention from the eighteenth century until the middle of twentieth century. 3 Ch. 1 § 1.3. 4 Ch. 1 § 1.4.1. Grélot offered a simplified solution to the textual issues raised by Th-Dan, interpreting the Theodotionic problem through the lens of Kaige theory. For him, Proto-Th and the purported second century version of Theodotion were the same textual tradition and form a single member of the larger Kaige group. 5 Ch. 1 § 1.4.2. Schmitt’s analysis typified the opposite reaction to Barthélemy’s claims regarding Th-Dan. Comparing Th-Dan with Theodotionic passages of other books, he concluded that the test returned negative results. That is, Th-Dan does not reflect the idiosyncrasies of Theodotion elsewhere and, hence, Th-Dan is not part of Kaige Similarly, McLay’s analysis further corroborated Schmitt’s conclusion. In addition, he was the first disputing the (implied) characterization of Th-Dan as a revision. 6 Ch. 1 § 1.4.3.

© Daniel Olariu, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004527881_006

summary of results and conclusions

409

many more views about the relationships between the four textual entities. The vast array of textual views, nuanced positions, and at times, confused opinions regarding the issues at stake turned the Theodotionic problem into the most complicated conundrum in Septuagint research. And Th-Dan plays a significant part in it. In order to shed new light on the Theodotionic problem, this study sought to thoroughly investigate the character of Th-Dan’s version. In this respect, the literature evidences an intriguing development: For decades, scholars routinely referred to Th-Dan as a revision. There was, however, no methodical study undertaken to substantiate the claim, a deficiency noted in the first studies that addressed the issue.7 The present comprehensive, systematic investigation represents the first study to demonstrate the character of Th-Dan as a revision, seeking to fill this critical gap in the research. This line of argument cleared the way for the present study’s contribution in two research areas: revising techniques and the nature of Th-Dan’s Vorlage. The previous analyses that integrated into their scope the nature of the relationship between Th-Dan and the og completely overlooked the need to search for revising techniques in Th-Dan. Although this deficiency signaled a problematic methodology for determining the relationship between the two versions, it was unheeded, leading to a state of affairs in which Th-Dan was left unexplored from this standpoint. This observation becomes the more surprising as we realize that Septuagint Daniel provides the best possible context for a recensional inquiry, considering that we can contrast two complete, parallel texts. The focus of previous analyses on the og’s Vorlage in relation to mt has resulted in the almost complete neglect of the Semitic text underlying Th-Dan. Scholars were seemingly more attracted to the striking differences between the former pair. Consequently, in addition to demonstrating the recensional character of Th-Dan and describing its revising techniques, this study sought to break new ground on Th-Dan’s Vorlage. Subsequently, we turn to discuss the findings which compellingly argue for the theory that Th-Dan is a systematic revision of the og in conformity to a Semitic text form which often preserved original readings against mt.

7 Ch. 1 §§ 1.4.2; 2. In these studies, McLay, followed by Obiajunwa, Braasch, and (partly) Amara concluded that Th-Dan is in fact an independent translation. Our results stand in contrast to these earlier estimations.

410 1

chapter 5

Recensional Character of Th-Dan

The case for Th-Dan as a revision is built within the methodological framework laid by previous revisional studies. Ch. 2 highlighted the present knowledge regarding recensional activity in late antiquity. The study of pre-Hexaplaric revisions (i.e., Kaige[-Th], Aquila, Symmachus, Tov’s anonymous revision of Jeremiah) led to the crystallization of the principles that test the quality of a text as a revision. The working hypothesis is controlled by two criteria.8 The first criterion is the demonstration of a shared basis that genetically connects the alleged texts that stand in a translation-revision relationship. The second criterion is the substantiation of recensional techniques in the text that allegedly reflects a revision. A detailed description of the findings that affirm the second criterion will be provided below. In view of this methodological framework, which was briefly outlined above, our study embarked on a comparative textual analysis. We contrasted three texts: mt (source text), the og (base text), and Th-Dan (generated, revised text). The comparison unequivocally showed that Th-Dan’s reviser reworked the og toward a literal representation of the mt-like form of his day. In addition, the comparison underscored that the generated text (Th-Dan) embeds the reviser’s attitudes toward both the base text and the source text. These attitudes were phenomenologically ascertained through a detailed analysis of lexical choices. They were then classified and presented as recensional tendencies. The data indicated that, during the generation of Th-Dan’s text, lexical choices were simultaneously influenced by the reviser’s continuous consultation of both the og and his mt-like Vorlage. 1.1 Common Basis The contrastive analysis of two texts which allegedly stand in a translationrevision relationship presupposes an assessment of both their commonalities and their differences. We dealt with the former in a preliminary study and confirmed the presence of a common basis between the og and Th-Dan.9 A cursory comparison of the two texts indicated that, in Dan 1–12, they share

8 Ch. 2 § 2.5. The survey of the pre-Hexaplaric revisions further raised awareness regarding two types of revisions: Hebraizing and non-Hebraizing. The latter is featured in the work of Symmachus. The former is typified by Kaige(-Th) and Aquila’s revision. The later focuses on supplying the meaning of the Semitic text. The former prioritizes its literal rendering. However, regardless of the propensity of a revision towards formal equivalence, it occasionally embeds inconsistencies. 9 Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis.”

summary of results and conclusions

411

at times almost verbatim verses and frequently long string of words. These lengthy verbatim agreements theoretically affirm the presence of a common basis. However, we applied a further methodological stricture: We theorized that significant agreements offer the most compelling evidence in this direction.10 The preliminary study on the commonalities between the og and Th-Dan demonstrated the criterion of the common basis, taking into consideration only significant agreements. We proposed four categories: (1) hapax Greek words; (2) rare Greek words; (3) unique equivalents; and (4) rare equivalents.11 All four categories reflect unique or rare renderings as contrasted with the Septuagint stock of equivalents. However, the first and second categories feature words which, beside constituting unique or rare renderings, occur once or seldom within the lxx stock of words. Consequently, not only do such lexical choices connect the two versions genetically, they also set them apart from the other Septuagint translational units—that is, they also function as distinctive agreements. Intrinsic to the presence of significant agreements is the notion of the influence of the og on Th-Dan’s lexical choices.12 From the reviser’s standpoint, the significant agreements point to his dependency on the base text.13 However, the influence of the og can be traced beyond the four categories mentioned above. In the process of this investigation, we identified certain other patterns that demonstrate influence as well. They are singled out both at the level of expected equivalents and rare equivalents, which suggests a much broader influence that was previously admitted in the Danielic scholarship. Since these patterns do not fit into the classifications above (considering our methodological stricture) and they simultaneously point to other textual idiosyncrasies, we presented them in this study. The patterns include “Treatment of First-Found

10

11 12 13

Ibid., 31–33. The intrinsic quality that distinguishes a common agreement from a significant agreement is that the former is to a certain extent expected while the latter is not. That is to say, a significant agreement reflects the premise that the same mental process could hardly have been replicated by two translators working independently and rather points to a contact between Th-Dan and the og. It implies that the reviser partly relied on his base text in selecting his equivalent(s). See ch. 1 § 1.4.2. See McLay’s study “It’s a Question of Influence,” 231–254. McLay has also underscored the need for tracing the direction of dependence in order to establish influence. The issues of influence and dependency are discussed by Olariu, “Criteria for Determining the Common Basis,” 105–124. There, he demonstrates with ten examples Th-Dan’s dependency on the og’s lexical choices.

412

chapter 5

Equivalents,”14 “Partly Maintained-Partly Revised Equivalents,”15 “Th-Dan’s Use of the og Context for Selecting Its Equivalents,”16 and the section “Inconsistencies Possibly Influenced by og-Dan.”17 These patterns include a large amount of evidence that indicates points of contact between the two texts. As will be detailed below, they demonstrate a continuous consultation of the og by ThDan’s reviser when selecting his equivalents. 1.2 Th-Dan as a Consistent Recension The analysis of the commonalities between the og and Th-Dan positively confirmed their common textual basis. Since the first criterion of our working hypothesis was met, it warranted inquiry into whether the differences between the two versions are the result of Th-Dan’s revisional process. The fortunate situation of comparing two complete parallel texts yielded meaningful results. The data culled from ch. 3 unequivocally demonstrated that Th-Dan reflects a systematic, literal revision. As shown in Section A, the systematic character is affirmed by the high consistency with which the reviser corrected the deviations from the base text toward a literal representation of his source text. Besides literalness, Th-Dan reveals techniques that point to the mechanics of a revisional process. Section B dealt with such techniques and patterns, some of which were noted for the first time in recensional studies. In Section C, the study tackled the issue of recensional inconsistencies. This discussion features another unique contribution as compared to other studies of the same kind, indicating the most important circumstances that deflected the reviser from his agenda of consistency in translation equivalents. 1.2.1 Recensional Consistency An intrinsic aspect of our working hypothesis is the assumption that the alleged reviser would correct his base text toward a more consistent representation of the source text. In order to test this assumption, we investigated whether ThDan adhered to the norms of stereotyping, quantitative representation of the source text, linguistic accuracy, word order, and transliteration. The contrastive analysis between the og and Th-Dan demonstrated systematic revisional corrections in all these areas. Stereotyping was the first feature which was applied to test consistency (3 A §1). To begin with, we investigated Hebrew/Aramaic–Greek equivalencies 14 15 16 17

Ch. 3 B § 6. Ch. 3 B § 7. Ch. 3 B § 8. Ch. 3 C § 12.

summary of results and conclusions

413

(§1.1). The analysis showed intentional undertakings by Th-Dan’s reviser to maintain, as much as possible, the same equivalent for a Semitic lexeme. The high number of cases in which the reviser achieved absolute and general consistency confirm his stereotyping tendency (§§1.1.1–3). 0‫“ ענה־‬to answer” (§1.1.1.1) exemplifies this principle. It occurs thirty times in mt-Dan. For its rendering, the og employed various equivalents such as ἀποκρίνομαι “to answer”; πυνθάνομαι “to inquire”; φωνέω “to cry out”; ἐκφωνέω “to cry out”; ὑπολαμβάνω “to reply”; συνοράω “to see”; ἀναβοάω “to cry”; etc. The reviser took issue with this diversity of equivalents. He maintained only ἀποκρίνομαι and corrected all the other og equivalents with it. Our search for stereotyping in the Hebrew/Aramaic–Greek equivalencies further integrated root consistency (§1.1.2). We identified cases that evidence the interest of the reviser to maintain the same stereotyped equivalent across the two language sections of Daniel (A §1.1.2.1). This tendency manifests in the translation of Hebrew/Aramaic cognate lexemes. For instance, the cognates 0‫גלה־‬/‫“ גלה‬to reveal” appear eight times: seven times in Aramaic and once in Hebrew sections. In the former section, the og employed four equivalents: δηλόω “to make clear”; ἀνακαλύπτω “to uncover”; φωτίζω “to give light”; and ἐκφαίνω “to exhibit.” In the latter section, the og added yet another equivalent, that is, δείκνυμι “to show.” The reviser coined his literal equivalent ἀποκαλύπτω “to reveal” and made use of it as a stereotype in all eight instances. The search for root consistency identified certain examples that point to the reviser’s endeavor to apply stereotyping to Semitic word families based on the same root (§1.1.2.2). Understandably, given the complexity of attaining such a goal, the reviser seemed to endeavor replicating the same process in the target language. At times, the root consistency was affected by the og’s lexical choices. A case in point is √‫ שׁטף‬that occurs four times as a verb and twice as a noun. The og rendered each of the two dynamically. For ‫“ שׁטף‬to overflow,” it used κατασύρω “to drag” and συντρίβω “to crush,” while for ‫“ שׁטף‬flood” it used ὀργή “wrath” and συντρίβω. In spite of the difficulty that √‫ שׁטף‬poses in translation, the reviser produced the literal equivalents κατακλύζω “to overflow” and κατακλυσμός “flood.”18 In order to arrive at even more compelling results, we proposed a new test to measure stereotyping, based on the analysis of Greek–Hebrew/Aramaic equivalencies (A §1.2). This test asked whether the reviser tended to restrict the use of Greek renditions to certain Hebrew/Aramaic words. That it is to say, it checks

18

In one instance, the reviser took in συντρίβω (Dan 11:40), most likely under the influence of the og’s equivalent in v. 22.

414

chapter 5

whether his agenda included as a goal not only the maintenance of the same rendition for a Semitic lexeme, but also the restriction, whenever possible, of each Greek rendition to a single Semitic lexeme. The second test of stereotyping returned even more relevant results. Though much more difficult to accomplish, the reviser succeeded in restricting equivalents to specific Semitic lexemes. This tendency is demonstrated by the absolute and general restriction categories (§§1.2.1–2). The use of ἄνθρωπος “man” in both the Aramaic and Hebrew sections epitomizes this revisional principle (§1.2.1.1). The og translator employed ἄνθρωπος to render five Aramaic lexemes: 0‫“ גבר־‬man”; 0‫־‬1‫“ חי־‬life”; 0‫“ אנשׁ־‬man”; 0‫“ כל־‬all”; and ‫“ בני אנשא‬sons of man.” Similarly, it was used to render five Hebrew lexemes: 1‫“ גבר־‬man”; ‫“ גבריאל‬Gabriel”; 1‫“ אדם־‬man”; ‫“ אישׁ‬man”; and ‫“ אשׁה‬woman.” However, the use of ἄνθρωπος in Th-Dan contrasts sharply. The reviser restricted its use to only 0‫ אנשׁ־‬and 1‫אדם־‬, respectively. The test further indicated that the reviser aimed to consistently restrict renditions for semantically equivalent roots (§1.2.2.1). These are Hebrew and Aramaic words which have the same meaning but not the same consonantal base. The verb εὑρίσκω “to find” is illustrative. Whereas in the Aramaic section it is found in the og only for 0‫“ שׁכח־‬to find,” in the Hebrew section, εὑρίσκω translated ‫“ מצא‬to find”; 1‫“ אמר־‬to say”; ‫“ בקשׁ‬to seek”; and 1‫“ מוצא־‬going forth.” The reviser maintained the equivalence 0‫—שׁכח־‬εὑρίσκω and further maximized it in the Aramaic translational unit. However, in the Hebrew unit, he restricted the equivalent to only ‫מצא‬. The test lastly revealed that in two occasions the reviser was effective in restricting the word-family roots φόβ- and ὕψ- for Hebrew/Aramaic semantically equivalent roots and/or for cognate roots (§ 1.2.2.2). The φόβ- derivates include the verbs φοβέω “to fear” and φοβερίζω “to terrify,” the adjectives φοβερός “fearful” and ὑπέρφοβος “very terrifying,” and the noun φόβος “fear.” The reviser restricted the derivates to only the analogous roots √‫“ ירא‬to fear” and √‫דחל‬ “to fear.” However, beside the two expected Semitic roots, the og’s translator utilized φοβέω for three others: 0‫“ שׂים־‬to set”; 0‫“ פלח־‬to serve”; and ‫“ עזז‬to be strong.” Likewise, he used the noun φόβος for words derived from other roots, e.g., ‫“ מעוז‬stronghold,” 1‫“ חרדה־‬trembling,” and 0‫“ אימתן־‬terrible.” The two tests applied to assess stereotyping covered unexplored areas in recensional studies. They were comprehensive in nature and convincingly affirmed the reviser’s commitment to this norm. The stereotyping principle led him to maintain the same equivalent for the same Semitic lexeme. He even restricted equivalents for certain lexemes. The corrections applied to his base text were unequivocally systematic. They encompassed both semantically equivalent and cognate roots. The reviser even applied stereotyping to cer-

summary of results and conclusions

415

tain word families. His success in so many areas suggests intentionality in his approach and that he might have worked with lists or glossaries of equivalents. The second feature applied to test Th-Dan’s consistency was quantitative representation (3 A §2). It is expected that a reviser whose agenda integrated stereotyping would further adhere to the norm of quantitatively representing his mt-like source text. The analysis in this area demonstrated that the reviser did address the pluses (A §2.1) and minuses (A § 2.2) in the base text. The former were eliminated. The latter were supplemented. These corrections were systematically applied to both shorter and longer material. Th-Dan rejected many types of short pluses embedded in the og. Their elimination sheds light on the designed character of the reviser’s work: he worked toward generating a word-for-word recension. Consequently, he adjusted accurate but expansionistic elements in the base text (§ 2.1.1.1). Dan 2:18 presents such a case. ‫(“ יהבדון‬Daniel and his colleagues) would not be put to death” was idiomatically translated in the og with ἐκδοθῶσι … εἰς ἀπώλειαν “(Daniel and those who were with him) might not be delivered to destruction,” but Th-Dan adjusted the phrase to only one element: ἀπόλωνται “(Daniel and his friends) might not perish.” The reviser subtracted exegetical pluses (§2.1.1.2), even theological elements which presumably epitomized his religious confession of faith. As such, from the phrase ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἷς κύριος ἡμῶν “for there is God who is in heaven, our one Lord (whom we fear),” he subtracts the elements “who is in heaven” and “one Lord” that theologically underscore the exclusiveness of the God of Israel (3:17). He removed from the base text explicating pluses as well (§ 2.1.1.3). These elements reflect implicit information in the source text that was made explicit in the og translation, such as Χαλδαϊστὶ “in Chaldean” in 2:26; αὐτοὺς ἐπ ὀνόματος “them by name” in 3:26[93]; τοῦ οὐρανοῦ “of heaven” in 12:3; etc. The reviser equally treated the og harmonistic pluses: they were removed from the base text (§2.1.1.4). For instance, the elements τοῦ βασιλέως, ἐδηλώθη, and τὸ πρᾶγμα were removed from 2:19 og: τότε τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ βασιλέως τῷ Δανιηλ ἐδηλώθη· τῇ νυκτὶ ἐν ὁράματι τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐξεφάνθη εὐσήμως “[T]hen the mystery of the king was disclosed to Daniel. In the night in a vision the matter was clearly brought to light.”19 Lastly, the reviser deleted og pluses derived from its longer Vorlage (§2.1.1.5). Dan 2:20 exemplifies this category. The og’s plus (τοῦ κυρίου) τοῦ μεγάλου “(the) great (Lord)” is textually supported by 4QDana 19

The reviser also deletes the hapax εὐσήμως “clearly” in the same verse. The word was probably inserted to exegetically underscore the unequivocal nature of the revelation. The other eliminated words were likely contextually harmonized: τοῦ βασιλέως cf. vv. 15, 24; τὸ πρᾶγμα cf. vv. 888-Syh, 10; and ἐδηλώθη cf. vv. 9, 11, 16, 23, 24.

416

chapter 5

reading ‫)די אלהא( רבא‬. Th-Dan deleted the plus so that the revised text matches, word-for-word, the shorter mt. The reviser’s goal to generate a recension free of expansions made him subtract longer pluses from the og (§2.1.2), that is, additions of more than five lexemes. Daniel 3:1 aptly typifies the problems. The og adds new information about Nebuchadnezzar’s administration: διοικῶν πόλεις καὶ χώρας καὶ πάντας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἀπὸ Ινδικῆς ἕως Αἰθιοπίας “when he was managing cities and regions and all who lived from India to Ethiopia.” The information echoes Esth 1:1; 8:9. Considering the attestation of the plus in all the og’s mss (pap 967, 88, Syh), it can be concluded that the plus was part of the reviser’s base text. The reviser exacted it from the og, though the question of its origins may be disputed. The reviser’s literal agenda prompted him to further correct short and long minuses in the base text (A § 2.2). The task entailed supplementing the lacunae. The og attests a large number of short readings, unparalleled in mt. Most of these resulted from the translational process. They regard implied, condensed, repetitive, and exegetical omissions (§§2.2.1.1–4). The reviser was quick to notice that such og renderings did not meet his rigorous standard of representing the source text element-for-element. In Dan 1:6 (§ 2.2.1.1), ‫ בהם‬in ‫ויהי‬ ‫[“ בהם מבני יהודה‬A]mong them were the Judahites” is implied in the og translation καὶ ἦσαν ἐκ τοῦ γένους τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Ιουδαίας “And there were of the race of the sons of Israel who were from Judea.” In contrast, the reviser explicitly represented each element: καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Ιουδα “And among them from the sons of Iouda were (…).” The translation of ‫“ דנה עם דנה‬together” with ἀλλήλοις “to one another” in 2:43 reflects a condensed og rendering (§2.2.1.2). Th-Dan revises the og rendition toward an element-for-element translation: οὗτος μετὰ τούτου “this one with that one”. The mt’s repetitive language was often not translated in the og, presumably because it contained redundant information (§ 2.2.1.3). Consequently, in the phrase ‫ על כל מעשיו אשר עשה‬in 9:14, the og selectively renders the verb but not the noun: ἐπὶ πᾶν ὅ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ “in everything that he does” (og); however, the reviser supplements the omission: ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἐποίησεν “in all his doings, which he has done” (Th-Dan). The reviser further filled in the og’s exegetical minuses (§2.2.1.4). The lack of any equivalent for ‫“ בית אלהיו‬the house of his god” in 1:2 reflects the og’s effort to deny the existence of any other gods beside the God of Israel. The reviser supplemented the theological omission with the literal οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ “the house of his god.” The og’s omissions stemming from both a differing Vorlage or inner-Greek scribal errors (§§2.2.1.5–6) attracted corrections as well. The reviser presum-

summary of results and conclusions

417

ably interpreted these as minuses. The fact that in 2:5 the og does not have any equivalent for ‫“ מלתא מני אזדא‬I hereby decree” is the likely result of homoeoteleuton between ‫ לכשדיא‬and ‫ אזדא‬in the phrase ‫ענה מלכא ואמר לכשדיא מלתא מני‬ ‫§( אזדא‬2.2.1.5). The reviser quantitatively supplements the lacunae with ὁ λόγος ἀπ̓ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη “the matter has escaped me.” Likewise, in 2:39, he supplemented with ἑτέρα “another” the lack of an equivalent for ‫“ אחרי‬another” (§ 2.2.1.6). The minus most likely reflects homoioarcton of the graphically and phonetically similar letters in the og putative phrase αλλη ἐλάττων (i.e., αλληελαττων). The reviser similarly treated the long minuses in the og (§ 2.2.2) that result from either translational style, scribal errors, or a different literary edition (§§2.2.2.1–3). The omission of the long list of participants at the statue’s dedication in 3:3 constitutes an intentional omission (§ 2.2.2.1). The translator briefly referred to them as οἱ προγεγραμμένοι “the aforementioned.” The reviser reproduced the list word-for-word, notwithstanding that it is repetitive. For certain long og minuses which regard scribal errors, it is difficult to decide whether they ultimately trace back to a Semitic Vorlage or Greek mss. The lack of representation of ‫“ כל מלכותא ותאכל‬all the kingdoms; it will devour” in 7:23 (§ 2.2.2.2) could have equally been created by a haplography caused by the identical words ‫( כל … כל‬mt) or by the allegedly original πάσας … πᾶσαν (og). The reviser supplemented the lacunae in rendering ‫די תשנא מן כל מלכותא ותאכל כל ארעא‬, by revising with πάσας τὰς βασιλείας καὶ καταφάγεται πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν “which shall surpass all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth.” The attestation in the og of the long minus in 4:3[6]–6[9] (§2.2.2.3) points to a more original, parallel edition of the story. The mt expands the contest motif between Daniel and the sages of Babylon. For the reviser, who worked with a mt-like Vorlage, the minus demanded correction. He filled in the gap accordingly. The supplementation of the lacunae in the base text provides a compelling proof that Th-Dan’s reviser prioritized quantitative representation. Together with the elimination of many types of pluses in the og, these procedures show that he had little, if any, interest in expanding or subtracting elements over against mt. The reviser’s agenda clearly permeates each translational unit, namely, to bring the og to correspond word-for-word to his underlying Semitic text. The third feature that we applied to test consistency was linguistic accuracy (3 A §3). This direction of analysis investigated the precision with which the og and Th-Dan represented the source text in content. We limited our analysis to the transfer of meaning.20 The reviser’s tendency for acute liter-

20

Theoretically, there are two types of linguistic inaccuracies which generate corrections:

418

chapter 5

alism is demonstrably shown by the substitution of “acceptable” equivalents within a dynamic translational framework (A § 3.1). To illustrate, γῆ “earth,” “land” reflects an acceptable, contextually sensitive rendition of 0‫“ יבשה־‬dry land” in Dan 2:10. Likewise, κύριος “lord” for 0‫“ ֶמֶלְך־‬king” in 3:9. However, the reviser interpreted such renderings as imprecisions. He substituted the former with the literal equivalents ξηρός “dry,” “withered” and βασιλεύς “king,” respectively. Besides imprecise renderings, the reviser replaced erroneous equivalents as well (A §3.2). These are og renderings which constitute obvious departures from the literal meaning of the Semitic lexemes. The og translator often departed from mt because he had recourse to contextual exegesis to solve either exegetical tensions or untangle the meaning of obscure words (§ 3.2.1). By providing accurate equivalents, the reviser demonstrates no interest in the former and better linguistic knowledge for the latter. In Dan 2:1, by rendering 0‫“ אבד־‬to perish” with ἐξάγω “to bring out,” the og alters the sequence of events with the effect of having the wise men leaving the audience room before the promulgation of the king’s extermination edict. In 2:29, 0‫“ רעיון־‬thought” was not understood. The translator used κατακλίνω “to recline,” being influenced by the presence of 0‫“ משׁכב־‬bed” in the proximity. By contrast, for each Semitic word, the reviser provided accurate equivalents: ἀπόλλυμι “to destroy” and διαλογισμός “thought,” respectively. The reviser’s linguistic competence is also visible in the corrections he successfully applied to erroneous renderings that underscore the limitations of the og’s translator. They regard occasions when, to semantically decode Semitic words or phrases, the translator assumed a different vocalization or etymology (§3.2.2). In the latter case, he subtracted, interchanged, or transposed consonants of the source text. Dan 11:27 contains such an example. Here, ‫ למרע‬in the clause ‫[“ ושניהם המלכים לבבם למרע‬T]he minds of both kings will be bent on evil” challenged the translator. He left it unrendered. He further rendered ‫ לבדם‬instead of ‫ לבבם‬and added the explicating verb δειπνέω “to dine,” probably influenced by the phrase ‫ על שלחן אחד‬in the same verse. These maneuvers led to the og translation καὶ δύο βασιλεῖς μόνοι δειπνήσουσιν “[A]nd the two kings will dine alone.” Conversely, the reviser successfully introduced a literal, accurate correction: καὶ ἀμφότεροι οἱ βασιλεῖς, αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν εἰς πονηρίαν “[A]nd both kings—their hearts for evil.”

content and form. The former type regards the semantics of words while the latter regards the transfer of grammatical categories from the source to target language. The investigation of the latter would go beyond the limits of this study.

summary of results and conclusions

419

The reviser corrected erroneous og renderings that were deliberately produced because of the translator’s theological agenda (§ 3.2.3). In such instances, he was able to decode the source text accurately. One example relates to the og’s rendering of the phrase ‫“ בית אוצר אלהיו‬the treasury of his god” with ἐν τῷ εἰδωλίῳ αὐτοῦ “in his idol temple” in Dan 1:2. The og translator avoided literally rendering ‫ אלהיו‬in order to deny the existence of other gods beside the God of Israel. The reviser substituted the theological reading with εἰς τὸν οἶκον θησαυροῦ τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ “into the house of the treasure of his god.” By undertaking such corrections here and in similar cases, he again demonstrates that his interest in literalism supersedes theological sensitivity. The reviser equally replaced erroneous og renderings which resulted from a different underlying Semitic text (A §3.3). Such renderings do not imply a limitation in knowledge or the translator’s interest in exegesis. The translation of 0‫“ שלטן־‬dominion” with γλῶσσα “language” in Dan 7:6 exemplifies this category. Since γλῶσσα consistently renders 0‫“ לשׁן־‬language” in og-Dan 3:4, 7, 29[96]; 6:26[25], it is textually probable that 0‫ שלטן־‬erroneously evolved into 0‫לשׁן־‬. Th-Dan substituted γλῶσσα with ἐξουσία “authority.” Such corrections indicate that the reviser had a reference text which closely resembled mt. In light of his mt-like text, the og deviations were viewed as erroneous translations. The fourth feature that was used to test consistency was word-order (3 A § 4). The underlying assumption behind this aim is that a literal reviser shows propensity toward transferring the sequence of words from the source language into the target language. Though we can hardly think of modern translators that would embrace such a norm—no matter how faithfully they would endeavor to translate a text—Th-Dan offers plenty of examples in which the reviser meticulously corrected the base text in this direction. Most of these transpositions are minor in the sense that they record displacement of equivalents within the immediate context of a verse unit (A §4.1). The principle at work is epitomized right from the beginning. Rendering the opening clause ‫בשנת שלוש‬ ‫למלכות יהויקים מלך יהודה בא נבוכדנאצר‬, the og transposed twice: Ἐπὶ βασιλέως τῆς Ιουδαίας Ιωακιμ ἔτους τρίτου παραγενόμενος Ναβουχοδονοσορ. The dating year ἔτους τρίτου was displaced from its position before Ἐπὶ and placed after Ιωακιμ, while Ιωακιμ is transposed from before to after τῆς Ιουδαίας. Conversely, the reviser reorganized the base text to conform to the mt word order: Ἐν ἔτει τρίτῳ τῆς βασιλείας Ιωακιμ βασιλέως Ιουδα ἦλθεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ. These type of recensional interventions were often undertaken at the expense of the Greek flavor. In addition to minor transpositions, there were three other major ones (A § 4.2) that possibly stood in the base text of the reviser: the doxology at the

420

chapter 5

beginning of Daniel 4 that was displaced at the end of the chapter (v. 34[37c]); the long string of words transposed from 9:25 into v. 27 of the same chapter; and, possibly, Daniel 7–8, which were positioned before Daniel 5.21 The last feature applied to test consistency was transliteration (3 A § 5). The technique highlights two dynamics at work in translation. To a certain extent, it exposes the linguistic limits of the translator. At the same time, it reveals the translator’s high esteem for the Semitic text. Instead of leaving an unknown word untranslated or contextually guessing its meaning, he froze the Semitic lexeme into the target language by means of transliteration. Consequently, transliterations can be argued as the culmination of literalistic tendencies. The technique is not new to Th-Dan. In fact, the reviser incorporated into his revision all the og’s transliterations. The shared equivalent φελμουνι “a certain person” (Dan 8:13), which has the traits of a significant agreement,22 exemplifies such borrowings. Therefore, the best way to describe the relation between the og and Th-Dan regarding transliteration technique is to say that the latter built upon the model of the former, taking the technique to a new level. Indeed, the reviser has expanded the number of cases when he made recourse to such a maneuver. The analysis of the nine transliterations which are specific to Th-Dan against the og indicate that the technique was used when two simultaneous conditions were met: (1) the reviser did not understand the word; and (2) the context would exceptionally require a specific equivalent. If only the first condition was met, the reviser would contextually approximate the meaning, usually following in the footsteps of the og.23 The problems involved in translating ‫“ מעוז‬strength,” “stronghold” typifies the category of transliterated equivalents. The lexeme derives from √‫“ עוז‬a place or means of safety,” “protection” and occurs seven times in Daniel 11. The og struggled to determine its etymology. It instead presupposed √‫“ עזז‬to be strong,” employing various contextual equivalents, mainly derived from ἰσχύς (vv. 1, 7, 19, 38–39).24 Relying on the og, the reviser employed the noun ἰσχύς three times (vv. 1, 10, 19). In another 21

22 23 24

The transposition of Daniel 7–8 is attested in the earliest og manuscript—pap 967. On the other hand, the order of the chapters in mss 88 and Syh agree with mt. The original chapter sequence remains debated in literature. Olariu, “Quest for the Common Basis,” 88 (No. 64). In such cases he produced better approximations, at least from his perspective. Cf. ἐνισχύω “to strengthen”; ἰσχύς “strength,” “might”; κατισχύω “to overcome,” “strengthen”; and ἰσχυρός “strong,” “mighty.” In the remaining two occasions, the og made use of πολύς “much,” “many” (v. 10) and φόβος “fear,” “terror,” “reverence” (v. 31). The former equivalent reflects a different, contextual etymology, i.e., ‫מעוד‬. The later equivalent reflects a dynamic rendition within the phrase ‫“ המקדש המעוז‬the temple, the fortress.”

summary of results and conclusions

421

three occasions he arrived at more precise contextual renditions, at least in his view.25 The way he handled the phrase ‫“ ולאלה מעזים‬the god of fortresses” is of special interest (v. 38). Having doubts about the meaning of ‫מעזים‬, and considering the presence of God’s name in the phrase, the reviser transliterated ‫מעוז‬ with μαωζιν as a precaution so that he would not misrepresent something about God, e.g., a quality, a name, title, etc. The first section of ch. 3 investigated the second criterion of our working hypothesis, which tests the quality of a text as a revision. To do so, the study applied five features to Th-Dan to test consistency: stereotyping, quantitative representation, linguistic accuracy, word order, and transliteration. Each test returned positive results. Consequently, the attestation of both the common basis and the recensional consistency criteria unequivocally demonstrate the character of Th-Dan as a revision. Th-Dan evidences an overwhelming number of corrections. The reviser set as his agenda to bring the og as much as possible into conformity with his underlying Semitic text, which resembled mt. The recensional patterns pervade everywhere. They reveal intentionality and are systematic in nature. Therefore, we assign Th-Dan to the literal, Hebraizing revisions. It has more in common with what is known about Aquila’s style than with the style of any hypothetical mid-way revision. The conclusion regarding Th-Dan’s character as a revision is further corroborated by other recensional techniques to which we now turn. 1.2.2 Recensional Techniques The investigation of recensional consistency in ch. 3 A was tantamount to determining the reviser’s attitude towards his source text. Demonstrably, the goal was to systematically represent, word-for-word, his Vorlage. Section 3 B was designed to complement the previous section. Its goal was to detect the reviser’s attitude towards his base text. It stands to reason that, if a text is classified as a consistent revision, it further embeds mechanical recensional techniques. We identified six such patterns. Not only do they further underscore Th-Dan’s character as a revision, but they also describe the way the reviser interacted with the base text to make his lexical choices.

25

Th-Dan’s equivalents ὑποστήριγμα “support” (v. 7) and δυναστεία (δύναμαι) “power,” “sovereignty” (v. 31) represent contextual renditions, presupposing together with ἰσχύς the etymological derivation from √‫עזז‬. The rendition καταφυγή “refuge” in v. 39 renders accurately ‫מעוז‬. However, a better guess was afforded by the presence of the word 1‫מבצר־‬ “fortress” in the phrase ‫למבצרי מעזים‬.

422

chapter 5

The first technique concerns the reviser’s treatment of the first-found equivalents in the og (3 B §6).26 These are renditions which translate the first occurrence of a given Semitic word in mt-Dan. All renditions adduced to evidence the pattern share an important feature: they are significant agreements. This is to say that our judgments are based on agreements between the two versions that are anchored in lexical choices which can hardly be explained as coincidences. They rather resulted from borrowings in Th-Dan from og-Dan. Consequently, examples in categories §6.1 and § 6.2 document the reviser’s favorable attitude toward the og’s first-found equivalents. Category § 6.1 indicated that the most natural tendency of the reviser was to adopt the og’s rendition. The translation of ‫“ נגד‬to tell,” “to declare” exemplifies our line of arguing. In its first instance, ‫ נגד‬was rendered in the og with ἀναγγέλλω “to report,” “to announce” (Dan 2:2). Subsequently, the og translator switched to another one: ὑποδείκνυμι “to show,” “to inform” (Dan 9:23; 10:21; 11:2). Conversely, the reviser took in ἀναγγέλλω in 2:2 and consistently maintained it in the subsequent instances. Category §6.2 indicates that, though relying on the first-found og equivalents, the reviser not always was satisfied with them. As such, he looked for new renditions that he perceived were much better fitted than those he had found in the og. For instance, the translator employed ἀποκτείνω “to kill” for the first time he came across 0‫“ קטיל־‬to slay” in Dan 2:131°. Then, he immediately employed three different equivalents: συναπόλλυμι “to perish together” (v. 132°); ἐξάγω “to lead away,” “to bring out” (v. 14); and ἀποτυμπανίζω “to bludgeon to death” (7:11).27 The reviser adopted ἀποκτείνω in 2:131°. However, in the subsequent instances, he coined his own equivalent ἀναιρέω “to destroy,” “to kill,” which he employed stereotypically (2:132°, 14; 5:19, 30; 7:11).28 The last categories present two other possible attitudes vis-à-vis the firstfound equivalent. The former (§6.3) suggests the reviser was ultimately inspired by the og’s first-found equivalents even though he initially rejected them. The latter (§6.4) demonstrates the reviser’s dependence on the first and the last appearances of the og lexical choices. The combined evidence of the four categories interpreted as a whole present a strong argument confirming the two assumptions intrinsic to our working hypothesis. Foremost, each shared significant agreement between og-Dan and Th-Dan presupposes a point of contact between the two versions, showing that

26 27 28

See further Olariu’s lengthier discussion in “Mechanics of Recensional Process,” 177–195. og-Dan=0: 3:22; 5:19, 30. Th-Dan=0: 3:22.

summary of results and conclusions

423

the reviser had in front of his eyes not only the Hebrew-Aramaic text but also a base text, namely, the og.29 In addition to the attestation of the common basis, all types of examples simultaneously document the reviser’s tendency to maximize stereotyping. This observation confirms the second criterion of the working hypothesis, convincingly indicating that one of the reviser’s objectives was to consistently maintain, as much as possible, the same equivalent for each Semitic word in each of its occurrences. In examples of category § 6.1 he successfully applied his principle by transforming the first-found og renditions into absolute stereotyped ones in his revision. Similarly, categories § 6.2 and § 6.4 show that the og’s influence on Th-Dan either on the first- or the last-found equivalent has affected the reviser’s agenda of stereotyping. Nevertheless, these slight deviations from lexical consistency, shared with the og, are of much value, pointing to their shared textual basis. The two examples of category § 6.3 hint that the reviser occasionally attempted to coin his own renditions but remained open to abandoning them in favor of the og’s equivalents. They also affirm the reviser’s preference for consistency. Working with a base text gave the reviser the opportunity to decide between two alternatives regarding how to deal with the first-found equivalents, either to accept or reject them. The fact that the reviser borrows these renditions, rejects but subsequently adopts them, adopts but then switches to different ones of his own coinage, or adopts the first and last of the og’s distinctive lexical choices demonstrates both mechanical manipulation of the base text and continuous consultation with it. The second recensional technique is visible in the category of partly maintained and partly revised equivalents (3 B §7). As the title suggests, the category gathers together renditions which simultaneously demonstrate revising activity and dependence on the og’s lexical choices. That is, they partly agree in lexemes which feature rare words and rare equivalents. When they partly disagree, it is so because the reviser adapted the og equivalent to meet his other recensional norms (e.g., quantitative representation, linguistically accurate representation). In this respect, the tendency is similar to his technique with the first-found equivalents. Two examples will suffice to illustrate the pattern. mt attests in Dan 3:29[96] the difficult idiomatic phrase ‫“ די יאמר שלה‬who blasphemes.” While the og rendered the phrase ὃς ἂν βλασφημήσῃ “whoever 29

For instance, based on the examples adduced in ch. 3 B §6, the contact between the Greek versions is demonstrated throughout Daniel 2 in which both texts share significant agreements in v. 8 (ἀλήθεια); v. 13 (ἀποκτείνω); v. 21 (ἀλλοιόω); v. 23 (αἰνέω); and v. 31 (ὑπερφερής; πρόσοψις).

424

chapter 5

blasphemes,” the reviser utilized ἣ ἂν εἴπῃ βλασφημίαν “that speaks blasphemy.” Since both words, βλασφημέω and βλασφημία, occur rarely in the lxx corpus, it suggests dependence.30 However, the reviser further adjusted the og rendition to conform quantitatively to the mt phrase. Likewise, in the translation of ‫ עמד‬hiphil “to set up” in 11:13, the og and Th-Dan share the unique equivalents συνάγω “to gather” and ἄγω “to lead.” The reviser reworked the og equivalent toward what constituted, in his view, a better translation of ‫ עמד‬in this context. The type of examples culled in 3 B §7 further confirm the conclusion that the two Greek versions of Daniel stand in a translation-revision relationship. Th-Dan’s lexical choices presuppose that the reviser consulted the og. At the same time, they inform us about the reviser’s work to correct the base text quantitatively and qualitatively. The Semitic lexemes are not always difficult to grasp. Like ‫עמד‬, there are other accessible words which were analyzed. The implication of this observation is that the same type of recensional maneuvers that were proven at the level of significant agreements would also have taken place at the level of common Semitic words and their expected equivalents. Put differently, the influence of the base text on the reviser’s choices was much broader than has been acknowledged in the scholarly literature. The broader use of the og is further reflected in the way the reviser scrutinized the og’s immediate and larger contexts. This technique was discussed in 3 B §8. While the previous techniques involved significant equivalents attested in the same locations, in this section we collected instances of shared rare Greek words and rare renditions in different locations. In the course of our analysis, we noted that the reviser’s practice in searching for equivalents was to look a few verses ahead or behind in the same chapter (B § 8.1). For instance, the rare equivalent θυσία “sacrifice” for ‫“ תמיד‬continually” was first used in Th-Dan 8:11. However, there is compelling evidence that the reviser imported it from v. 12 og. The equivalent was evidently favored by the og translator since it was consistently used from v. 12 onward. Conversely, the reviser made use of it only in the theological difficult context of vv. 11–13. Afterwards, he switched to the literal ἐνδελεχισμός “continuity.” The reviser consulted the wider og context as well. Category B § 8.2 selects convincing cases where he looked ahead or behind to all the other chapters in og-Dan. The analysis of μάγος “wise man,” “magician” exemplifies this tendency. The equivalent first appears in the og in Dan 2:2, while in Th-Dan in 1:20, that is, one chapter behind. In both versions it renders ‫“ אשׁף‬conjurer.” Taking

30

They occur six and five times, respectively.

summary of results and conclusions

425

into account that μάγος is a rare word, confined in lxx to only the og and ThDan, the reviser arguably searched the wider context to single it out. That is, the reviser corrected 1:20 in view of 2:2. Once adopted, the equivalent was then restricted in Th-Dan to render only the cognate lexemes ‫ אשׁף‬and 0‫( אשׁף־‬2:2, 10, 27; 4:4[7]; 5:7, 11, 15).31 The consultation of the immediate and wider context further illuminates the mechanics of the recensional process. The reviser manipulated the base text. After all, it was his first source for locating equivalents. A new Semitic lexeme would require a new equivalent. In order to determine an appropriate one, he paused and consciously looked forward and backward into the base text. The reviser presumably was familiar with both his mt-like Vorlage and the og. Whenever he recalled similar language in the source text or in the base text, he possibly scrutinized the equivalency in those places. Once he decided upon a rendition, he attempted to maintain that equivalent elsewhere. The reviser’s use of the immediate and wider context strongly argues for a constant consultation with his base text. Consequently, it upholds the character of Th-Dan as a revision. The reviser’s consultation was not confined to only og-Dan. The data shows that he constantly engaged in synchronizing his lexical choices vis-à-vis lxx vocabulary. That is to say, in determining his equivalents, the reviser either knew or searched the wider lxx context for the main lxx equivalent(s) of a particular Semitic lexeme. Such equivalents were prioritized to substitute for og accurate equivalents. This recensional technique entails standardization. Section 3 B §9 was shaped to contrast the og’s style with Th-Dan’s standardizing tendency. The data shows that the og style displays a wide array of avant-garde vocabulary such as hapax and rare words (§§ 9.2.1–2). In addition, it favors peculiar lexical choices in the nature of unique and rare equivalents (§§9.1.1–2). In contrast, the reviser highly values established equivalencies within the lxx tradition. Therefore, his corrections can be viewed as a work of integrating standard equivalencies into in his revision. The subsequent examples suffice to review the standardization technique. 0‫“ דקק־‬to crush” was translated with ἐκκόπτω “to cut off,” “to destroy” in ogDan 2:402° (§9.1.1). The Greek word occurs about fifty times in lxx but renders √‫ דקק‬only here. The reviser replaced ἐκκόπτω with λεπτύνω “to crush,” “to grind to powder.” The latter is the standard equivalent in lxx for √‫דקק‬. Similarly, the rare og equivalent ὄχλος “crowd”—which renders once more ‫ַח ִיל‬

31

For a detailed explanation of the possible mechanical process that led the reviser to scrutinize the wider context, see ch. 3 B § 8.2 (μάγος).

426

chapter 5

“strength” in Isa 43:17—was replaced with the standard δύναμις “power,” “force” in Dan 11:10, 13, 252X (§9.1.2). Rare Greek words received a similar treatment. The og translator twice employed the hapax ἐκφωνέω “to cry out” for the frequent 0‫“ ענה־‬to answer” root in Dan 2:27, 47 (§9.2.1). Conversely, the standard ἀποκρίνομαι “to answer,” “to reply” was substituted for the hapax in Th-Dan in those instances. Likewise, the reviser eliminated the rare ἐπιστήμων “understanding” (§ 9.2.2). It occurs one more time in Sir 47:12. Instead, he used συνίημι “to understand” for 1‫ שׂכל־‬in Dan 1:4. These types of corrections show the propensity of the reviser to keep his lexical choices within the bounds of lxx tradition. He highly regarded this tradition. He revered it to the extent that, by means of his choices, he merged it into his revision. Section 3 B §10 highlighted the tendency of the reviser to employ synonymous equivalents. It is difficult to precisely ascertain his rationales for replacing certain good og renditions during the recensional process. Among the most plausible explanations, we note that the replacements may reflect more popular synonyms in the reviser’s time, his regional dialectal words, or, simply, his own taste. The tendency is visible in the way he substitutes renditions which are derived from the same lexeme (B §10.1) or from a different lexeme (B § 10.2). In both cases, the equivalents in the og and Th-Dan semantically reflect the lexemes in the source text and also function as probable synonyms within the Greek vocabulary. Two synonymous renderings stemming from the same Greek lexeme are καταπατέω (og) and συμπατέω (Th-Dan). Both carry the meaning “to trample on” and literally render semantically 0‫“ רפס־‬to trample” in Dan 7:7, 19 (B § 10.1). They are compound words of the same lexeme and, needless to say, they imply the og’s influence on Th-Dan. However, a clear-cut rationale for why the reviser slightly reworked the og lexeme cannot be determined. He also replaced good og renditions with synonyms of different lexemes. The analysis of ‫ מרר‬hithpalpel “to become furious” exemplifies this tendency (B § 10.2). The Semitic lexeme was translated in the og with θυμόω “to be angry” (8:7) and ὀργίζω “to be angry” (11:11). The reviser aimed at consistency, replacing the og renditions with the synonyms ἐξαγριαίνω (8:7) and ἀγριαίνω (11:11), meaning “to become savage,” “to be angry.” The last technique which was discussed in section 3 B § 11 regards exegesis based on remote passages. On rare occasions, the reviser seems to have engaged with remote literary units particularly when such units were recalled by Danielic passages. Th-Dan’s use of the rare equivalent ἐνδελεχισμός “continuity” in Dan 11:31; 12:11 may constitute such an example. Searching for an adequate equivalent for ‫תמיד‬, the reviser perhaps consulted the Torah cul-

summary of results and conclusions

427

tic passages to look for an equivalent. Indeed, the rare equivalency ‫—תמיד‬ ἐνδελεχισμός appears in Exod 29:38[?], 42; 30:8; Num 28:6, 23. If found convincing, this type of example may indicate the reviser’s use at times of a broad literary exegesis. The mechanical techniques highlighted in section 3 B §§ 6–11 describe the reviser’s attitudes toward the base text. He constantly referred to it for selecting his equivalents. This can be seen in the way he manipulated the first-found og renditions, partly maintained and partly revised ones, the use of immediate and wider og context, and the replacement of og equivalents with synonyms derived from the same Greek lexeme. Simultaneously, in many of these (sub-)categories, tendencies toward consistency are evident. The reviser manifests conservatism towards established lxx equivalencies. His high regard for the lxx is clearly visible in those replacements of avant-garde og words with standard equivalents and his exegesis drawn from remote passages. Lastly, the reviser exercised his prerogative to update og equivalents with synonymous ones. These corrections may inform us more about the recension’s target audience, the reviser’s milieu, or they may simply reflect his taste. In sum, section 3 B corroborates with further evidence the character of Th-Dan as a revision. 1.2.3 The Nature of Th-Dan’s Inconsistencies Section 3 C is unique among the recensional studies in the aspects addressed. It deals with inconsistencies within the broader framework of the drives that led to their formation. In our study we distinguish between pseudo-inconsistencies and inconsistencies. The former includes both inner-Greek corruptions, which occurred during the transmission history of Th-Dan’s witnesses, and Th-Dan readings that diverge from mt, which resulted from a different Vorlage. Appendix 2 was created to present a sample of the inner-Greek corruptions, while ch. 4 was designed to discuss Th-Dan variant readings. The pseudoinconsistencies create the appearance that they reflect the reviser’s interventions while, actually, they result from factors external to him (i.e., the nature of the source text, inner-Greek scribal error). Section 3 C dealt with inconsistencies. The working definition proposed in our study is that inconsistencies reflect exceptions to the reviser’s own literal recensional techniques. Methodologically, they are expected to appear no matter how systematic the revised text may be (e.g., Aquila, Kaige[-Th], etc.). In view of these observations, the goal of this section was to determine what caused Th-Dan’s reviser to sometimes deflect from his literal agenda. We identified two major causes for such inconsistencies: the influence of the og’s style on Th-Dan (3 C §12) and the problematic nature of the mt-Dan (3 C § 13).

428

chapter 5

1. The influence of the og on the reviser’s lexical choices is more extensive than is generally admitted. It goes beyond significant equivalents (e.g., hapax legomena, rare Greek words, etc.). There is evidence of contextual og elements which were taken in by Th-Dan, affecting consistency (C § 12.1). These elements regard additions, omissions, and substitutions (§§ 12.1.1–3). The presence of the marker of contrast δέ “but” in Dan 2:24, 30 typifies a linguistic addition (§12.1.1.1). Not only is the lexeme characteristic of the og (forty-seven times vis-à-vis ten times in Th-Dan), it is not employed by the reviser as a plus except in these two instances, where the two versions agree each other against mt. There are rare instances where the og’s influence on Th-Dan is reflected in shared omissions (§12.1.2.1). A case in point is the theological omission of ‫צבא‬ “army” in 8:12. In the context, in v. 10, the reviser followed the lead of the og translator to decode ‫ צבא‬as referring to heavenly bodies. Such an interpretation did not fit for v. 12. Therefore, following in the footsteps of the og translator, the reviser arguably omitted the word to circumvent the problem. Most of the exegetical elements borrowed from the og are substituted renditions. Like the additions and omissions, they may reflect linguistic, exegetical, or theological elements (§§12.1.3.1–3). Usually, we assessed such elements while discussing the common basis. Indeed, many of them exhibit the traits of significant agreements. By means of a small number of examples, we underscored their nature (e.g., linguistic, etc.), which was not addressed elsewhere in our study. In addition, the examples document that the adoption of free contextual borrowings from the og affected Th-Dan’s consistency. The rendering of ‫“ שלוה‬prosperity,” “tranquility” in 8:25b serves as a typical example for this category (§12.1.3.2). The og’s translator did not make sense of its meaning in this context. Consequently, he likely interpreted it in view of 1‫“ מרמה־‬deceit” of v. 25a. For 1‫ מרמה־‬he used ψεῦδος “lie,” “falsehood,” while δόλος “deceit” for ‫שלוה‬. The reviser corrected the unique equivalent ψεῦδος with the standard δόλος. Under the influence of the og, δόλος was further maintained for ‫שלוה‬. As a result, the reviser textually leveled ‫ שלוה‬with 1‫ מרמה־‬in v. 25, affecting consistency.32 The og’s influence on Th-Dan is not only traceable at the level of exegesis. The analysis of common Semitic words that occur multiple times reveals that the influence extends to common equivalents as well. The preservation in Th-Dan of the og’s interchange of equivalents points in this direction (3 C § 12.2). This feature was already hinted at by some examples wherein Th-Dan 32

The reviser succeeds, however, in producing a literal equivalent for ‫ שלוה‬in the two other instances where it appears in mt. As such, he uses εὐθηνία “prosperity” in Dan 11:21, 24. Here, it corrects the og conjecture ἐξάπινα “suddenly.”

summary of results and conclusions

429

reflects switches from its chosen equivalents towards the og’s last equivalents. The analysis of the interchanges between common equivalents convincingly indicated that, at times, the reviser took in the alternation of og’s equivalents. That is, the tendency of switching towards the last og equivalent for a certain Semitic lexeme is traceable in the middle of the recensional process of a certain lexeme. The translation of ‫“ ֵסֶפר‬document,” “book” exemplifies the preservation of absolute alternation of the og’s equivalents (§ 12.2.1). The lexeme appears five times and was rendered in the og with three different equivalents: the rare lxx rendition γράμμα “letter” (Dan 1:4), the rare lxx word γραμματικός “literature” (v. 17), and the main equivalent βίβλος “scroll,” “book” (9:2; 12:1, 4). Th-Dan attests the og’s interchange of equivalents in the same locations. Not only does this argue for the influence of the latter on the former, but it equally indicates that the reviser’s consultation with the base text affected his agenda of consistency in translation equivalents. Most of the examples reflect the og’s influence on Th-Dan at the level of general alternation (§12.2.2). In such cases Th-Dan displays the same interchange of equivalents for a Semitic lexeme in almost the same locations where they are attested in the og. The translation technique applied to ‫“ עמד‬to set up” reveals this influence. The root appears forty-three times. For its rendering, the og utilized ten equivalents. Four of these are main renditions which were used interchangeably (i.e., εἰμί “to be”; ἵστημι “to stand,” “to put”; ἀνθίστημι “to resist,” “to oppose”; ἀνίστημι “to arise,” “to resist,” “to arise”). Up to Dan 8:222°, the translator employed εἰμί–twice (1:4, 19); ἵστημι–seven times (1:5; 2:2; 8:3–4, 6–7, 15); ἐγείρω “to lift up”–once (8:18); and ἀναβαίνω “to go up,” “to rise up”– once (8:221°). In contrast, the reviser stereotypically used ἵστημι eleven times. However, the og introduces his fifth equivalent ἀνίστημι in 8:222°, 23 and then switches to ἵστημι in v. 25. Significantly, the reviser attests the og equivalents shift to ἀνίστημι and back to ἵστημι in these verses, arguing for the og’s interference in his lexical choices. It appears that the reviser then favored ἀνίστημι. Subsequent to vv. 222º, 23, he used it another four times (11:20, 31; 12:11°, 13). It can be further argued that, in 11:20 and 12:13, the shift toward ἀνίστημι was due to the og’s influence as well. This sort of influence demonstrates the reviser’s continuous consultation with the base text. This procedure has sometimes affected his stereotyping when he—inadvertently or not—took in the og’s interchanges of equivalents. The og’s influence on Th-Dan sometimes affected the reviser’s goal to represent the word order of the source text (§12.3.1). Most of the og transpositions were singled out by him and corrected. Presumably because of inadvertence, there were certain transpositions which entered the Th-Dan recension. Dan 1:15 presents such a case. In vv. 12, 14, the Semitic phrase ‫ ימים עשרה‬was literally ren-

430

chapter 5

dered in both the og and Th-Dan with ἡμέρας δέκα. However, the word order was reversed in v. 15 og. Though correcting other elements, the reviser inadvertently followed the og transposition. Lastly, the og’s technique of contextually rendering a problematic Semitic lexeme influenced the reviser to do the same (§12.3.2). The translation of 0‫ארע־‬ “earth” evidences this point. The lexeme occurs nineteen times. The expected equivalent γῆ “earth,” “land” was employed in the og ten times. The reviser maximizes its stereotyping, using γῆ eighteen times. The only inconsistency is found in Dan 2:391°. However, an attentive analysis reveals that the idiomatic phrase ‫“ ארעא מנך‬inferior to yours” posed problems in translation. As a result, the og here rendered contextually with ἐλαχύς “small,” “short,” “little.” The reviser seemingly accepted the og meaning but coined his own equivalent. Instead of ἐλαχύς, he employed ἥσσων “less,” “worse” with the same semantic effect. The influence of the og on Th-Dan is much broader than has usually been acknowledged. In fact, the investigation of two parallel, complete texts afforded the possibility of tracing the interference of the base text on the reviser’s lexical choices more extensively than was possible in previous recensional studies. The reviser regularly consulted the og. Certain inconsistencies in his revision represent a side effect of this procedure. Though we lack the means to accurately ascertain when an inconsistency reflects a deliberate or inadvertent process, this fact remains true: the free og style affected the reviser’s consistency norms at all levels. After all, the og constituted the reviser’s first exegetical and linguistic lens through which he came to decode the source text—grammatically and semantically. The constant engagement with it caused certain inconsistencies to find their way into his systematic revision. 2. The second major source for recensional inconsistencies regards the nature of the source text (3 C §13). At times, mt features difficult vocabulary, idioms, and syntax. In the case of difficult vocabulary, the reviser sometimes offered contextual approximations which differed from the base text. The procedure imitates the og’s technique. However, the reviser presumably considered his approximations as more precisely representing his mt-like Vorlage. In other instances, when he likely grasped the meanings of idiomatic expressions and certain syntactical features, the challenge derived from the impossibility of keeping the same register of equivalents while rendering the idioms into the target language. The reviser occasionally was alert to the meaning of a certain lexeme within a specific context. In such instances, he demonstrated contextual sensitivity, a recensional practice which is attested in Aquila’s work as well. The examples adduced in part C §13.1 reflect revising, exegetical touches which are different from the og. They manifest as additions, omissions, and

summary of results and conclusions

431

substitutions (§§13.1.1–3). The inconsistencies are surrounded by recensional corrections and the influence of the og is sometimes still detected, though the reviser used his distinct renditions. The translation of ‫“ והשלטך‬he made you ruler” in Dan 2:38 reflects a case where the reviser was required to add a linguistic element to reproduce literally the causative aspect of the Semitic verb into the target language (§13.1.1.1). At the same time, the lexical choice reveals the og’s influence. Indeed, the og translator employed a dynamic use of κυριεύειν “to rule.” Conversely, the reviser provided a literal translation through a two-forone-equivalent. His rendering καὶ κατέστησέν σε κύριον “he has established you as lord” simultaneously demonstrates recensional correction, the og’s influence, and a departure from his word-for-word technique. The example suggests that the linguistic differences between the source and target languages at times limited the reviser’s literal agenda. The reviser took recourse to exegetical omissions very rarely. And when he did, the examples underscore his linguistic limitations (§ 13.1.2.1). Consequently, coping with the problematic Persian loanword 0‫“ נדן־‬sheath” in Dan 7:15, he left it untranslated. By contrast, the og derived its meaning by etymological exegesis, assuming the demonstrative pronoun ‫“ דנה‬this.”33 Most of the reviser’s exegetical touches regard substitutions (§ 13.1.3). Prioritizing quantitative representation, it came naturally for him to give precedence to word-for-word approximations rather than to add or to omit material to/from the source text when dealing with problematic language. Dan 3:26[93] offers a case of linguistic substitution (§13.1.3.1). The source text collocates two imperatives with overlapping meaning: ‫[“ פקו ואתו‬C]ome out! Come here!” (niv).34 The og solved the problem by omitting the first verb and by adding words: ἐξέλθετε ἐκ τοῦ πυρός “come out of the fire!” Conversely, the reviser quantitatively reworked the base text. He maintained ἐξέρχομαι for 0‫ נפק־‬in conformity with his stereotyped lexical choices. However, the reviser employed δεῦτε instead of its stereotyped ἔρχομαι for 0‫אתה־‬. This constitutes the Th-Dan’s only inconsistency in rendering 0‫אתה־‬. The reviser most likely employed δεῦτε in order to avoid an artificial clustering next to each other of the verbs ἐξέρχομαι and ἔρχομαι, each in imperative form. There are a limited number of exegetical substitutions (§ 13.1.3.2) which gave rise to inconsistencies. They mainly relate to instances where the reviser has shown contextual sensitivity. On rare occasions, such substitutions affected stereotyping or obscure the fact that for several equivalents in the target lan33 34

In addition, the og translator omitted another word within the surrounding context, i.e., 0‫“ גו־‬midst.” The reviser supplemented this minus. njps uses only the phrasal verb “come out!”

432

chapter 5

guage there is only a single Semitic lexeme in the source text. In general, they reflect accurate contextual equivalents that offer rare glimpses into the reviser’s exegetical concerns. For instance, the translation analysis of 0‫פלח־‬ “to serve” indicates that the reviser accepted and consistently maintained the og’s equivalent λατρεύω “to serve,” “to worship” in Daniel 3. The equivalent fits the story’s plot, which is concerned with the test of worship for the three young Jews. However, in Daniel 7, the reviser changed to δουλεύω “to serve as a slave” (vv. 14, 27). The equivalent better fits the royalty and dominion language evoked by the new context. By contrast, the og freely used both renditions: λατρεύω in v. 14 and δουλεύω in v. 27. A similar exegetical change underlines the shift from ἰσχύς “strength” and ἰσχυρός “strong” to the equivalent δύναμις “(military) force” for 0‫“ חיל־‬strength,” “might” in 4:32[35]. The rationale for this switch is related to the reviser’s intent to distinguish between human and heavenly forces. Verse 32[35] is the only instance when 0‫ חיל־‬alludes to the “host of heaven.” The limited number of examples identified in our study suggest that the reviser had a minimal interest in introducing contextual exegetical elements by means of additions, omissions, and substitutions. Unique theological elements are completely absent from his text. In this respect, more can be learned from the og elements that the reviser accepts than from the unique elements he embeds. Of the limited number of unique elements, many concern linguistic and exegetical elements. Certain examples culled in linguistic categories indicate that, occasionally, the reviser was confronted with Semitic lexemes that he didn’t precisely understand. He made recourse to contextual approximation, following in the footsteps of the og translator. His unique conjectures argue that the reviser was dissatisfied with the renderings found in the base text. He seemingly believed the ones coined independently were superior. The other linguistic examples reveal that the reviser correctly decoded the Semitic lexemes. However, the challenge derived from the linguistic requirements of the target language. In such cases, the impossibility of applying his strict recensional rules resulted in recensional inconsistencies. Most of Th-Dan’s unique exegetical elements are substitutions. There are no omitted exegetical elements. Rarely, the reviser added some. When he did, the influence of the og’s exegesis is still discernable. The substituted exegetical elements indicate that the reviser sometimes manifested contextual sensitivity. Such touches led to a differentiation between types of actions and figures. In the other cases, by means of different equivalents for the same Semitic lexeme, he showed an interest in creating exegetical links. Section C §13.1 investigated contextual exegesis in Th-Dan’s text within the framework of a translation-revision theory. The data affirm such a conclusion,

summary of results and conclusions

433

corroborating both the presence of shared contextual elements between the og and Th-Dan and Th-Dan’s unique elements. This demonstrably provides the best explanation for (1) the overwhelming number of instances where the reviser eliminated, supplemented or substituted elements from his base text to bring it correspond word-for-word to the source text, and (2) the minimal number of unique exegetical elements in Th-Dan as compared to the relatively high number of exegetical elements shared by the two texts. Besides contextual exegesis, the second factor related to the nature of the source text that obstructed the reviser’s consistency agenda concerns the presence of synonymous Semitic lexemes (C §13.2). These are words with overlapping meaning. The reviser properly understood such terms. However, the challenge arose from limitations related to the Greek register of equivalents. As a result, the reviser was obliged to employ one equivalent for multiple Semitic lexemes. The procedure led to textual leveling in the target language and it went against his practice of restricting equivalents. The use of δόξα “glory” exposes this type of limitation. The equivalent rendered in the og six lexemes: 0‫יקר־‬ “honor”; 0‫“ זיו־‬countenance”; ‫“ הדר‬majesty”; 1‫“ הוד־‬splendor”; ‫“ כבוד‬glory”; and ‫“ גורל‬lot.” In contrast, the reviser restricted its use to only three: the cognates 0‫הדר־‬/‫“ הדר‬majesty”; 1‫“ הוד־‬splendor”; and ‫“ כבוד‬glory.” All three Semitic lexemes are synonymous. In addition, the analysis of δόξα within the lxx shows that it constitutes the stereotyped rendition of ‫ כבוד‬and the main equivalent for both ‫ הדר‬and 1‫הוד־‬. Not being able to apply his restricting equivalents principle, the reviser only applied standardization. This example typifies the challenge posed by synonymous Semitic lexemes. However, though it may technically be assessed as inconsistency, it rather underscores the limitations involved during the recensional process.

2

Insights on Th-Dan’s Vorlage

Our study included in its scope another research area wherein it broke new ground, namely, the nature of Th-Dan’s Vorlage. The enterprise was warranted by two factors. First, arguing for a translation-revision theory methodologically required an assessment of what type of Semitic text stood in front of the reviser. Although working with the default assumption that Th-Dan’s underlying text resembled mt, we were alert to their differences as a source of inconsistencies during the recensional process. The reviser worked to transform the base text according to his Semitic text. Since the latter did not always align quantitatively and qualitatively with the base text, in such instances, the reviser followed his source text, which sometimes differed from mt. This type of tex-

434

chapter 5

tual circumstances explains why, on some occasions, Th-Dan departs from mt. Consequently, the examples culled in ch. 4 underscore the reviser’s source text as an origin for inconsistencies. The second determining factor for including Th-Dan’s Vorlage within the scope of this analysis regards the absence of a systematic study of this kind. The only statements come from Montgomery and they are sporadic and unconnected. Further, influenced by the textual models of his day, he problematically charged Th-Dan with omitting information and worked with a theory which posits that Th-Dan was likely produced from oral Greek traditions.35 Ultimately, he wasn’t successful in determining the translation-revision relationship between the og and Th-Dan. This research lacuna, coupled with such off-the-mark statements, underscored the need for this inquiry. The investigation into the differences between Th-Dan and mt benefited from working with a provisional model regarding the relationship between ThDan and the og: Th-Dan reflects a systematic, literal revision whose goal was to correct the og quantitatively and qualitatively according to its underlying Semitic text. There are several controlling principles which derive from this model. One of them regards the assessment of the minuses. In view of the reviser’s norm to systematically supplement omissions from the base text,36 it is methodologically sound to treat Th-Dan’s minuses against mt as stemming from its Vorlage. Likewise, Th-Dan’s pluses and differences in words— especially when they reflect scribal errors or editorial interventions in mt— show the same motivation. Notwithstanding these controls, the examples adduced in ch. 4 were individually analyzed on their own terms. The data collected allow for conclusions regarding the nature of Th-Dan’s Vorlage vis-à-vis mt. Several of Th-Dan’s minuses, pluses, and differences in words over against mt point to the secondary nature of the latter. Regarding minuses (4 §1.1), mt features a harmonized text while Th-Dan’s Vorlage had a shorter one. The most telling examples are reflected in the recurring minuses of the phrases ‫“ ענה … ואמר‬in reply … he said” (§ 1.1.1) and ‫“ גבריא אלך‬these men” (§1.1.2). These formulae invited harmonization. In both cases, the reviser proved his competence to offer literal renderings. In view of his propensity toward literalism, the instances of complete minuses and partial agreement between mt and Th-Dan in rendering these formulae are intriguing. The most natural, compelling explanation is that mt’s readings evolved from shorter to

35 36

In his words, the content of what is now called Th-Dan was “possessed by him [its author] memoriter.” Montgomery, Daniel, 50. Ch. 3 A § 2.2.

summary of results and conclusions

435

longer, resulting in a harmonistic text. That is, in these instances Th-Dan’s Vorlage preserved a shorter, proto-mt form from which the current mt readings developed. The individual minuses point in the same direction (4 § 1.2). ‫ מלכין‬in 2:21 might have been added in order to restructure the number of words within a stich or because of the influence of the same word in the same verse or both. mt also secondarily developed the reading ‫ ממללה חזה הוית‬presumably from the original ‫ ממללה הות‬in 7:11. The expansion was likely developed as a harmonization with the visionary formula ‫חזה הוית‬. mt’s addition of the conjugated preposition ‫ עלי‬in 10:8 in the phrase ‫ והודי נהפך עלי‬likely reflects harmonization in view of the phrase ‫ נהפכו צירי עלי‬in 10:16. In 8:3, the addition of ‫ והקרנים‬in mt likely arose as a dittography. In three out of these four examples for which the scrolls attest readings, they side with mt. All these individual minuses support the view that mt (together with 4QDana-c) underwent secondary reworking. Beside harmonization, the analysis of Th-Dan’s minuses reveals that, at times, mt was expanded with exegetical elements. This appears to be the case in Dan 3:22–23 (§1.1.2.1). The phrase ‫ גבריא אלך‬here collocates twice in mt. The material it brackets is lacking in Th-Dan and was problematically assessed as haplography in Th-Dan’s Vorlage. Not only does the textual data stand against such a solution, the embellishing nature of the mt plus creates an internal contradiction: the executioners were instantly killed while approaching the flames of the blazing fire while the king was not. A similar exegetical touch regards the systematic addition of the phrases ‫(“ ואראה בחזון‬and) I saw in the vision” and ‫“ ויהי בראתי‬while I was seeing” in 8:2 (§1.1.3). By their means, a scribe negated the possibility that the prophet was physically “in the fortress of Shushan, in the province of Elam” or “beside the Ulai River.” In both examples the fragmentary scrolls align with mt. The analysis of Th-Dan’s pluses over against mt point to a similar relation (4 §2). The pluses reflect omissions in mt, most likely originating from scribal errors. Dan 5:17 presents such a case. Th-Dan attests a longer reading than mt: καὶ τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς οἰκίας σου “the present of you house”—‫“ ונבזביתך‬and your present.” The reviser’s Vorlage demonstrably attested the reading ‫נבזבת ביתך‬. Because of haplography of the consonants ‫ בת‬and ‫בית‬, the reading developed into the mt form. Additional support for this interpretation of the data is garnered from the attestation of ‫ נבזבה‬in 2:6, which was translated in Th-Dan with δωρεά as well. These facts argue that the reviser came across ‫ נבזבה‬in both instances, with the clarification that in 5:17 the word appeared in construct state with ‫ביתך‬. 4QDana reads with mt. Other examples of this type also lead to the conclusion that the reviser’s Vorlage preserved readings closer to the putative original.

436

chapter 5

Differences between mt and Th-Dan’s Vorlage also resulted from interchanges of consonants and other scribal processes (4 § 3). For instance, the phrase ‫“ אלי‬to me” in Dan 8:14 probably developed from the form ‫“ אלו‬to him,” reflected in og- and Th-Dan. The context favors the latter reading with the literary effect of coherence: the heavenly being in v. 14 replies to the angel that queries in v. 13, i.e., “to him,” and not to the presumed author of the vision, i.e., “to me.” The analysis of the minuses, pluses, and differences in words in the aforementioned instances warrants the conclusion that Th-Dan’s underlying Semitic text predates mt. At times, Th-Dan’s readings also predate the Qumran scrolls (i.e., 1QDanb, 4QDana, 4QDanb, 4QDanc, 4QDand) in their agreements with mt against Th-Dan. The data is not complete, but most of the examples of agreement between mt-Dan and the scrolls analyzed in this study show recurring and occasional tendencies in mt. mt also contains exegetical scribal touches. Possibly an exhaustive study of the differences between Th-Dan and mt would lead to even more cases that substantiate such tendencies in mt.37 We also identified traces of secondary elements in Th-Dan, i.e., Dan 10:1; 11:1; 12:7.38 In this respect, Dan 11:1 features a complex case. The original probably was ‫ובשׁנת אחת לכורשׁ ִﬠָמּ ִדי למחזק ולמעוז לי‬. By means of the addition of ‫ואני‬, a different vocalization ‫ ָﬠְמ ִדי‬instead of ‫ִﬠָמּ ִדי‬, and an interchange ‫לי‬/‫לו‬, the reading developed into ‫ואני בשׁנת אחת לכורשׁ ָﬠְמ ִדי למחזק ולמעוז לו‬. This was presumably the text underlying Th-Dan. mt underwent even further development: the name ‫ דריוש‬replaced ‫כורשׁ‬. To that name ‫ המדי‬was attached. The mt’s scribal touches were likely meant to exegetically connect 9:1 with 11:1. Such secondary elements indicate that, from a certain point on, Th-Dan’s Vorlage and mt parted ways and were independently transmitted. mt seemingly arrived in the hands of Palestinian Jewish scribes. This would probably explain its recurring agreements with the Danielic Qumran scrolls. It would also account for the continuous inner-scribal interventions to harmonize, update, and edit the text in accordance with the scribal practices and exegesis of the day.

37

38

These remarks on the nature of Th-Dan’s Vorlage are mainly derived from the analysis of the most important differences in minuses and pluses between mt and Th-Dan. For their identification, we relied on the catss database. To conserve space, we included only a limited number of cases. We will comprehensively deal with this subject in a future study. See ch. 4 §§ 1.2 (Dan 10:1); 1.3 (Dan 11:1; 12:7).

summary of results and conclusions

3

437

Historical Aspects of Th-Dan’s Revision

The conclusions that we reached above offer insights into solving a historical conundrum regarding the Greek versions of Daniel: the replacement of og-Dan with Th-Dan in the history of the textual transmission. The problem becomes even more intriguing once we consider the shift of attitudes towards Th-Dan. The first patristic comments reveal hostile charges against that version (e.g., Irenaeus).39 Two centuries later, not only is Th-Dan cleared of such charges (e.g., Jerome),40 but it has even garnered a favorable appreciation among the church fathers, resulting in Th-Dan completely supplanting the og. We suggest that, among other factors, the character of Th-Dan as a literal revision may have been instrumental in the decision to replace the og with ThDan. The shift towards Theodotion’s acceptance represented a complex process which most likely started with Origen’s groundbreaking Hexapla.41 Its influence was soon spread through the forms of its excerpts in the Tetrapla (cols. 3, 4, 5, and 6) and the Hexaplaric recension (col. 5). Once these copies were circulating among Christians, they raised awareness among learned individuals about the problems posed by the og translation when compared with the Hebrew text. For the large Greek speaking communities, Origen’s work facilitated, for the first time, access to the intricate problems of textual differences already pinpointed by Jewish apologists.42 A further influence on the positive reception of the Hexaplaric recension was Origen’s notorious fame as a scholar. Despite some heretical charges against his views,43 he cherished the protection and support of the bishops of

39 40 41 42

43

Ch. 1 § 1.1.1. Ch. 1 § 1.1.5. Ch. 1 § 1.1.2. In his reply to Augustine, Jerome refers to the widespread acceptance of Origen’s recension in the “libraries of the Churches.” Jerome notes: “Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one Ms. here and there which has not these interpolations.” Jerome, Letter to Augustine 75.5.19 (npnf1 1:341). Attested controversies around Origen’s views on his eschatology and the allegorical approach of expounding Scriptures come from Methodius of Olympus; Eustathius of Antioch disputed Origen’s exposition on 1 Samuel 28 in which he claims that the deceased have freedom of will. Origen answered to many charges during his lifetime. In later times, Pamphilus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine defended certain views and works of Origen. On Origenic controversies, see further Hermann-Josef Vogt, “Origen,” decl, 450–451.

438

chapter 5

Palestine, and others as well,44 a fact that served as a catalyst for the spread and acceptance of his recension of the og in the surrounding area45 and beyond.46 This new awareness of the problems posed by the og ostensibly matured the views of early Christian scholars regarding their texts. In this respect, two trends are apparent in the patristic literature. On the one hand, the very act of correcting the og towards the Hebrew indirectly assumed the referential status of the latter.47 While the flaws exhibited by the og translation were gradually acknowledged,48 the Hebrew text gained greater authority. This development is also reflected in the work of Jerome as translator. He revised certain books of the Vetus Latina at the beginning of his career, relying on Origen’s Hexaplaric

44

45

46

47

48

After commenting on the Origen’s voluminous literary legacy, Jerome offers valuable information of his acceptance by different bishops: “He [Origen] stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him not (…) because of the novelty of heterodoxy of his doctrines, but because men could not tolerate the incomparable eloquence and knowledge which, when once he opened his lips, made others seem dumb.” Jerome, Letter to Paula 33 (npnf2 6:46). Consequently, describing the geographical distribution of the current versions in the fourth century, Jerome notes that the Hexaplaric recension was used in Palestine: “Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis ueque ad Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilius vulgaverunt; totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.” Praefatio Hieronymi in librum Paralipomenon (pl 28:1324b–1325a). This preface is also quoted by Jerome in Apologia adversus libros Rufini (pl 23:450d–451a). Jerome’s letters evidence that Origen’s corrections were known to Western readers as well, presumably by means of a form of Latin Scriptures. For instance, see the reproof against those who oppose his practice of copying the obeli and asterisks in his translated Latin books but still keeping them in their extant translations: “My detractors must therefore learn either to receive altogether what they have in part admitted, or they must erase my translation and at the same time their own asterisks.” Jerome, Preface to Job (npnf2 3:491). In this respect, Jerome asserts that by the labor of Origen to amend the Old Greek with obeli and asterisks he “showed that what he added was deficient in the Older version.” Jerome, Preface to Job (npnf2 3:491). In the same Preface, Jerome describes his work as a translator comparable “to recover what is lost, to correct what is corrupt, and to disclose in pure and faithful language the mysteries of the Church.” Ibid., 492. For instance, the supplemented chunks of texts marked with asterisks by Origen came to be perceived as indicators of the corrupt state of the Septuagint. Referring to the aspect of filling the lacunae of Old Greek with Theodotionic text, Jerome contends that Origen’s very practice was “showing that what he added was deficient in the older version.” Jerome, Preface to Job (npnf2 6:491–492). Furthermore, referring to the pluses in the Old Greek marked with obeli, Basil explains that “in accurate copies these words [‘and it was so’ (Gen 1:9)] are marked with an obelus, which is the sign of rejection.” Basil, Hexaemeron 4.5 (npnf2 8:74).

summary of results and conclusions

439

recension. In the last part of his career, however, he turned to the hebraica veritas to accomplish his work, the Vulgata.49 On the other hand, the Christian churches’ acceptance and use of the Tetrapla and/or the Hexaplaric recension paved the way for a more positive attitude towards the Jewish versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.50 Although these differed from the og in particular readings, they did quantitatively reproduce the Hebrew text in a more precise fashion. The readings that

49

50

Jerome’s work as a Hebrew Scripture translator shows a growth in his understanding of the textual problems in three stages. The first stage relates to Jerome’s revision of the Psalter undertaken in Rome (ca. 382–385), “in accordance with Septuagint version” (Preface to Psalms [npnf2 6:494]). This Psalter remains known as the Roman Psalter. The second stage concerns his translational activity in Bethlehem (ca. 387–389). Though in this period Jerome has continued rendering from Septuagint, he included in the text of his Latin translations the Hexaplaric marks, obeli and asterisks, in order to signal the differences between the Hebrew and Septuagint texts. Though he translated all Hebrew Scriptures from the Septuagint, only a few books survived such as Chronicles, Job, Books of Solomon, Judith and Tobit, and Psalms. The new edition of Psalms, which reflected the Hexaplaric notation, became known as Gallican Psalter (cf. ibid.). The third phase refers to Jerome’s translated books directly from Hebrew in Bethlehem (ca. 390–404). His translational work covered all Hebrew Scriptures and together with the translation from Greek of the New Testament formed the Vulgate, superseding Vetus Latina in the use of the church. See W.H. Fremantle’s introductory notes to Jerome’s Prefaces (npnf2 6:483, 487–488, 494). The confusion resulted from having duplicate translations of the same books induced Augustine to inquire for an answer from Jerome. The latter’s reply offers important insights about his translational objectives: “In another letter you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version, I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words.” Jerome, Letter to Augustine 75.5.19 (npnf1 1:341). On Jerome’s use of hebraica veritas, see further Paul B. Decock, “Jerome’s Turn to Hebraica Veritas and His Rejection of the Traditional View of the Septuagint,” Neot 42 (2008): 205–222. Though it is not clear whether he refers to the Tetrapla or the Hexaplaric recension (which also contained readings of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), Jerome points to the situation that they are accepted and read in the Churches: “But if, since the version of the Seventy was published, and even now, when the Gospel of Christ is beaming forth, the Jewish Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, judaising heretics, have been welcomed amongst the Greeks—heretics, who, by their deceitful translation, have concealed many mysteries of salvation, and yet, in the Hexapla are found in the Churches and are expounded by churchmen (…).” Jerome, Preface to Job (npnf2 3:491–492).

440

chapter 5

Origen had collated mainly from Theodotion51 in order to fill in the lacunae of the og in his Hexapla most probably elevated Theodotion’s status over the others, leading to its positive appreciation. Therefore, Origen’s decision to prioritize Theodotion when filling in the og’s long minuses not only represented the most natural choice,52 but also shaped a positive attitude towards it in Christian circles. In the case of the book of Daniel, two further factors might have set the stage for Theodotion’s version to completely supplant the og. The first is the precedent of Origen himself. Jerome notes that in Origen’s Stromata “he [Origen] is discussing the text from this point on [from Dan 4:6] in the prophecy of Daniel, not as it appears in the Septuagint, which greatly differs from the Hebrew original, but rather as it appears in Theodotion’s edition.”53 Second, it appears that a sort of tradition emerged about the Theodotionic text that it represents a revision rather than a de novo translation. For instance, Epiphanius’s record that “He published many things in agreement with the seventy-two, for he derived many (peculiar) practices from the translational habit(s) of the seventy-two,”54 suggests that important translational techniques and/or shared readings between Theodotion and the og were noticed. On the other hand, Theodotion’s different readings over against the og were apparently valued not so much as alterations but rather as improvements of the latter towards the Hebrew text.55 Once again the decision of the church fathers to use Theodotion in Daniel supports this claim. The patristic literature provides ample evidence that the prophecies contained in this book were interpreted 51

52

53 54 55

Though Origen also relied on Aquila and Symmachus to fill missing readings from Old Greek, it seems that a sort of tradition emerged, attributing this function mainly to Theodotion. Jerome, Letter to Augustine 75.5.19 (npnf1 1:341). Probably, this overall characterization of Theodotion was influenced by its major role in filling longer minuses in the og of Isaiah, Job, and Jeremiah. A similar opinion is expressed by Horne when he writes that “Origen, perhaps for the sake of uniformity, supplied the additions inserted in the Hexapla chiefly from this Version [Theodotion].” Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 6th rev. and enl. ed., vol. 2 (London: Cadell, 1828), 54. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 48. Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, 33. Jerome offers a useful explanation of what he intended to convey by his Preface to Daniel, while he replies to the charges of Rufinus: “It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?” Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (npnf2 3:516–517).

summary of results and conclusions

441

with reference to Jesus. This being the case, it stands to reason that the church’s decision involved a scrutiny of Theodotion’s version in this book. Particularly, it had to be determined whether or not key prophetical passages had been altered. This concern is precisely what a comparison of the extant textual data in Dan 9:21–27 and 8:9–14 shows. That is to say that in these particular passages Theodotion is primarily dependent on the og, while the differences are meant to bring the text closer towards the Hebrew original.56 As such, the dependence of Theodotion on the og in key passages such as Dan 8:9–14 and 9:21– 27 along with its feature of adhering quantitatively to the Hebrew text, both retaining when possible and correcting the og readings, may have commended Theodotion to the church fathers. This shift of perception is discernible in Jerome’s writings by the fact that although he demonstrably knew the previous traditions of Irenaeus and Epiphanius about Theodotion as a Jewish convert, he tends to Christianize him. As such, it is difficult to decide whether Jerome considered Theodotion a proselyte or only a “judaizer.”57 Another historical question requires an answer: Why is the phenomenon of Theodotion replacing the og confined to the book of Daniel? Though a convenient alternative is to maintain with Jerome that this was due mainly to the great disparities between the og and the Hebrew text,58 we rather contend that the weight of the argument points to a different explanation. The argument based on great disparities is mitigated by the fact that the Septuagint books 56

57

58

The comparison between the og and Th-Dan led Olariu to conclude that passages such as Dan 8:9–14 and 9:21–27 cluster the most significant readings. “Quest for the Common Basis,” 120 (nn. 8 and 9), 136–137. Writing against Rufinus (ca. 402), Jerome characterizes Theodotion as a “judaizer”: “Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer [judaizantem], and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.” Apologia adversus libros Rufini (pl 23:455b–c); English trans., Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (npnf2 3:517) This observation accords well with Jerome’s silence on the religious appurtenance of Theodotion when commenting on his floruit in Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (npnf2 3:373–374). A similar passage (though mistranslated) is found in Jerome’s Preface to Job (ca. 392): “(…) the Jewish Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, judaising heretics, have been welcomed amongst the Greeks—heretics [emphasize mine], who, by their deceitful translation (…).” However, in its Latin original [Praefatio S. Hieronymi in librum Job (pl 28:1079a–1084a)], not only is the italicized term heretics lacking, but also the adjective “Judaeus” (lat.) is nom. sing., defining only Aquila. As for Theodotion and Symmachus, they are referred to as “judaizantes haeretici” (lat.), in accord with the quotation reproduced above in this note. To my knowledge, there is only one reference in Jerome’s literature that appears to support a Jewish affiliation of Theodotion: Letter to Augustine 75.5.19 (npnf1 1:341). Eusebii Hieronymi, Praefatio Hieronymi in Danielem prophetam (pl 28:1291b); Eng. trans., Jerome of Stridon, Preface to Daniel (npnf2 6:492).

442

chapter 5

Job and Jeremiah display even greater differences over against the Hebrew text than Daniel, and yet they were not replaced by Theodotion. The disparities of both of these books with the Hebrew texts were recognized even in the patristic period, but they were retained.59 In order arrive at a more accurate explanation we must pinpoint from the outset the distinguishing standpoint maintained by the church fathers about the book of Daniel. The patristic sources document an interpretative tradition, shared by the Christian writers of the first centuries, that affirmed both the prophetic character and messianic overtones of the book.60 Clues to this strong tradition are discernible in the ongoing polemics between Christian and Jewish apologists and between Christian and heathen thinkers (and others), who, by various rationales, downgraded to a lesser or greater extent the book’s prophetic character. While the Jewish group seemingly pointed to both the textual differences between their copies and those of the church and to the different placement of the book within the Hebrew canon,61 the heathen Neoplatonist Porphyry refuted the authenticity of Danielic oracles on philosophical grounds.62 The polemics around the former claims generated Origen’s monu59

60

61

62

For a discussion of the differences between the og and the Hebrew text in the books of Job and Jeremiah, see Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus (anf 4:386–387). According to Jerome, similar objections to those of Africanus are raised by Jews against the story of Susanna, the Hymn of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon. See Jerome of Stridon, Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (npnf2 3:517) and Preface to Daniel (npnf2 6:493). It could hardly be coincidental that the earliest extant Christian commentary on the Hebrew Bible pertains to the book of Daniel. Commenting on the Theodotionic version of Daniel, in his Commentarium in Danielem, Hippolytus (ca. 170–236) applies some of the prophecies to Jesus, attesting the special status hold by this book among Christians. Hippolytus of Rome, Commentaire sur Daniel, ed. M. Lefèvre and G. Bardy, sc 14 (Paris: Cerf, 1947). For English trans., see Hippolytus, Fragments from Commentaries: Daniel (anf 5:177–194) and Thomas Coffman Schmidt, Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel (North Charleston, SC: Schmidt, 2010). The relegation of Daniel to the Writings in the Hebrew canon has attracted the response of Theodoret (ca. 393–460). As Hill has rightly observed, the urgency that stemmed from Jewish-Christian polemics was the major impetus for Theodoret not only to compose his commentary but also to antedate those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. English trans. Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Daniel, trans. with an introduction and notes by Robert C. Hill, wgrw 7 (Atlanta: sbl, 2006), xviii–xix, 5 (n. 7). For the Greek edition, see Theodoreti, Commentarius in visiones Danielis prophetae (pg 81:1256c–1545a). Porphyry (ca. 232–303) was raised at Tyre and afterwards travelled to Syria, Palestine, and Alexandria, studying the popular religious systems of these regions and finally adopting an attitude of skepticism towards them. In his writing, Porphyry attacked alleged problems in the books of the New and Old Testaments (odcc, s.v. “Porphyry”). Regarding Daniel, he is the first that raised doubts regarding the traditional date of the book, suggesting

summary of results and conclusions

443

mental work, the Hexapla.63 The latter allegations attracted the answer of various apologists such as Methodius of Olympus (ca. 311), Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–340), and Apollinarius of Laodicea (ca. 310–390).64 Consequently, we suggest that the decision to replace the og with Theodotion only in the book of Daniel accords well with both the high prophetical status ascribed to this book within the Christian circles,65 and the necessity of the church to have, as much as possible, a text free of textual discrepancies with the Hebrew text for apologetic reasons. This explanation further accords with Jerome’s comments on the backdrop for this change. According to him, the decision was taken by the knowledgeable educators, “the teachers of the Church,” and among the

63 64

65

instead a Maccabean milieu. P. Casey, “Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel,” jts 27 (1976): 15–33. The apologetic tradition of referring to Daniel’s prophecies in dialogs with pagans is further reflected in Augustine’s writings: “For it is from prophecy that we convince gainsaying pagans. Who is Christ? says the pagan. To whom we reply, He from the prophets foretold. What prophets? asks he. We quote Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, and other holy prophets: we tell him that they came long before Christ, by what length of time they preceded His coming.” Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of St. John 35:7 (npnf1 7:206). For the significance of Origen’s Hexapla, see ch. 1 § 1.1.2. The fact that Porphyry’s allegations have been answered in three volumes by Eusebius, in a book of considerable size by Apollinarius, and partially by Methodius, points to the great impact of this hostile work. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 15. Moreover, in answering Rufinus, besides mentioning Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius as defenders of the authenticity of Daniel’s prophecies, Jerome further announces his intention of writing “not a Preface but a book” in order to refute Porphyry’s alleged charges against Daniel. Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (npnf2 3:517). Indication of a tradition of pre-eminence of Daniel over other prophetical books is recorded in Jerome’s prologue to his commentary: “(…) I wish to stress in my preface this fact, that none of the prophets has so clearly spoken concerning Christ as has this prophet Daniel. For not only did he assert that He would come, a prediction common to the other prophets as well, but also he set forth the very time at which He would come.” Praefatio S. Hieronymi in Commentariorum in Danielem prophetam (pl 25:493b); Eng. trans., Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 15. This precedence, based on similar grounds, is also found in Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Daniel, 6–7. However, this tradition of pre-eminence originated most likely in Jewish circles and was later adopted and continued by Christian writers. For instance, Josephus regards Daniel as “the greatest of the prophets” (Josephus, Ant. 10.266 [trans. by Whiston, Works of Josephus]) and records a tradition that Daniel procured “the opinion of [a sort of] divinity for himself, among the multitude” (Ant. 10.268). Regarding his visions, Josephus writes the following: “[…] for the several books that he wrote and left behind him are still read by us till this time; and from them we believe that Daniel conversed with God; for he did not only prophecy of future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time of their accomplishment […].” Ant. 10.267. Consequently, we suggest that Josephus’s comments fit into the continuum of a Jewish tradition, which is supported by the high status of the book of Daniel in Qumran and nt literature.

444

chapter 5

advantages obtained by reading Daniel in the version of Theodotion is that “it agrees with the Hebrew as well as with the other translators.”66 Other historical issues associated with the Theodotionic problem go beyond the limits of this study. They await fresh, in-depth investigations. Presumably, the most intriguing questions arise from the many (textual) entities associated with Theodotion: Proto-Th, Kaige-Th, Th-Dan, and the recension attributed to historical Theodotion. What type of relationships accurately describe the association that exists among them? The various, often-confused opinions attested in the scholarly literature are indicative of the need for further research (ch. 1 § 1.4).67 66 67

Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 48. The textual questions regarding Th-Dan’s Additions are intriguing as well: Are they revisions of the og’s Additions? Do they come from a different hand? Such questions require further attention. We will turn to these questions and the historical ones in future studies.

appendix 1

Proto-Th and Th-Dan: A Comparative Synopsys

Criterion

Proto-Th

Th-Dan

Theodotion (Nestle remarks about his Appellation 1. Emphasizing sequence: “prename as having “the same meaning as Theodotion” (Wevers, “Septuagint,” that of the Targumist Jonathan”1) 275; Ziegler, 61–62; Charles 1929, lxix); “‘Theodotion’ before Theodotion” (Driver, xcix–c [n. 3]; Schürer 1898, 324); “Ur-Theodotion” (Montgomery, 50); “lost original” (Thackeray 1921, 26) 2. Emphasizing status: “venerable version” (Gwynn, 977); “true and proper lxx” (Gwynn, 978) 3. Emphasizing style: “stricter Alexandrian version” (Swete, 49); “faithful translation” (Salmon, 604) 4. Emphasizing preservation: “lost version” (Thackeray 1921, 26) Attribution

Anonymous version (Thackeray)

Historical Theodotion as recorded in Christian sources: 1. Christian convert to Judaism (passim) 2. Jewish convert to Christianism (Ottley, 39)

Provenance

1. Alexandria, Egypt (Swete, 49) 2. Palestine (Cornill, 518) 3. Asia Minor (Thackeray 1921, 27–28)

Ephesus, Asia Minor

1 Eberhard Nestle, “Septuagint,” DBib 4:437–454 (453).

© Daniel Olariu, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004527881_007

446

appendix 1

(cont.)

Criterion

Proto-Th

Th-Dan

Date

1. Pre-Christian times (Swete; Montgomery, 50) 1.1 Predating lxx (Gwynn, 977) 1.2 Postdating lxx (Bludau, 21–24; Schürer 1898, 322; Charles 1921, xxix; Charles 1929, cxvii [50b.c.]; Salmon, 608) 2. Christian times (Credner, 274)

Christian document of the 2nd century ce (ca. 150–180): 1. Ca. 180ce (Gwynn, 973; Ottley, 39; Redpath, 866) 2. Ca. 160ce (Charles 1921, xxvii; Charles, 1929, lxix; Montgomery, 47) 3. Predecessor of Aquila (Schürer 1886, 174; Schürer, 1898, 324; Montgomery, 47)

Character

1. Independent translation (Gwynn, 976; 1. Revision: 1.1 (Slight) revision of Proto-Th Bludau, 22; Swete, 48; Thackeray 1921, (Gwynn, 977;2 Bludau, 23–24; Swete, 25; Kahle, 169; Pfeiffer, 124; Kenyon, x; 48–49; Kahle, 169; Salmon, 603) Ziegler, 61–62; Redpath, 866; Ottley, 40) 1.2 (Thorough) revision of lxx 2. Revision of the lxx (Credner, 274; (Rahlfs, xxvii; Schürer 1886, 173; Salmon, 602–603, 606–607; Schürer Schürer 1898, 322; Redpath, 866; Tor1898, 324; Cornill, 518; Driver, xcix–c rey 1908, 613) [n. 3]; Charles 1921, xxix) 1.3 Completing the unfinished Proto3. Oral Targum (Montgomery, 50) Th revision (Schürer 1898, 324; Driver, xcix–c [n. 3]) 1.4 Undecided whether Theodotion based his revision on lxx or ProtoTh (Ottley, 40) 2. Incorporated Proto-Th text in Theodotion’s version (Thackeray 1921, 28; Kenyon, x4)

2 John Gwynn: “little more than a recension of their [lxx] version.” “Theodotion,” 4:973. 3 Charles Cutler Torrey, “The Apparatus for the Textual Criticism of Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper, ed. Robert Francis Harper, Francis Brown, and George Foot Moore, vol. 2 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1908), 53–112. See also by the same author “The Story of the Three Youths,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 23.3 (1907): 177–201. 4 Discussing the relationship between Proto-Th and Theodotion’s version, Kenyon observes that “Theodotion took over, with or without revision, an earlier translation, which has otherwise disappeared except in these few quotations.” Kenyon, Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, x.

proto-th and th-dan: a comparative synopsys

447

(cont.)

Criterion

Proto-Th

Th-Dan

Setting (the circumstances of the text’s production)

1. Correcting the free translation of the Old Greek (Salmon, 603–604) 2. Finishing the partly completed Alexandrian translation (Thackeray 1921, 28)

1. Reaction against Aquila’s barbarisms (Cornill, 517; Soderlund, 4045) 2. Jewish “polemic weapon” in JewishChristian dialogues (Schürer 1898, 318) 3. Desire for a more faithful version than lxx (Driver, xcix)

Extent

1. Proto-Th 1.1 Identical with “Ur-Lucian” (Cornill, 522–523; Kahle, 156) 1.2 Identical with 2Kgs 11:2–3Kgs 2:11 and 3Kgs 22:1–4Kgs 25:30 (Thackeray 1921, 25) 2. One and the same translator as that of 1Esdras (Gwynn, 977 [n. p]; Salmon, 603–604; Swete, 48–49; Torrey 1908, 80; Thackeray 1909, 15; Thackeray 1921, 13)

1. Excepting Lamentations,6 covering almost the entire Bible, the Additions of Daniel, the addition at the end of Job, and Baruch (passim) 2. Textual relationships: 2.1 One and the same translator as that of 2Esdras (Thackeray 1909, 13; Kahle, 173;7 Thackeray 1909, xx167) 2.2 The same translator as that of Chronicles–2Esdras–Nehemiah (Torrey 1908, 59, 72) 2.3 Stylistic similarities with Judges and Ruth (B), Song of Solomon, and Lamentations (Thackeray 1909, 13– 14)

5 Sven K. Soderlund, “Septuagint,” isbe2 4:400–409 (404). 6 See Field, prolegomena to Origenis Hexaplorum, 1: xxxix. For the Eng. trans. of prolegomena, see Gerard J. Norton, Frederick Field’s Prolegomena, CahRB 62 (Paris: Gabalda, 2005), 77. 7 While Torrey (“Apparatus for the Textual Criticism,” 59, 72) contends that 2Esdras represents an independent Theodotionic translation, Thackeray claims the opposite: “If these critics are right, it is necessary to suppose that θ for Chron. made use of an earlier version, such as was not before him for Ezra-Nehemiah.” Grammar, xx. See also Kahle, who argues the same: “If Theodotion had really anything to do with the text which we find in 2Esdras in the ‘Septuagint’ we have to suppose that he revised an older text, not that he created the version preserved to us.” Cairo Geniza, 173.

appendix 2

Samples of Inner-Greek Corruptions in Th-Dan Not all textual differences between either Th-Dan and the og or Th-Dan and mt were caused by recensional techniques or differences between the putative Vorlage of ThDan and mt. The following cases show that certain incongruences are the result of corruptions that occurred during the transmission of Th-Dan’s mss. Differing in kind from the variants discussed in ch. 3 and the textual differences analyzed in ch. 4, these examples highlight certain inner-Greek scribal errors as a source for diverging readings. Dan 1:14 l. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

mt

1QDana ‫וישמע‬ ‫להם‬ ‫לדבר‬ ‫הזה‬ ‫וינסם‬ ‫ימים‬ ‫עשרה׃‬

‫ל[הם‬ ‫לדבר‬ ‫הזה‬ ‫וינסם‬ ‫ימים‬

og

Th

καὶ ἐχρήσατο αὐτοῖς τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον καὶ ἐπείρασεν αὐτοὺς ἡμέρας δέκα.

καὶ εἰσήκουσεν αὐτῶν

καὶ ἐπείρασεν αὐτοὺς ἡμέρας δέκα.

Th-Dan displays a minus in ll. 3–4 which presumably stems from haplography between the similar Greek words αὐτῶν of l. 2 and the putative equivalent τουτο for ‫ הזה‬in l. 4, reconstructed according to mss L′’ Aethp Tht (i.e., εις το ρημα τουτο). Considering the fact that Lucian presumably based his recension on a form of Th-Dan1 and that εις το ρημα τουτο matches Th-Dan’s translation techniques,2 it is plausible that this group of mss preserves the original of Th-Dan’s reading.3 1 Montgomery, Daniel, 54. 2 Th-Dan offers ample evidence that the reviser aimed to represent each constituent of his Hebrew Vorlage. Consequently, it would be odd for the reviser to leave the phrase ‫לדבר הזה‬ intentionally untranslated. He even succeeded in representing ‫ דבר‬with ὁ in rendering the difficult idiomatic phrase ‫ דבר־יום ביומו‬in Dan 1:5, i.e., καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν (og); τὸ τῆς ἡμέρας καθ᾽ ἡμέραν (Th-Dan]). Furthermore, as shown elsewhere, Th-Dan features ῥῆμα as an equivalent for ‫ דבר‬when it carries the meaning of “thing.” See ch. 3 C §13.1.3.2 (‫)דבר‬. 3 Alternatively, it can be contended that Th-Dan reflects a shorter Vorlage, devoid of the phrase ‫ לדבר חזה‬in ll. 3–4. In such a case, the phrase would have been added because of explicating

© Daniel Olariu, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004527881_008

449

samples of inner-greek corruptions in th-dan (2) Dan 7:5 l.

mt

4QDana

1

‫וארו‬

2 3 4 5 6

‫חיוה‬ ‫אחרי‬ ‫תנינה‬ ‫דמיה‬ ‫לדב ]…[׃‬

og καὶ ἰδοὺ \μετ᾽ αὐτὴν/ \ἄλλο/ θηρίον \__ \__ ὁμοίωσιν ἔχον ‫ ל[דב‬ἄρκου […].

Th καὶ ἰδοὺ

θηρίον δεύτερον ὅμοιον ἄρκῳ […].

The og agrees quantitatively with mt, though transposing μετ᾽ αὐτὴν ἄλλο before θηρίον in l. 2. The absence of any equivalent in Th-Dan for ‫ אחרי‬in l. 3 is perhaps due to homoioteleuton in the putative original ἕτερον δεύτερον in ll. 3–4. This reconstruction is supported by v. 6, wherein ‫ אחרי‬was rendered in Th-Dan with ἕτερον.4 (3) Dan 11:8 l.

mt

1

‫והוא‬

2 3 4 5

‫שנים‬ ‫יעמד‬ ‫ממלך‬ ‫הצפון׃‬

og

Th

Reconstruction

καὶ \ἔσται/ ἔτος \__ βασιλεῖ βορρᾶ.

καὶ αὐτὸς

καὶ αὐτὸς

στήσεται ὑπὲρ βασιλέα τοῦ βορρᾶ.

ἔτη στήσεται ὑπὲρ βασιλέα τοῦ βορρᾶ

purposes. However, since Th-Dan’s minus could be explained as an inner-Greek scribal error, it is methodologically preferable to opt for this explanation than assuming a shorter Hebrew text. 4 This explanation would require the correction of Ziegler’s and Rahlfs’s editions regarding the putative original of this reading. It seems that the corruption is evidenced in both directions in Th-Dan’s witnesses: while the main codices lack ετερον, other mss lack δεύτερον (cf. O L’-311 87* LaS Chr. Tht. Lucif. Prisc.).

450

appendix 2

Th-Dan regularly translated ‫ שׁנה‬with ἔτος,5 suggesting that Th-Dan’s minus in l. 2 has secondarily infiltrated the Greek mss as a scribal error due to homoioarcton within the phrase ἔτη στήσεται.6 5 See ch. 3 A § 1.1.1.3 (‫)שׁנה‬. 6 Our solution gains further support when it is assumed that the scribal error infiltrated the early uncial mss because of the similar letters in the alleged phrase ετη στησεται. Against Montgomery (Daniel, 432), there is no need to regard the og’s equivalent ἔσται as corrupted since it demonstrably represents a free translation of ‫“ עמד‬to stand” as in Dan 1:4, 19 and 10:17. See ch. 3 C § 12.2.2 (‫)עמד‬.

appendix 3

The Distribution of the Dialogic Formula … ‫ענה‬ ‫ואמר‬/‫ ענו … ואמרין‬in mt-Dan This chart is designed to assist the reader in the analysis of the example discussed in ch. 4 §1.1.1. The data is presented in parallel columns citing the readings of the dialogic formulae from mt, the Qumran scrolls, og-Dan, and Th-Dan. The colored text is of interest in understanding the recurring minuses in Th-Dan’s Vorlage, as compared to the other texts. The readings are listed in biblical order.

Ref. 2:5

mt

Q ‫ענה מלכא ואמר‬ ‫לכשדיא ]…[׃‬

2:7

‫ענו תנינות ואמרין‬ ‫]…[ ׃‬

2:8

‫ענה מלכא ואמר ]…[׃‬

2:10

‫ענו כשדיא קדם מלכא‬ ‫ואמרין ]…[׃‬

og-Dan 1QDana ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ‫ ענא מלכא ]ואמר‬βασιλεὺς εἶπε τοῖς ‫ לכשדיא‬Χαλδαίοις […].

‫ענה ואמר לאריוך‬ ‫שליטא ]…[׃‬

2:20

‫ענה דניאל ואמר ]…[׃‬

ἀπεκρίθησαν δεύτερον καὶ εἶπαν […].

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ βασιλεύς […].

ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ εἶπεν […].

4QDana καὶ ἀπεκρίθησαν ‫ ואמרין‬--] ‫[ ̊ל‬-- οἱ Χαλδαῖοι ἐπὶ τοῦ

καὶ ἐπυνθάνετο αὐτοῦ λέγων […]. 4QDana καὶ φωνήσας εἶπεν ‫]…[ ענה דניא ̇ל ]וא[̊מר‬.

© Daniel Olariu, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004527881_009

ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῖς Χαλδαίοις […].

ἀπεκρίθησαν δὲ ἐκ δευτέρου λέγοντες […].

βασιλέως […].

2:15

Th-Dan

ἀπεκρίθησαν οἱ Χαλδαῖοι ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ λέγουσιν […]. Ἄρχων […].

καὶ εἶπεν […].

452

appendix 3

(cont.)

Ref. 2:26

2:27

2:47

3:9

mt

Q ‫ענה מלכא ואמר‬ ‫לדניאל די שמה‬ ‫בלטשאצר ]…[׃‬

4QDana ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ βασι‫ ]ענ[ה מלכ̇א ואמר‬λεὺς εἶπε τῷ Δανιηλ ‫ לדניאל די שמה‬ἐπικαλουμένῳ δὲ ‫ בלטאשצר‬Χαλδαϊστὶ Βαλτασαρ […].

Th-Dan καὶ ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ εἶπεν τῷ Δανιηλ, οὗ τὸ ὄνομα Βαλτασαρ […].

‫ענה דניאל קדם מלכא‬ 4QDana ἐκφωνήσας δὲ ὁ καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Δανιηλ ‫ ענה דניאל קדם מל̊כ]א ואמר ]…[׃‬Δανιηλ ἐπὶ τοῦ βασι- ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασι‫ [ואמר‬λέως εἶπεν […]. λέως καὶ λέγει […]. ‫ענה מלכא לדניאל‬ ‫ואמר ]…[׃‬

‫ענו ואמרין לנבוכדנצר‬ ‫מלכא מלכא לעלמין‬ ‫חיי׃‬

3:14

‫ענה נבכדנצר ואמר‬ ‫להון ]…[׃‬

3:16

‫ענו שדרך מישך ועבד‬ ‫נגו ואמרין למלכא‬ ‫נבוכדנצר ]…[׃‬

3:19

‫]…[ ענה ואמר ]…[׃‬

3:24 [91]1º

og-Dan

‫]…[ ענה ואמר‬ […] ‫להדברוהי‬

καὶ ἐκφωνήσας ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τὸν Δανιηλ εἶπεν […].

καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπεν τῷ Δανιηλ […].

καὶ ὑπολαβόντες τῷ βασιλεῖ Ναβουχοεἶπον Κύριε βασιλεῦ, δονοσορ Βασιλεῦ, εἰς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ζῆθι· τοὺς αἰῶνας ζῆθι· οὓς καὶ συνιδὼν Ναβουχοδονοσορ ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς […].

καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ναβουχοδονοσορ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς […].

ἀποκριθέντες δὲ Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω εἶπαν τῷ βασιλεῖ Ναβουχοδονοσορ […].

καὶ ἀπεκρίθησαν Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω λέγοντες τῷ βασιλεῖ Ναβουχοδονοσορ […].

[…] καὶ ἐπέταξε […].

[…] καὶ εἶπεν […]

[…] καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ […].

[…] καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μεγιστᾶσιν αὐτοῦ […]

the distribution of the dialogic formula ‫ענה … ואמר‬/‫ענו … ואמרין‬

453

(cont.)

Ref. 3:24 [91]2º

3:25 [92]

mt

Q

og-Dan

‫]…[ ענין ואמרין‬ ‫למלכא ]…[׃‬

‫ענין ואמרין למ]לכא‬

‫ענה ואמר ]…[׃‬

4QDand

1QDanb

Th-Dan […] καὶ εἶπαν τῷ βασιλεῖ […]. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς […].

[‫ענה נבכדנצ]ר ואמר‬ ‫להדברוהי‬

3:26 [93]

‫]…[ ענה ואמר ]…[׃‬

1QDanb […] ἐκάλεσεν

[…] καὶ εἶπεν […].

‫ ענה[ ואמר‬αὐτοὺς ἐξ ὀνόματος

[…]. 3:28 [95]

‫ענה נבוכדנצר ואמר‬ ‫]…[ ׃‬

4:16 [19]1º

‫]…[ ענה מלכא ואמר‬

4:16 [19]2º

‫]…[ ענה בלטשאצר‬ ‫ואמר ]…[׃‬

4:27 [30]

‫ענה מלכא ואמר ]…[׃‬

5:7

‫]…[ ענה מלכא ואמר‬ ‫לחכימי בבל ]…[׃‬

5:10

‫]…[ ענת מלכתא‬ ‫ואמרת ]…[׃‬

5:13

‫]…[ ענה מלכא ואמר‬ ‫לדניאל ]…[׃‬

ὑπολαβὼν δὲ Ναβου- […] καὶ ἀπεκρίθη χοδονοσορ ὁ βασιΝαβουχοδονοσορ καὶ λεὺς εἶπεν […]. εἶπεν […]. […] καὶ ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ εἶπεν […] ἀπεκρίθη [?]

[…] καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Βαλτασαρ καὶ εἶπεν […].

καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν ἀπεκρίθη ὁ βασιλεὺς […]. καὶ εἶπεν […]. 4QDana […] τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς […] καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς σοφοῖς Βαβυλῶνος λέγων […]. […].

‫ לחכימי בב[ל‬ἐξέθηκε πρόσταγμα

[…] καὶ εἶπεν […].

4QDana […] καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ […] καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασι‫ מלכ]א ענה מ[ ̇ל]כא‬βασιλεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ λεὺς τῷ Δανιηλ […]. ‫]…[ ואמר‬.

454

appendix 3

(cont.)

Ref.

mt

5:17

‫באדין ענה דניאל ואמר‬ ‫קדם מלכא ]…[׃‬

Q

og-Dan

4QDana τότε Δανιηλ […] καὶ εἶπε Δανιηλ ἐνώπιον ‫ באדי ̇ן]ע[ ̊נה ̊ד]נ[ ̊י̊אל‬οὕτως ἀπεκρίθη τῷ τοῦ βασιλέως […]. ‫ ואמר קדם מלכ̊א‬βασιλεῖ […].

6:13 [12]

‫]…[ ענה מלכא ואמר‬ ‫]…[ ׃‬

6:14 [13]

‫באדין ענו ואמרין קדם‬ ‫מלכא ]…[׃‬

6:17 [16]

‫]…[ ענה מלכא ואמר‬ ‫לדניאל ]…[׃‬

ἀναβοήσας δὲ Δαρεῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπε τῷ Δανιηλ […].

6:21 [20]

‫]…[ ענה מלכא ואמר‬ ‫לדניאל ]…[׃‬

4QDanb […] λέγων [?] […].

7:2

‫ענה דניאל ואמר ]…[׃‬

Th-Dan

[…] ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς […]. 4QDanb καὶ εἶπαν […]. ‫]באדין ענו ו[̊אמרין‬ ///// ‫קודם‬

[…] καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς […].

τότε ἀπεκρίθησαν καὶ λέγουσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως […]. […] καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ Δανιηλ […].

‫ענה מלכא ואמר‬ ‫ל]דניאל‬

Εγὼ Δανιηλ

appendix 4

The Distribution of the Phrase ‫“ גבריא אלך‬These Men” in mt-Dan This chart is designed to assist the reader in the analysis of the example discussed in ch. 4 §1.1.2. The data is presented in parallel columns citing the readings from mt, the Qumran scrolls, og-Dan, and Th-Dan. The colored text is of interest in understanding the recurring minuses in Th-Dan’s Vorlage, as compared to the other texts. The readings are listed in biblical order.

Ref.

mt

3:12

‫איתי גברין יהודאין די‬ ‫מנית יתהון על עבידת‬ ‫מדינת בבל שדרך‬ ‫מישך ועבד נגו גבריא‬ ‫אלך לא שמו עליך‬ ‫מלכא טעם ]…[׃‬

3:13

‫באדין נבוכדנצר ברגז‬ ‫וחמה אמר להיתיה‬ ‫לשדרך מישך ועבד נגו‬ ‫באדין גבריא אלך היתיו‬ ‫קדם מלכא׃‬

Q

og-Dan

Th-Dan

εἰσὶ δέ τινες ἄνδρες Ιουδαῖοι, οὓς κατέστησας ἐπὶ τῆς χώρας τῆς Βαβυλωνίας, Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω, οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐκεῖνοι οὐκ ἐφοβήθησάν σου τὴν ἐντολὴν […].

εἰσὶν ἄνδρες Ιουδαῖοι, οὓς κατέστησας ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῆς χώρας Βαβυλῶνος, Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω, οἱ οὐχ ὑπήκουσαν, βασιλεῦ, τῷ δόγματί σου, […].

τότε Ναβουχοδονοσορ θυμωθεὶς ὀργῇ προσέταξεν ἀγαγεῖν τὸν Σεδραχ, Μισαχ, Αβδεναγω· τότε ἤχθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα.

τότε Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἐν θυμῷ καὶ ὀργῇ εἶπεν ἀγαγεῖν τὸν Σεδραχ, Μισαχ καὶ Αβδεναγω, καὶ ἤχθησαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως.

© Daniel Olariu, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004527881_010

456

appendix 4

(cont.)

Ref.

mt

3:21

Q

og-Dan

Th-Dan

‫באדין גבריא אלך כפתו‬ ‫בסרבליהון פטישיהון‬ ‫]פטשיהון[ וכרבלתהון‬ ‫ולבשיהון ורמיו לגוא‬ ‫אתון נורא יקדתא׃‬

τότε οἱ ἄνδρες ἐκεῖνοι συνεποδίσθησαν ἔχοντες τὰ ὑποδήματα αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς τιάρας αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτῶν σὺν τῷ ἱματισμῷ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐνεβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν κάμινον τοῦ πυρὸς.

τότε οἱ ἄνδρες ἐκεῖνοι ἐπεδήθησαν σὺν τοῖς σαραβάροις αὐτῶν καὶ τιάραις καὶ περικνημῖσι καὶ ἐνδύμασιν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβλήθησαν εἰς μέσον τῆς καμίνου τοῦ πυρὸς τῆς καιομένης.

3:22

‫כל קבל דנה מן די מלת‬ ‫מלכא מחצפה ואתונא‬ ‫אזה יתירא גבריא אלך‬ ‫די הסקו לשדרך מישך‬ ‫ועבד נגו קטל המון‬ ‫שביבא די נורא׃‬

ἐπειδὴ τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ βασιλέως ἤπειγεν καὶ ἡ κάμινος ἐξεκαύθη ὑπὲρ τὸ πρότερον ἑπταπλασίως, καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ προχειρισθέντες συμποδίσαντες αὐτοὺς καὶ προσαγαγόντες τῇ καμίνῳ ἐνεβάλοσαν εἰς αὐτήν.

ἐπεὶ τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ βασιλέως ὑπερίσχυεν, καὶ ἡ κάμινος ἐξεκαύθη ἐκ περισσοῦ.

3:23

‫וגבריא אלך תלתהון‬ ‫שדרך מישך ועבד נגו‬ ‫נפלו לגוא אתון נורא‬ ‫יקדתא מכפתין׃‬

1QDanb τοὺς μὲν οὖν ἄνδρας . ]‫ [מכפתין‬τοὺς συμποδίσαντας τοὺς περὶ τὸν Αζαριαν 4QDand ἐκκαεῖσα ἡ φλὸξ ἐκ ‫ מישך ועבד נגו נפלו‬τῆς καμίνου ἐνεπύ]‫ לגו‬ρισε καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν, αὐτοὶ δὲ συνετηρήθησαν.

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι Σεδραχ, Μισαχ καὶ Αβδεναγω ἔπεσον εἰς μέσον τῆς καμίνου τοῦ πυρὸς τῆς καιομένης πεπεδημένοι.

the distribution of the phrase ‫“ גבריא אלך‬these men” in mt-dan

457

(cont.)

Ref.

mt

Q

og-Dan

3:27 [94]

‫ומתכנשין אחשדרפניא‬ ‫סגניא ופחותא והדברי‬ ‫מלכא חזין לגבריא‬ ‫אלך די לא שלט נורא‬ ‫בגשמהון ושער ראשהון‬ ‫לא התחרך וסרבליהון‬ ‫לא שנו וריח נור לא‬ ‫עדת בהון׃‬

1QDanb καὶ συνήχθησαν οἱ ‫ ופחותא והדברי מל]כא‬ἔπαρχοι, τοπάρχαι ‫ חזין לגבריא אלך די לא‬καὶ ἀρχιπατριῶται ‫ שלט נורא בגשמהון‬καὶ οἱ φίλοι τοῦ βασι‫ ושער ראשהון[ לא‬λέως καὶ ἐθεώρουν ‫ התחרך ושרבל]יהון לא‬τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐκεί‫ שנו וריח נור לא עד[ה‬νους, ὅτι τὸ πῦρ οὐχ .]‫ בהון‬ἥψατο τοῦ σώματος αὐτῶν, καὶ αἱ τρίχες αὐτῶν οὐχ ὑπεκάησαν καὶ τὰ σαράβαρα αὐτῶν οὐκ ἠλλοιώθησαν, οὐδὲ ὀσμὴ πυρὸς ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς.

6:6[5]

‫אדין גבריא אלך אמרין‬ ‫די לא נהשכח לדניאל‬ ‫דנה כל עלא להן‬ ‫השכחנה עלוהי בדת‬ ‫אלהה׃‬

καὶ εἶπαν Δεῦτε στήσωμεν ὁρισμὸν καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἀξιώσει ἀξίωμα καὶ οὐ μὴ εὔξηται εὐχὴν ἀπὸ παντὸς θεοῦ ἕως ἡμερῶν τριάκοντα, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ παρὰ Δαρείου τοῦ βασιλέως· …

6:12 [11]

‫אדין גבריא אלך הרגשו‬ 4QDanb καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐτήρη‫ א]דין[ … בע[א ומתחנן והשכחו לדניאל בעא‬σαν τὸν Δανιηλ καὶ ‫ומתחנן קדם אלהה׃‬ [‫ ]קדם‬κατελάβοσαν αὐτὸν

εὐχόμενον τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν.

Th-Dan Dan 3:94 καὶ συνάγονται οἱ σατράπαι καὶ οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ οἱ τοπάρχαι καὶ οἱ δυνάσται τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἐθεώρουν τοὺς ἄνδρας ὅτι οὐκ ἐκυρίευσεν τὸ πῦρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτῶν, καὶ ἡ θρὶξ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐφλογίσθη, καὶ τὰ σαράβαρα αὐτῶν οὐκ ἠλλοιώθη, καὶ ὀσμὴ πυρὸς οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς. καὶ εἶπον οἱ τακτικοί Οὐχ εὑρήσομεν κατὰ Δανιηλ πρόφασιν εἰ μὴ ἐν νομίμοις θεοῦ αὐτοῦ.

τότε οἱ ἄνδρες ἐκεῖνοι παρετήρησαν καὶ εὗρον τὸν Δανιηλ ἀξιοῦντα καὶ δεόμενον τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ.

458

appendix 4

(cont.)

Ref.

mt

Q

og-Dan

6:16 [15]

4QDanb καὶ οὐκ ἠδύνατο ἐξε‫באדין גבריא אלך‬ ‫ באדין גבר]יא א[ל]ך‬λέσθαι αὐτὸν ἀπ᾽ ‫הרגשו על מלכא ואמרין‬ … ‫ [הרגשו על מלכא‬αὐτῶν. ‫למלכא דע מלכא די דת‬ ‫ד[ע מלכא די דת… [ד]י למדי ופרס די כל אסר‬ ‫ וקים די מלכא יהקים לא‬.[ ]‫כו[ל … [לא להשניה‬ ‫להשניה׃‬

τότε οἱ ἄνδρες ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν τῷ βασιλεῖ Γνῶθι, βασιλεῦ, ὅτι δόγμα Μήδοις καὶ Πέρσαις τοῦ πᾶν ὁρισμὸν καὶ στάσιν, ἣν ἂν ὁ βασιλεὺς στήσῃ, οὐ δεῖ παραλλάξαι.

6:25 [24]

‫ואמר מלכא והיתיו‬ ‫גבריא אלך די אכלו‬ ‫קרצוהי די דניאל ולגב‬ ‫אריותא רמו אנון‬ ‫בניהון ונשיהון ולא‬ ‫מטו לארעית גבא עד די‬ ‫שלטו בהון אריותא וכל‬ ‫גרמיהון הדקו׃‬

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς, καὶ ἠγάγοσαν τοὺς ἄνδρας τοὺς διαβαλόντας τὸν Δανιηλ, καὶ εἰς τὸν λάκκον τῶν λεόντων ἐνεβλήθησαν, αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν· καὶ οὐκ ἔφθασαν εἰς τὸ ἔδαφος τοῦ λάκκου ἕως οὗ ἐκυρίευσαν αὐτῶν οἱ λέοντες καὶ πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν ἐλέπτυναν.

τότε οἱ δύο ἄνθρωποι ἐκεῖνοι οἱ καταμαρτυρήσαντες τοῦ Δανιηλ, αὐτοὶ καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν, ἐρρίφησαν τοῖς λέουσι, καὶ οἱ λέοντες ἀπέκτειναν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔθλασαν τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν.

Th-Dan

Bibliography 1

Texts

1.1

Editions

A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New jps Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publishing Society, 1985. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Patrologia Latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta lxx interpretes. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885– 1887. 10 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 1890–1900. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 16/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoech and Ruprecht, 1954. Ziegler, Joseph, Olivier Munnich and Detlef Fraenkel, eds. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum xvi/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999.

1.2

Manuscripts

Baillet, Maurice, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân. Exploration de la falaise. Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre. djd 3/1–2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Barthélemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d’Aquila: Premiére publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Barthélemy, Dominique, and J.T. Milik. Qumran Cave 1, djd 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Ceriani, Antonio Maria. Codex syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice editus. Monumenta sacra et profana 7. Milan: Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 1874. Field, Fridericus. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875.

460

bibliography

Kenyon, Frederic G. Daniel 3,72–6,18: The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Description and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, Fsc. vii Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther. Vol. 1. London: Walker, 1937. Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library. “Plate 224 B-284883.” https://www.deadsea scrolls.org.il/explore‑the‑archive/image/B‑284883. Magistris, Simon de. Daniel secundum Septuaginta ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus a singulari Chrisiano codice. Rome: Typis Propagandae Fidei, 1772. McLay, Timothy R. “A Collation of Variants from 967 to Ziegler’s Critical Edition of Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco.” Text 18 (1995): 121–134. Montfaucon, Bernardo de. Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt. Paris: 1713. Tov, Emanuel, Robert A. Kraft, and Peter J. Parsons. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr). djd 8. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Ulrich, Eugene. “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran, Part 2: Preliminary Editions of 4QDanb and 4QDanc.” basor 274 (1989): 3–26. Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ulrich, Eugene, et al. Qumran Cave 4 xi Psalms to Chronicles, djd 16. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000.

2

Tools

2.1

Grammars

Bauer, Hans, and Pontus Leander. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1927. Conybeare, F.C., and St. George Stock. A Grammar of Septuagint Greek. Boston, MA: Gin, 1905. Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. SubBi 14. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2005. Kautzsch, Emil, ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by Arther E. Cowely. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2006. Li, Tarsee. The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel. sais 8. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. 7th ed. plo. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006. Smyth, H.W. Greek Grammar. Revised by G.M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Thackeray, Henry John. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Toews, Brian G. “A Discourse Grammar of the Aramaic in the book of Daniel.” PhD diss., University of California, 1993.

bibliography

2.2

461

Lexica and Concordances

Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 16 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2018. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–2000. Brown, F., R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody: Massachusetts, 2004. Clines, David J.A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2016. Gelb, Ignace J., et al., eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956–2010. Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Translation of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. München: Kaiser, 1971– 1976. Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964– 1976. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and J.J. Stamm, eds. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E.J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1989. Lust, Johan, and Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009. Muraoka, Takamitsu. Greek—Hebrew/Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2010. Reider, Joseph, and Nigel Turner. An Index to Aquila. VTSup 12. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Tawil, Hayim ben Yosef. An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew. Jersey, NJ: Ktav, 2009.

462

bibliography

Taylor, Bernard A. Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint. Enl. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. http://www.tlg.uci.edu/. Tov, Emanuel, and Frank Polak, eds. The Revised catss Hebrew/Greek Parallel Text. Accordance electronic edition. Version 1.3. Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2008.

2.3

Bibliographies

Brock, Sebastian P., Charles T. Fritsch, and Sidney T. Jellicoe. A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint. alghj 6. Leiden: Brill, 1973. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999. JSPSup 39. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Dogniez, Cecile. Bibliography of the Septuagint (1970–1993). VTSup 60. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Thompson, Henry O. The Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland, 1993. Tov, Emanuel. A Classified Bibliography of Lexical and Grammatical Studies on the Language of the Septuagint and Its Revisions. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Jerusalem: Academon, 1982.

3

Monographic Studies

Albertz, Rainer. Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4–6 in der Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches. sbs 131. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Amara, Dalia. “Theological Corrections in the Various Versions of the Book of Daniel.” Beer-Sheva 18 (2005): 61–76. Amara, Dalia. “The Old Greek Version of Daniel: The Translation, the Vorlage and the Redaction/‫ המצע והעריכה‬,‫ התרגום‬:‫תרגום השבעים לספר דניאל‬.” PhD diss., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2006. Amara, Dalia. “Bel and the Dragon: The Relationship Between Theodotion and the Old Greek.” Pages 125–147 in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir. Edited by Cana Werman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Amara, Dalia. “18.3.1 Septuagint.” Pages 542–554 in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, vol. 1C (Leiden: Brill, 2017). Ashley, Timothy R. “The Book of Daniel Chapters i–vi: Text, Versions and Problems of Exegesis.” PhD diss., University of St. Andrews, 1975. Barthélemy, Dominique. “Rédécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la Septante.” rb 60 (1953): 18–29.

bibliography

463

Barthélemy, Dominique. “A Reexamination of the Textual Problems in 2Sam 11:2– 1Kings 2:11 in the Light of Certain Criticisms of Les devanciers d’Aquila.” Pages 16–89 in 1972 Proceedings: International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and sbl Pseudepigrapha Seminars. Edited by Robert A. Kraft. scs 2. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Barthélemy, Dominique. “Notes critiques sur quelques points d’histoire du texte.” Pages 9–23 in Übersetzung und Deutung: Studien zu dem Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt Alexander Reinard Hulst gewidmet von Freunden und Kollegen. Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach b.v., 1977. Repr., pages 289–303 in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament. obo 21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Barthélemy, Dominique. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 3: Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes. obo 50/3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Bertholdt, Leonhard. Daniel aus dem Hebräisch-Aramäischen neu übersetzt und erklärt mit einer vollständigen Einleitung und einigen historischen und exegetischen Excursen. Erlangen: Palm, 1806. Bevan, Anthony A. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892. Bledsoe, Amanda M. Davis. “The Different Editions of the Book of Daniel: A History of Scholarship.” Currents in Biblical Research 13.2 (2015): 175–190. Bludau, August. Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhältnis zum massorethischen Text. BibS(F) ii 2/3. Freiburg: Herder, 1897. Bludau, August. “Die Apokalypse und Theodotions Danielübersezung.” tq 97 (1897): 1– 26. Bodine, Walter Ray. The Greek Text of Judges: Recessional Developments. hsm 23. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Braasch, Birte. “Die lxx-Übersetzung des Danielbuches—eine Orientierungshilfe für das religiöse und politisch-gesellschaftliche Leben in der ptolemäischen Diaspora: Eine rezeptionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Dan 1–7.” PhD diss., Hamburg University, 2003. Charles, Robert Henry. The Book of Daniel. The Century Bible. Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1921. Charles, Robert Henry. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1929. Collins, John J. Daniel. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Collins, John J. “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel.” Pages 1–15 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83/1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Collins, John J., and Peter W. Flint, eds. The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. VTSup 83/1+2. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

464

bibliography

Daniel, Suzanne. “Greek: The Septuagint.” EncJud, 4:851–856. David, Pablo S. “The Composition and Structure of the Book of Daniel: A Synchronic and Diachronic Reading.” PhD diss., Katholicke Universiteit Leuven, 1991. Delcor, Mathias. Le livre de Daniel. sb. Paris: Gabalda, 1971. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Daniel,” IDBSup, 205–207. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and TheodotionDaniel.” Pages 586–607 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83/2. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. Understanding the Bible and its World. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Driver, Samuel R. The Book of Daniel: With Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: University Press, 1900. Fernández, Natalio Marcos. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. wbc 30. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1989. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Rev. ed. wbc 30. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019. Greenspoon, Leonard J. “Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus, and the Old Greek Translation of Joshua.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 16 (1982): 82–91. Greenspoon, Leonard J. Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua. hsm 28. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Greenspoon, Leonard J. “Versions, Ancient: Greek Versions.” abd 6:793–794. Greenspoon, Leonard J. “Theodotion, Theodotion’s Version.” abd 6:447–448. Grélot, Pierre. “Les versions grecques de Daniel.” Bib 47 (1966): 381–402. Grélot, Pierre. “Daniel vi dans la Septante.” Pages 103–118 in Κατὰ τοὺς ό: Selon les Septante. Edited by Gilles Dorival and Olivier Munnich. Paris: Cerf, 1995. Gwynn, John. “Theodotion.” dcb 4:970–979. Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. ab 23. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978. Hävernick, Heinrich Andreas Christoph. Commentar über das Buch Daniel. Hamburg: Perthes, 1832. Henze, Matthias. The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. JSJSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Hirsch, Emil G. “Theodotion.” je 12:127–128. Hort, F.J.A. “Hermas and Theodotion.” Johns Hopkins University Circulars 4.35 (1884): 23. Jellicoe, Sidney T. Review of Les Devanciers d’Aquila, by Dominique Barthélemy. jaos 84 (1964): 189–192. Jellicoe, Sidney T. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. Jellicoe, Sidney T. “Some Reflections on the καιγε Recension.” vt 23 (1973): 15–24.

bibliography

465

Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Translated by Gleason L. Archer. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1958. Jobes, Karen H., and Moises Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000. Koch, Klaus. “Die Herkunft der Proto-Theodotion-übersetzung des Danielbuches.” vt 23 (1973): 362–365. Koch, Klaus. Daniel. bkat 22/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. Koch, Klaus. Daniel. bkat 22/4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001. Koch, Klaus. Daniel. bkat 22/6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005. Lacocque, André. The Book of Daniel. Translated by David Pellauer. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979. Lambach, Paul Joseph. “A Detailed Comparation of 4QDanc and the Other Qumran Texts of Daniel with the Masoretic Text of Daniel.” PhD diss., Mid-America Baptist Seminary, 1997. Lengerke, Caesar von. Das Buch Daniel. Königsberg: Verlage der Gebrüder Bornträger, 1835. Marti, D. Karl. Das Buch Daniel. Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament 18. Tübingen: Mohr & Siebeck, 1901. McCrystall, Andrew. “Studies in the Old Greek Translation of Daniel.” PhD diss., Oxford University, 1980. McLay, Timothy R. “Translation Technique and Textual Studies in the Old Greek and Theodotion Versions of Daniel.” PhD diss., University of Durham, 1994. McLay, Timothy R. “Syntactic Profiles and the Characteristics of Revision: A Response to Karen Jobes.” bioscs 29 (1996): 15–21. McLay, Timothy R. The og and Th Versions of Daniel. scs 43. Atlanta, ge: Scholars Press, 1996. McLay, Timothy R. “It’s a Question of Influence: The Theodotion and the Old Greek Texts of Daniel.” Pages 231–254 in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments: Papers presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla. Edited by Alison Salvesen. tsaj 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. McLay, Timothy R. “Kaige and the Septuagint Research.” Text 19 (1998): 127–139. McLay, Timothy R. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. McLay, Timothy R. “The Relationship between Greek Translations of Daniel 1–3.” bioscs 37 (2004): 29–53. McLay, Timothy R. “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel iv–vi and the Formation of the Book of Daniel.” vt 55.3 (2005): 304–323. McLay, Timothy R. “Bel and the Dragon, To the Reader.” Pages 1023–1025 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

466

bibliography

McLay, Timothy R. “Daniel, To the Reader.” Pages 991–994 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. McLay, Timothy R. “Sousanna, To the Reader.” Pages 986–987 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. McLay, Timothy R. “Daniel (Old Greek and Theodotion).” Pages 544–554 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. McLay, Timothy R. “The Greek Translations of Daniel 4–6.” Pages 187–214 in The Temple in Text and Tradition: A Festschrift in Honour of Robert Hayward. Edited by Timothy R. McLay. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. McLay, Timothy R. “Theodotion.” edb 1297. Meadowcroft, Tim J. Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. JSOTSup 198. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Montgomery, James A. “A Survival of the Tetragrammaton in Daniel.” jbl 40 (1921): 86. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. icc. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1964. Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. ab 44. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. Newsom, Carol A., and Brennan W. Breed. Daniel, A Commentary. otl. Louisville, KY: wjk, 2014. O’Connell, Kevin G. The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus. hsm 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. O’Connell, Kevin G. “Greek Versions (Minor).” IDBSup, 377–381. Obiajunwa, Chukwudi J. “Semitic Interference in Theodotion-Daniel.” PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 1999. Olariu, Daniel. “The Quest for the Common Basis in the Greek Versions of the Book of Daniel.” m.A. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2015. Olariu, Daniel. “18.1 Textual History of Daniel.” Pages 517–527 in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Vol. 1C. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Olariu, Daniel. “Criteria for Determining the Common Basis of the Greek Versions of Daniel.” Text 28 (2019): 105–124. Olariu, Daniel. “The Mechanics of the Recensional Process: Theodotion’s Treatment of First-Found Equivalents in Old Greek Daniel.” jscs 52 (2019): 177–195. Ottley, Richard R. A Handbook to the Septuagint. London: Methuen & Go. ltd., 1920. Pace Jeansonne, Sharon. “The Stratigraphy of the Text of Daniel and the Question of Theological Tendenz in the Old Greek.” bioscs 17 (1984): 15–35.

bibliography

467

Pace Jeansonne, Sharon. The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12. cbqms 19. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988. Porteous, Norman W. Daniel. otl. London: scm, 1965. Prince, J. Dyneley. A Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899. Pusey, Edward Bouverie. Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. 2nd ed. Oxford: Parker, 1868. Schmitt, Armin. Stammt der sogenannte “θ”–Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion? msu 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Schmitt, Armin. “Die griechischen Danieltexte (“θ′” und ο′) und das Theodotionproblem.” bz 36 (1992): 1–29. Segal, Michael. “From Joseph to Daniel: The Literary Development of Daniel 2.” vt 59 (2009): 123–149. Segal, Michael. “Old Greek and Theodotion to Daniel 8.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the sbl. San Diego, CA, 22–25 Nov. 2014. Segal, Michael. “The Old Greek Version and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6.” Pages 404– 428 in Die Septuaginta—Orte und Intentionen. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund. wunt 361 Tübingen: Mohr Siebck, 2016. Segal, Michael. Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Contextual, and Intertextual Approaches to the Book of Daniel. Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 455. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. Segal, Michael. “Daniel 5 in Aramaic and Greek and the Textual History of Daniel 4– 6.” Pages 251–284 in Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016. Edited by Louis C. Jonker, Gideon R. Kotzé, and Christl M. Mayer. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Segal, Michael. “18.2.2 Masoretic Texts and Ancient Texts Close to mt.” Pages 532–537 in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Vol. 1C. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Segal, Michael. “Calculating the End: Inner-Danielic Chronological Developments.” vt 68 (2018): 272–296. Segal, Michael. “The Anchor Bible Commentary on the Book of Daniel.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the sbl. San Diego, CA, 25 Nov. 2019. Segal, Michael. “Daniel 9:24–27: A Comparative Analysis of mt and the Greek Versions.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Cambridge Septuagint Series. Cambridge, 19 May 2020. Seow, C. Leong. Daniel. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Shenkel, James Donald. Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings. hsm 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to Old Testamemt in Greek. Cambridge: University Press, 1900. Thackeray, Henry John. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. London: Oxford University, 1921.

468

bibliography

Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. hsm 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 3rd. rev. and enl. ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Towner, Sibley W. Daniel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox, 1984. Valeta, David M. “The Book of Daniel in Recent Research (Part 1).” Currents in Biblical Research 6 (2008): 330–354. Waterman, Leroy. “A Note on Daniel 8:2.” jbl 66.3 (1947): 319–320. Wenthe, Dean Orrin. “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 1–6.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 1991.

4

Secondary Sources

Aejmelaeus, Anneli, and Raija Sollamo, eds. Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen—Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. aasf B 237. Helsinki: Suomelainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987. Aitken, James K. “Ecclesiastes.” Pages 356–369 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Assan-Dhote, Isabelle. “La version grecque des Lamentations de Jérémie.” PhD diss., Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1996. Bentzen, Aage. Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon of the Old Testament; The Text of the Old Testament; The Forms of the Old Testament Literature. 6th ed. Vol. 1. Copenhagen: Gad, 1961. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Les études sur la Septante. Bilan et perspectives.” rtl 16.2 (1985): 174–200. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Daniel 3 lxx et son supplément grec.” Pages 13–37 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Edited by A.S. Van der Woude. betl 106. Leuven: University Press, 1993. Burkitt, Francis Crawford. Fragments of the Book of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897. Burkitt, Francis Crawford. “Aquila.” jqr 10 (1898): 207–216. Busto Sáiz, José Ramón. La traducción de Símaco en el libro de los Salmos. Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros 22. Madrid: csic, 1985. Casey P. “Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel.” jts 27 (1976): 15–33.

bibliography

469

Cohen, Shaye J.D. “Ἰουδαῖος τὸ γένος and Related Expressions in Josephus.” Pages 23–38 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. StPB 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Cornill, Carl Heinrich, Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament. Translated by G.H. Box. Theological Translation Library 23. New York: Williams & Norgate, 1907. Translation of Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 5th rev. ed. Freiburg: Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1891. Cox, Claude E. “Εὶσακούω and Επακούω in the Greek Psalter.” Bib 62 (1981): 251–258. Cox, Claude E. “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing and Forgiveness in the Greek Translations of Job.” Text 15 (1990): 119–130. Coxe, Cleveland A. Introductory note to Against Heresies. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Coxe, Cleveland A. Introductory note to Works of Origen. In vol. 4 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Coxe, Cleveland A. Introductory note to The Pastor of Hermas. In vol. 2 of The AnteNicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Credner, Carl August. Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften. Vol. 2. Halle: 1838. Cross, Frank Moore. “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.” htr 57/4 (1964): 281–299. Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Davidson, Samuel. A Treatise on Biblical Criticism: The Old Testament. Vol. 1. Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1853. De Crom, Dries. “The lxx Text of Canticles: A Descriptive Study in Hebrew-Greek Translation.” PhD diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2009. De Crom, Dries. “A Hebrew-Greek Index of 8ḤevXIIgr.” RevQ 95 (2010): 331–349. Dean, James Elmer, ed. and trans. Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures. Forward by Martin Sprengling. Studies in Ancient Orient Civilizations 11. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1935. Decock, Paul B. “Jerome’s Turn to Hebraica Veritas and His Rejection of the Traditional View of the Septuagint.” Neot 42 (2008): 205–222. Driver, Samuel R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 9th ed. International Theological Library. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913. Ehrlich, Arnold Bogumil. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. Vol. 7. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914. Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 3rd. ed. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Meidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1803.

470

bibliography

Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Translation of Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 3rd rev. ed. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1964. Ferrar, W.J., ed. The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea. Vol. 2. Translations of Christian Literature. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1920. Flashar, Martin. “Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter.” zaw 32 (1912): 81–116. Fremantle, W.H. Prologomena to Jerome. In vol. 6 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 1890–1900. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Friedmann, Meir. Onkelos und Akylas. Vienna: Israelitische-theologische Lehranstalt, 1896. Gallandi, Andreas. Bibliotheca veterum patrum atiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiaticorum. Vol. 1. Venetiis: Albritii, 1765. Gentry, Peter J. The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job. scs 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Gentry, Peter J. “1.3.1.2 Pre-Hexaplaric Translations, Hexapla, Post-Hexaplaric Translations.” Pages 211–235 in Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible: Overview Articles. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Vol. 1A. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Gifford, Edwin H., ed. Eusebii Pamphili Evanghelicae Preparations. Vol. 1. Oxford: Typographeo academico, 1903. Ginsberg, H.L. Studies in Daniel. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 14. New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1948. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1910–1938. Golay, Émile. “Texte et versions de l’Ancien Testament.” Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Bible 2:742–760. Goldberg, Louis. “‫ַבּד‬.” twot 1:90. Gonzalez Luis, José. “La versión de Simaco a los Profetas Mayores.” PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1981. Grabbe, Lester L. “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis.” jss 33 (1982): 527–536. Harris, J. Rendel. “On the Angelology of Hermas.” Johns Hopkins University Circulars 3.30 (1884): 75. Harris, J. Rendel. Hermas in Arcadia and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Hippolytus of Rome. Commentaire sur Daniel. Edited by M. Lefèvre and G. Bardy. SC 14. Paris: Cerf, 1947. Horne, Thomas Hartwell. An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. 6th rev. and enl. ed. Vol. 2. London: Cadell, 1828. Kahle, Paul E. “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes.” tsk 88 (1915): 399–439.

bibliography

471

Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy. London: Oxford University Press, 1947. Koch, Christian Gotliebb. Justini Martyris cum Tryphone Judaeo dialogus. Kiloni: Riechelius, 1700. Kraft, Robert A. “Reassessing the Impact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers, Forty Years Later.” bioscs 37 (2004): 1–28. Krom, Hermanus Johannes. Diatribe de authentia Dialogi Justini Martyris cum Tryphone Judaeo. Medioburgi: Gillissen, 1778. Kuhl, Curt. Die drei Männer im Feuer (Daniel Kapitel 3 und seine Zusätze): Ein Beitrag zur israelitisch-jüdischen Literaturgeschichte. bzaw 55. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1930. Labendz, Jenny R. “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives.” htr 102 (2009): 353–388. Labuschagne, C.J. “‫ענה‬.” tlot 2: 926–930. Lagarde, Paul de. Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1863. Law, Timothy M. “A History of Research on Origen’s Hexapla: From Masius to the Hexapla Project.” bioscs 40 (2007): 30–48. Lietzmann, Hans. Das Muratorische Fragment und die monarchianischen Prologe zu den Evangelien. Kleine Texte für theologische Vorlesungen und Übungen 1. Bonn: Marcus and Weber, 1902. Löhr, M. “Textkritische Vorarbeiten zu einer Erklärung des Buches Daniel.” zaw 15 (1895): 75–103, 193–226. Löhr, M. “Textkritische Vorarbeiten zu einer Erklärung des Buches Daniel.” zaw 16 (1896): 17–39. Long, Gary A. Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Hebrew. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Lütkemann, Leonhard, and Alfred Rahlfs. “Hexaplarischen Randnoten zu Isaias 1–16, aus einer Sinai-Handschrift.” msu 1 (1915): 231–386. May, Gerhard. “Marcionites.” ec 3:397–398. Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Metzger, Bruce M. “Versions, Ancient.” idb 4:749–760. Mez, Adam. Die Bibel des Josephus: Untersucht für Buch v–vii der Archäologie. Basel: Jaeger & Kober, 1895. Michaelis, Johann David. “Daniel secundum septuaginta, ex tetraplis Origenis.” Pages 18–29 in Orientalische und Exegetische Bibiothek. Edited by Johann David Michaelis. Vol. 4. Frankfurt: Garbe, 1773. Munnich, Olivier. “Étude Lexicographique du Psautier des Septante.” PhD diss., Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1982. Munnich, Olivier. “Contribution à l’étude de la première révision de la Septante.” anrw 20.1 (1986): 190–220.

472

bibliography

Munnich, Olivier. “Le texte de la Septante.” Pages 129–200 in La Bible grecque des Septante du judaïsme hellénistique à la patristique grecque. By Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Munnich, Olivier. “Les Nomina Sacra dans les versions grecques de Daniel et leurs suppléments deutérocanoniques.” Pages 145–167 in Κατὰ τοὺς ό: Selon les Septante: trente études sur la Bible grecque des Septante: en hommage à Marguerite Harl. Edited by Gilles Dorival and Olivier Munnich. Paris: Cerf, 1995. Murray, Robert. “The Origin of Aramaic ʿîr, Angel.” Or 53 (1984): 303–317. Nestle, Eberhard. “Septuagint.” DBib 4:437–454. Norton, Gerard J. Frederick Field’s Prolegomena. CahRB 62. Paris: Gabalda, 2005. Olofsson, Staffan. The lxx Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint. ConBOT 30. Lund: 1990. Olofsson, Staffan. Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays on the Septuagint Version. ConBOT 57. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Orlinsky, Harry M. “The Columnar Order of the Hexapla.” jqr 27 (1936–1937): 137–149. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Origen’s Tetrapla—A Scholarly fiction?” Pages 382–391 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations. Library of Biblical Studies. New York, NY: Ktav, 1974. Osiek, Carolyn. “Hermas, Shepherd of.” edb 577–579. Overbeck, Franciscus Camillus. Quaestionum Hippolytearum specimen. Jena: Schreiber, 1864. Parry, Jason T. “The Character of the Greek Version of Daniel Attributed to Theodotion.” PhD diss. in progress, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013–. Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the Old Testament. 3rd. ed. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1941. Pietersma, Albert. “Of Translation and Revision: From Greek Isaiah to Greek Jeremiah.” Pages 359–387 in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Michaël N. van der Meer, Percy van Keulen, Wido van Peursen, and Bas ter Haar Romeny. VTSup 138. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Rabin, Chaim. “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint.” Text 6 (1968): 1–26. Rahlfs, Alfred. “Über Theodotion-Lesarteh im Neuen Testament und Aquila-Lesarten bei Justin.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 20.1 (1921): 182–199. Rahlfs, Alfred. “History of the Septuagint Text.” Pages xxxv–xliv in Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta lxx interpretes. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Redpath, Henry A. “Versions, Greek.” DBib 4:864–866. Salmon, George. A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament. 4th enl. ed. London: John Murray, 1889.

bibliography

473

Salvesen, Alison. Symmachus in the Pentateuch. Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph 15. Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1991. Salvesen, Alison. “The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Modern Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 95–109 in Let Us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda. VTSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Satran, David. “Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the Book of Daniel.” PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1985. Schmidt, Thomas Coffman. Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel. North Charleston, SC: Schmidt, 2010. Schnabel, Eckhard J. “The Muratorian Fragment: The State of Research.” jets 57 (2014): 231–264. Schultz, Carl. “‫עוז‬.” twot 2:652. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Translated by Sophia Taylor and Peter Christie. Vol. 3/2. Clark’s Foreign Theological Library2 25. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886. Translation of Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1886. Schürer, Emil. Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 3rd ed. Vol. 3. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1898. Schwartz, Jacques. “Le Septante de Daniel (1,2–10).” zpe 81 (1990): 275–277. Semisch, Charles. Justin Martyr: His Life, Writings, and Opinions. Translated by J.E. Ryland. Vol. 1. The Biblical Cabinet 41. Edinburgh: Clark, 1843. Shepherd, M.H. “Hermas, Shepherd of.” idb 2:583–584. Silverstone, Alec Eli. Aquila and Onkelos. Manchester: Manchaster University Press, 1931. Soden, Wolfram von. “n als Wurzelaugument im Semitischen.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle 17 (1968): 175–184. Soderlund, Sven K. “Septuagint.” isbe2 4:400–409. Soderlund, Sven K. The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis. JSOTSupp 47. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1985. Spangenberg, Izak J.J. “The Septuagint Translation of Daniel 9: Does it Reflect a Messianic Interpretation?” Pages 431–442 in The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by Michael Knibb. betl 145. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Sperber, Alexander. “New Testament and the Septuagint.” jbl 59 (1940): 193–293. Stroth, F.A. “Fragmente des Evangeliums nach den Hebräern aus Justin dem Märtyrer.” Pages 37–38 in Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur. Edited by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. Vol. 1. Leipzig, Weidmann: 1776. Stroth, F.A. “Beyträge zur Kritik über der lxx Dollmetscher, aus Justin dem Märtyrer und anderen Kirchenvätern.” Pages 66–124 in Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur (Erstes Stüd.). Edited by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. Vol. 2. Leipzig, Weidmann: 1778.

474

bibliography

Stroth, F.A. “Beyträge zur Kritik der lxx Dollmetscher, aus Justin dem Märtyrer, Eusebius, Basilius, Chrysostomus und anderen Kirchenvätern (Zweites Stüd.).” Pages 213– 258 in Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur. Edited by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. Vol. 3. Leipzig, Weidmann: 1778. Stroth, F.A. “Beyträge zur Kritik der lxx Dollmetscher, aus Justin dem Märtyrer, Eusebius, Basilius, Theodoret und anderen Kirchenvätern (Drittes Stüd.).” Pages 124–163 in Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur. Edited by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. Vol. 6. Leipzig, Weidmann: 1780. Strugnell, John. Preface to The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr), by Emanuel Tov, with the collaboration of Robert A. Kraft, and contribution of P.J. Parsons. djd 8. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Strugnell, John. “‫ֵקץ‬.” ThWAT 7:83–91. Taylor, Richard A. The Peshiṭta of Daniel. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 7. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst. Exercitationes selectae. Vol. 1. Leipzig: 1692. Thackeray, Henry John. “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings.” The Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1907): 262–278. Thackeray, Henry John. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. The Hilda Stich Stroock Lectures. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929. Thackeray, Henry John. “Septuagint.” isbe1 4:2722–2732. Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on Daniel. Translated with an introduction and notes by Robert C. Hill. wgrw 7. Atlanta: sbl, 2006. Torrey, Charles Cutler. “Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel.” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 15 (1909): 241–282. Torrey, Charles Cutler. “The Story of the Three Youths.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 23/3 (1907): 177–201. Torrey, Charles Cutler. “The Apparatus for the Textual Criticism of Chronicles–Ezra– Nehemiah.” Pages 53–112 in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper. Edited by Robert Francis Harper, Francis Brown, and George Foot Moore. Vol. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1908. Tov, Emanuel. “Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament.” Text 8 (1973): 78–92. Tov, Emanuel. “Septuagint and other Ancient Greek Translations.” Pages 305–317 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. Edited by Michael D. Coogan. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1867. Tucker, Miika. “Using Recurring Hebrew Phrases to Evaluate a Septuagint Translation: Jeremiah 11:1–14 as a Case Study.” Pages 497–508 in xv Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Munich, 2013. Edited by Wolfgang

bibliography

475

Kraus, Michaël N. van der Meer, and Martin Meiser. scs 64. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016. Tucker, Miika. “The Septuagint of Jeremiah: A Study in Translation Technique and Recensions.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2020. Vogt, Hermann-Josef. “Origen.” decl, 444–451. Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der. The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses. scs 61. Atlanta: sbl Press, 2014. Wagner, M. “‫ֵקץ‬.” tlot 3:1153–1156. Wetstein, Johann Jacob. Prolegomena in Novum Testamentum. Edited by Johann S. Semler. Halle: Renger, 1764. Wevers, John W. “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies.” bioscs 21 (1988): 23–34. Wevers, John W. “Septuagint.” idb 4:273–278. Wevers, John W. “Theodotion.” idb 4:618–619. Whiston, William. The New Complete Works of Josephus. Revised and enl. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999. Williams, Frank, trans. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books ii and iii. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Woude, Adam S. van der, ed. The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. betl 106. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993. Yi, Yun Yeong. “Translation Technique of the Greek Ecclesiastes.” PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005. Youngblood, Kevin Joe. “Translation Technique in the Greek Lamentations.” PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004. Ziegler, Joseph. “Der Bibeltext im Daniel-Kommentar des Hippolyt von Rom.” Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen: Philologisch-Historische Klasse 8 (1952): 165–169.

Index of Modern Authors Ackroyd, Peter R. 41n213 Aejmelaeus, Anneli 86n9 Aitken, James K. 82–83n99 Albertz, Rainer 61 Amara, Dalia 1n2, 44, 46, 55, 57, 61, 62n320, 132n109, 135n111, 139n115, 151n128, 182n169, 194n189, 211n214, 221n236, 222n237, 240n271, 262n345, 262n348, 273n385, 409n7 Archer, Gleason L. (trans.) 8n28 Ashley, Timothy R. 57n304 Assan-Dhote, Isabelle 66–67 Baillet, Maurice 59n310, 230n253 Bardy, G. 442n60 Barthélemy, Dominique 31, 32, 32–44, 47, 49, 52, 54, 59n310, 66, 67n4, 67n6, 67n11, 68–69, 71–75, 79n77, 81nn90– 91, 316n496, 408, 408n5 Bauer, Hans 216n224 Bentzen, Aage 24–25n122 Bertholdt, Leonhard 19n85, 186n176 Bevan, Anthony A. 26n129, 398n73, 402n86 Bledsoe, Amanda M. Davis 1n1 Bludau, August 22, 57n304, 446 Bodine, Walter Ray. 66–67 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice 38n200, 62n320 Box, G.H. 27n141 Braasch, Birte 45–46, 55, 409n7 Breed, Brennan W. 318n497 Brock, Sebastian P. 1n3 Brown, Francis 446n3 Brock, Sebastian P. 1 Burkitt, Francis Crawford 77nn59–60 Busto Sáiz, José Ramón 79n79 Casey, P. 442–443 Charles, Robert Henry 17n65, 26, 28–30, 186n175, 196n192, 202n202, 214n219, 226n246, 227, 242–243, 245n297, 319n502, 319–320, 374n15, 379n22, 396n68, 399n75, 401n83, 407n105, 445– 446 Christie, Peter 27n138 Cohen, Shaye J.D. 288n428

Collins, John J. 1n1, 1–2n3, 132n108, 149n123, 165n147, 196–197n194, 200n197, 211n214, 214n219, 215n222, 220n232, 226n246, 236n258, 240n272, 242n281, 269n372, 316n496, 318n497, 319n503, 326n515, 374n15, 379, 385n37, 403n87 Cornill, Carl Heinrich 26–28, 445–447 Cox, Claude E. 299n451 Coxe, Cleveland A. 3n6, 5n13, 6n18, 16n60 Credner, Carl August 15–21, 39n203, 446 Cross, Frank Moore 38n201, 42n218 Daniel, Suzanne 47n253 Davidson, Samuel 4n9, 6n19 Dean, James Elmer 4n10, 9n32 Decock, Paul B. 439n49 De Crom, Dries 68n13, 71n36 Delcor, Mathias 39–40 Di Lella, Alexander A. 1n1, 41n213, 50, 211n214, 214n219, 240n272, 242n283, 273n383, 318n497, 319–320n503, 323n507, 323–324n510, 370n12, 374n15, 399n76, 402n86 Dines, Jennifer M. 40n212, 51–52, 55 DiTommaso, Lorenzo 1n3 Dogniez, Cecile 1n3 Dorival, Gilles 40n208, 62n320 Driver, Samuel R. 26, 28n144, 211n214, 220n232, 239n268, 250n309, 273n383, 374n15, 402n85, 445–447 Ehrlich, Arnold Bogumil 186n175 Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried 15n54, 16n57, 19 Eissfeldt, Otto 41n213 Fernández, Natalio Marcos 51, 56, 71n38, 76n58, 79n80, 80n81 Ferrar, W.J. 14n49 Field, Fridericus 6n19, 7n23, 447n6 Flashar, Martin 238n262 Flint, Peter W. 1n1, 1–2n3 Fremantle, W.H. 13n44, 439n49 Friedmann, Meir 76n57 Fritsch, Charles T. 1–2n3

index of modern authors Gallandi, Andreas 16n57, 19 Gentry, Peter J.T. 38–42, 44n232, 56n301, 66–67, 79n80, 82n98 Gifford, Edwin H. 14n49 Ginsberg, H.L. 323n506 Ginzberg, Louis 224n240, 240n272 Golay, Émile 14n50 Goldberg, Louis 246n299 Goldingay, John E. 211n214, 318n499, 326n515, 337n534, 374n16, 401n83, 402n84, 403n88 Gonzalez Luis, José 79n79 Greenspoon, Leonard J. 42n221, 49, 51, 66, 69–71, 73, 74n51, 75, 75n56, 79n77, 270, 305n469 Grélot, Pierre 39–40, 52, 66, 408 Grabbe, Lester L. 42n221 Gwynn, John 8n26, 16n57, 17, 18nn73–78, 21–22, 26, 30, 39n203, 48, 50, 445–447 Harper, Robert Francis 446n3 Harper, William Rainey 446n3 Harris, J. Rendel 16 Hort, F.J.A. 16 Hanhart, Robert 18n75, 59n309 Harl, Marguerite 40n208, 62n320 Hartman, Louis F. 41n213, 50n277, 211n214, 214n219, 240n272, 242nn283–284, 273n383, 318n497, 319–320n503, 323n507, 323–324n510, 370n12, 374n15, 385n37, 399n76, 402n86 Hävernick, Heinrich Andreas Christoph 19–20n85, 186n176 Henze, Matthias 202n202 Hill, Robert C. 442n61 Hirsch, Emil G. 25n128 Horne, Thomas Hartwell 440n52 Hort, F.J.A. 16–17, 19 Jellicoe, Sidney T. 1n3, 38nn200–201, 39n203, 40n212, 42n217, 42n219, 47, 47n252, 48–49, 51, 53, 55, 76n58 Jobes, Karen H. 47, 55–56, 71n38, 76n58, 299n451 Jonker, Louis C. 156n138 Kahle, Paul E. 24–25, 27–28n142, 31, 446– 447 Kenyon, Frederic G. 25n127, 446, 446n4

477 Knibb, Michael 196–197n194 Koch, Christian Gotliebb 15, 42 Koch, Klaus 42n220, 45n241, 182n170, 242n281 Kotzé, Gideon R. 156n138 Kraft, Robert A. 31n166, 38n201, 39nn202– 203, 63, 71, 71n36, 81n90 Kreuzer, Siegfried 161n142 Krom, Hermanus Johannes 16n57, 19 Labendz, Jenny R. 5n15, 76n57 Labuschagne, C.J. 367n5 Lacocque, André 240nn272–273, 318n497, 401n83, 402n86 Lagarde, Paul de 24, 31 Lambach, Paul Joseph 403n91 Lange, Armin 1nn1–2, 19–20n85, 38n201, 61n318 Law, Timothy M. 7n23 Leander, Potus 216n224 Lefèvre, M. 442n60 Lengerke, Caesar von 19–20n85 Lietzmann, Hans 16–17n63 Löhr, M. 186n175 Long, Gary A. 85nn5–6, 129n106 Lütkemann, Leonhard 77n61 Magistris, Simon de 58n308 Marti, D. Karl 186n175, 398n73 May, Gerhard 10n36 Mayer, Christl M. 156n138 McCrystall, Andrew 57n304, 238n261 McLay, Timothy R. 41n216, 44–47, 52, 55, 57n305, 61, 62n320, 66–67, 72n39, 94n26, 108n66, 238n261, 242n284, 243n285, 246n303, 248n305, 250n311, 274n385, 301n458, 330n522, 332n526, 338n538, 384n32, 398n72, 408, 408n5, 409n7, 411n12 Meiser, Martin 81n89, 161n142 Metzger, Bruce M. 28–29n63, 29 Mez, Adam 27–28n142 Migne, J.-P. 3 Michaelis, Johann David 19–20n85 Milik, Józef T. 59n310 Montgomery, James A. 29–31, 121n92, 153n132, 154n135, 175n161, 181n166, 182n170, 186n176, 187–188n178, 195n190, 196n192, 196–197n194, 200n197,

478 Montgomery, James A. (cont.) 211n214, 214n219, 215nn221–222, 218n228, 219n229, 220n232, 227n248, 228– 229n251, 236n258, 240n273, 242nn281– 282, 245n297, 246n303, 250n309, 251n313, 269n372, 273nn383–384, 277n394, 315, 316n496, 318n497, 319n503, 323n507, 326n515, 339n539, 348n559, 367n4, 368–369n8, 370n12, 374n16, 379, 384n35, 385–386n41, 392n56, 395n63, 398n73, 399n78, 401n83, 402n84, 402n86, 403n89, 407n105, 434n35, 445–446, 448, 450 Montfaucon, Bernardo de 6n19, 7n23 Moore, Carey A. 62n320 Moore, George Foot 446n3 Munnich, Olivier 39–40, 42n221, 58–59, 62n320, 63, 66–67, 71n38, 72n41, 76n58, 91n19, 96n32, 102n49, 108n66, 121n92, 134n110, 136n112, 149n123, 152n131, 170– 171n151, 184n173, 187n178, 190n184, 200, 210n212, 225n244, 233n257, 243n285, 253n318, 337n534, 338n537 Muraoka, Takamitsu 63 Murray, Robert 241n279 Nestle, Eberhard 445 Norton, Gerard J. 447n6 Newsom, Carol A. 318n497, 385n37 O’Connell, Kevin G. 49, 66, 68–69, 71, 73, 75n53, 75n55, 78, 275–276n388 Obiajunwa, Chukwudi J. 44–45, 46n249, 55, 337n535, 409n7 Olariu, Daniel 1n1, 46–47, 100n42, 100– 101n45, 102n50, 104n56, 113n79, 150n127, 154n135, 159n141, 200n200, 241n274, 248n304, 249n305, 256n326, 258n332, 258n334, 259n336, 262n347, 264n351, 265nn354–356, 267n361, 271n374, 276n389, 302n461, 304–305n468, 307n474, 313n491, 314n493, 318n498, 330n522, 336n533, 340n543, 351n566, 354n574, 356n577, 360n590, 363n598, 410n9, 411n13, 420n22, 422n26, 441n56 Olofsson, Staffan 66, 86n9 Orlinsky, Harry M. 6nn19–20

index of modern authors Osiek, Carolyn 16n60 Overbeck, Franciscus Camillus 18n69, 18n72 Ottley, Richard R. 25, 55, 445–446 Pace Jeansonne, Sharon 44–45, 57n304, 151nn128–129, 188n181, 211n214, 218n228, 226n247, 338n538, 401n83, 402n84, 404n92 Parente, Fausto 288n428 Parry, JasonT. 44n232, 56n301, 203n204 Pellauer, David 240n272 Pfeiffer, Robert H. 5n13, 25n127, 446 Pietersma, Albert 80, 82 Porteous, Norman W. 402n85 Prince, J. Dyneley 182n170, 186n175 Pusey, Edward Bouverie 21n95 Rabin, Chaim 238 Rahlfs, Alfred 59, 63, 77, 96n32, 108n66, 136n112, 170n151, 196n192, 243n285, 366, 368n7, 376–377, 385, 399, 405n97, 446, 449n4 Redpath, Henry A. 25–26, 30, 446 Reider, Joseph 240n273 Ryland, J.E. 16n57 Salmon, George 16n62, 17–18, 26, 30, 39n203, 446–447 Salvesen, Alison 7n24, 45n236, 79n79 Satran, David 202n203 Schaff, Philip 16n60 Schmidt, Thomas Coffman 442n60 Schmitt, Armin 43–44, 49n271, 50–52, 66– 67, 79n77, 154n135, 238n261, 241n277, 243n285, 246n303, 277–278n396, 408 Schnabel, Eckhard J. 16–17n63 Schultz, Carl 244n292 Schürer, Emil 26–27, 30nn158–159, 39n203, 445–447 Schwartz, Jacques 170–171n151 Segal, Michael 46n248, 61n318, 62n320, 146n121, 153n132, 154n134, 156n138, 159n140, 161n142, 176n162, 196–197n194, 202n202, 207n206, 209n210, 211n214, 237n260, 240n271, 271n376, 272n379, 307n473, 318n497, 345n556, 368– 369n8, 369n9, 381n29, 395n66 Semisch, Charles 16n57

479

index of modern authors Seow, C. Leong 318n499 Shenkel, James Donald 66–67, 69 Shepherd, M.H. 16n60 Sigismund, Marcus 161n142 Sievers, Joseph 288n428 Silva, Moises 47, 55–56, 71n38, 76n58, 299n451 Silverstone, Alec Eli 76n57 Soden, Wolfram von 291n433 Soderlund, Sven K. 80, 447 Sollamo, Raija 86n9 Spangenberg, Izak J.J. 196–197n194 Sperber, Alexander 22n105 Sprengling, Martin 9n32 Strugnell, John 31n166 Swete, Henry Barclay 7n23, 17nn66–67, 18n70, 18n77, 22–23, 30n158, 55, 76n58, 238nn264–265, 445–447 Stroth, F.A. 15, 16n56, 19 Taylor, Bernard A. 63n323 Taylor, Richard A. 51, 403n89 Taylor, Sophia 27n138 Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst 15 Thackeray, Henry John 23–24, 28n142, 30n158, 42n219, 48, 67n4, 241, 241n277, 445–447 Thompson, Henry O. 1n3 Torrey, Charles Cutler 379n22, 446–447 Tov, Emanuel 1nn1–3, 38n200, 41n216, 42n217, 46n248, 50, 58, 60n312, 61n318, 63, 66, 70–71, 73–74, 80–81, 85, 86n9, 90n16, 203n204, 213n218, 238n261,

238n263, 241n277, 298n450, 311nn485– 486, 312n487, 410 Towner, Sibley W. 402n85 Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux 16n60 Tucker, Miika 80–81 Turner, Nigel 240n273 Ulrich, Eugene 59n310, 389n51, 403n91 Valeta, David M. 1n1 Vaux, Roland de 59n310 Vogt, Hermann-Josef 437n43 Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der 165n146 Wace, Henry 16n60 Waterman, Leroy 242n282, 242–243n284 Wenthe, Dean Orrin 44, 57n304, 151n128 Wevers, John W. 25n127, 29, 38n201, 41nn215–216, 73–74, 81n91, 445 Wetstein, Johann Jacob 15, 16n57, 19 Whiston, William 384n34, 384–385n36, 443n65 Williams, Frank 4nn10–11, 5n13 Woude, Adam S. van der 1–2n3, 62n320 Yi, Yun Yeong 67, 67–68n12 Youngblood, Kevin Joe 66–67, 285n418 Ziegler, Joseph 18n72, 25n127, 58–59, 63, 96n32, 121n92, 134n110, 136n112, 149n123, 210, 248n305, 338n537, 366, 368n7, 376–377, 385, 394, 398n74, 399, 405n97, 407, 445–446, 449n4

Index of Ancient Texts 1

Hebrew Bible: Masoretic Text and Septuagint

Genesis 1:1–12 1:2 1:5 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:11–12 1:11 1:12 1:14 1:16–18 11:16 1:20–22 1:21 1:22 1:24–29 1:26–27 1:28 1:29 1:31 2:2 2:3–4 2:5 2:6 2:7–8 2:15–16 2:15 2:18–21 2:18 2:20 2:21–22 2:21 2:23 2:24 3:1 3:3 3:7 3:8 3:10 3:11 3:13–14 3:15

90 118 78 255, 294 78 255 78 294 281 281 90, 105 90 287, 294 90 287 253 90 116, 353 253 281 90 294 294 116, 353 291 116, 353 353 116 353 116, 294 121 341 78, 111, 255 111 111 294 283 294 349 349 288 294 281

3:16 3:21 4:10 4:13 4:14–15 4:23 4:25 4:26 5:1 5:2–28 5:3 5:30–32 6:1–7 6:3 6:5–6 6:6–7 6:8 6:12 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:17 6:19 6:22 7:3 7:4–5 7:15–16 7:15 7:17–18 7:17 7:19 7:21 7:23 8:1 8:6 8:9 8:12 8:17 8:21 8:22 9:4 9:5–6 9:6 9:9

253 294, 298 294 287 121 256 255, 281 78 116, 294 105 261 105 116 105, 111, 118 282 294 121 111 294 294 294 111, 118, 255 111 294 281 294 111 118 253 304 128, 254 111, 116 116 118 294 121 116 111, 253 116, 282, 294 281 323 116 294 281

481

index of ancient texts 9:11 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:22 9:24 10:5 10:10 10:12 10:20 10:21 10:31 11:2 11:4 11:5 11:6 11:7 11:25–26 11:31 12:2 12:7 12:17 13:1 13:6 13:10 13:15 13:16 14:1 14:6 14:9 14:18–20 14:22 15:1 15:2 15:3 15:5 15:8 15:12 15:13 15:14 15:18 16:6 16:7 16:8 16:9 16:10 16:12 17:7 17:8–10

111 111 111 111 288 294 293 169 287 100, 293 287 100, 293 121, 169 294 116 294 294 294 294 287 281 287 291 104 304 281 281 170 286 170 128 128 290, 357 97 120, 281 281 97 287 281 287 281, 287 304 121 304 254 281 116 281 281

17:11 17:12 17:13–14 17:19 17:20 17:21 17:22 17:24–25 18:3 18:4 18:8 18:9 18:14 18:18 18:19 18:23 18:25 18:26 18:27 18:28 18:30 19:4 19:11 19:15 19:19 19:21 19:28 19:29 19:30 19:32 19:34 20:3 20:6 20:8 20:9 21:2 21:8 21:11 21:12–13 21:14–16 21:15 21:18 21:22 21:32 21:34 22:1 22:13 22:16 22:18

111 281 111 281 287 105 291 111 121 254 254 289 102, 290, 357 287 300 100 290, 357 121 289 121 121 286 287 100 89, 121 290, 357 291 89 291 281 281 97 97, 283 290, 357 287 89 256, 287 290, 357 281 256 254 287 287 116 104 290, 357 255 290, 357 281

482 Genesis (cont.) 22:20 23:5 23:7 23:10 23:12–13 23:14 23:17 24:2 24:7 24:9 24:12 24:13 24:14 24:16 24:23 24:25 24:27 24:28 24:30 24:33 24:48 24:49 24:50 24:52 24:60 24:63 24:66 25:8 25:23 26:3 26:4 26:7 26:8 26:11 26:12 26:19 26:23 26:24 26:32 27:15 27:16 27:20 27:33–34 27:34 27:37 27:38 27:39 27:42

index of ancient texts

288, 290, 357 289 286 289 286 289 180 254 281 254, 357 119 230 119 261, 291 288 104 361 357 357 357 361 119 289 357 281 188 357 286 339 281 281 261 188 283, 286 105, 121 121, 283 291 281 121 298 98 121 287 357 289 308 289 357

27:43 28:4 28:12 28:13 28:14 28:20 29:1 29:7 29:11 29:12 29:13 29:14 29:17 30:2 30:14 30:15 30:26 30:27 31:1 31:10–11 31:10 31:12 31:14 31:20–22 31:20 31:22 31:24 31:27 31:27[26] 31:28 31:31 31:32–33 31:35 31:36 31:37 31:43 32:1 32:6 32:8 32:11 32:13 32:20 32:23 32:26 32:27 32:30 32:33 33:1–2 33:5

304 281 90, 291 281 281 98, 405 305 102, 287 290 288 357 111 261 255 121 255 256 121 361 97 291 291 289 304 288 288 97 288 349 336 289 121 121 289 121 289 100 288 286 361 281 121 256 283 291 288 283 256 256

483

index of ancient texts 33:6–7 33:8 33:10 33:13 33:15 34:7 34:11 34:13 34:18 34:22 35:1 35:3 35:4 35:5 35:6 35:7 35:8 35:12 35:13 36:24 36:33–39 37:5–6 37:8–10 37:15 37:16 37:17 37:19 37:20 37:27 37:32 38:1 38:2 38:8 38:9 38:19 38:20 38:22–23 39:4 39:6 39:21 40:5 40:6 40:7 40:8–9 40:14 40:16 40:18 40:19 41:3

256 121 121 256 121, 286 308 121 289 357 286 291, 304 291, 405 254 180 286 304 254–255 281 291 121 255 96 96 121 288 121 97 96 111 121 287 230 281 281 298 121 121 121 261 119 96 306 306–307 96 119 96 289 111 94

41:7–8 41:8 41:11 41:12 41:15 41:16 41:17 41:21 41:22 41:25–26 41:29 41:32 41:34 41:35 41:38 41:40 41:42 41:48 41:55 41:57 42:6 42:9 42:22 42:28 43:6 43:23 43:34 44:4 44:8–10 44:12 44:13 44:16 44:17 44:20 44:34 44:43 45:3 45:13 45:26 45:27 46:6–7 47:19 47:21 47:23–24 47:28 47:29 48:4 48:11 48:19

96 295 96 97 96 289 97 261 97 96 287 96, 278 251 254 118, 121 118, 286 298 180 286 100 286 96, 100 289 171 288 309 253 255, 291 121 121 116 121 105, 121 256 121 255 289 361 288 118 281 281 286 281 105 254, 361 281 281 281, 286

484

index of ancient texts

Genesis (cont.) 49:1 49:16 49:29 49:33 50:20

288 286 286 286 286

Exodus 1:17–18 1:20 1:22 2:3 3:4 2:6–10 3:3 3:7 3:9 3:12 3:21 4:1 4:10 4:11 4:16 4:20 4:21 4:25 4:28 4:30–31 5:1 5:4–7 5:4 5:9 5:10 5:12 5:16 5:22–23 5:22 6:6 6:7 7:4 7:11 7:18 7:21 7:22 7:24 8:3 8:13–14 8:14 8:15

256 286 286 256 89 256 287 286 78 286 286 289 77, 78, 286 116, 353 286 116 286 90 288, 357 286 286 286 275 357 286 286 286 286 116 255, 287 255, 286 287 77, 78, 95, 276, 295 292 292 276 180 276 116, 353 276 276

8:24 9:9–10 9:18 9:19 9:22 9:25 10:5 10:7 10:11 10:23 11:3 11:5 11:6 11:7 12:2 12:8 12:12 12:29 12:30 12:37 12:46 13:2 13:8 13:13 13:15 14:5 14:14 14:20 14:25 14:28 14:31 15:4 15:8 15:10 15:23 16:3 16:7 16:8 16:10 16:12 16:13 16:22 16:31 17:6 17:8 17:12 17:14 18:1 18:7

291 116, 353 102 116, 353 116, 353 116, 353 259 92 103 255 287 118 287 293 105 323–324 353 118 287 103 323–324 353 288 353 353 288, 304 296 171 296 285 287 239, 285 118 118 292 323 361 323 361 323 180 288 281 296 296 254 255 89 171

485

index of ancient texts 18:10 18:11 18:19 18:22 18:26 19:3 19:7–8 19:8 19:9 19:12–13 19:12 19:19 20:1 20:4 20:6 20:26 21:4 21:5 21:10 21:19 21:20 21:22 21:23 21:24 21:25 21:26–27 21:28 21:36 21:37 22:30 23:5 23:6 23:14 23:16–17 23:17 23:29 24:3 24:4 24:8 24:10 24:16–17 25:20 25:35 27:5 27:7 28:3 28:22–30 28:38 28:41

255 287 357 102 102 288 357 289 288 283 180 289 89, 357 255 119 108 256 289 94 253 254 256 255 255 255 255 323 255 255 323 254 300 105, 172 105 172 105 289, 357 254–255 357 254 361 171 254 254 341 95, 118, 295 68 290, 305 298

28:42 28:43 29:5 29:8 29:14 29:30 29:31–32 29:34 29:37 29:38 29:42 29:43 30:4 30:8 30:10 30:21 30:29 30:36 31:3 31:4 31:7 31:8 32:10–11 32:13 32:19 32:20 32:21 32:25 32:30–31 33:1 33:7 33:13 33:17 33:18 33:22 34:6 34:9 34:22–24 34:23–24 34:23 34:27 34:31 35:10 35:25 35:31 36:1 36:4 36:8 39:28

246 281 298 298 323 255, 298 323 323 283 305, 427 305, 427 361 255, 340 305, 427 105 286 283 281, 290 118 282 397 397 287 281 254 99, 275, 281, 290 287 78, 275 287 281 291 287 357 361 361 278–278, 344 268 105 172 90 357 116 95, 295 95, 295 118 295 95, 295 295 246

486

index of ancient texts

Exodus (cont.) 39:33 40:13–14 40:34–35

397 298 361

Leviticus 1:2 2:13 4:20 4:26 4:31 4:35 5:2–3 5:3–4 5:7 5:10 5:13 5:16 5:18 5:22 5:26 6:3 6:4 6:11 6:15 6:20 7:19 7:21 8:7 8:13 9:6 9:22 9:23 10:3 11:8 11:21 11:24 11:26–27 11:31 11:36 11:37–38 11:39 12:4 13:2 13:3–4 13:9 13:20 13:25 13:30–32

353 89 268 268 268 268 283 353 90 268 268 268 268 353 268 111, 246, 298 94, 298 283 255 283, 323 283 283, 353 298 298 361 290, 305 361 308 283 307 283 283 283 283 281 283 283 353 261 353 261 261 261

13:34 13:40–41 14:9 14:35 14:37 14:42 15:2–3 15:3 15:5 15:7 15:10–12 15:10 15:12 15:13 15:16–18 15:16 15:19 15:21–23 15:25 15:27 15:32 16:2 16:4 16:17 16:23–24 16:23 16:24 16:26 16:28 16:32 16:34 17:16 18:4–5 18:5 18:6–19 18:20–21 19:15 19:20 19:22 19:28 20:2–4 20:11 20:17–21 20:22 21:9 21:10 21:15 21:17 21:21

261 269 111 288 261 255 111 215 283 283 283 254 397 111 281 111 111, 283 283 287 283 281 102 111, 246, 298 353 298 246 111 111 111 246, 298 105 111 300 353 108 281 300 281 268 111 281 108 108 300 230 287, 298 281 288 282

487

index of ancient texts 22:3 22:4–6 22:4 22:5 22:6 22:13 22:27 22:32 23:30 23:40 23:41 24:17 24:18 24:20–21 24:20 25:5 25:10–11 25:15 25:16 25:29–30 25:50 25:52 25:53 26:4 26:9 26:16 26:38 27:17–18 27:23–24 27:30 Numbers 3:12 3:13 3:41 3:45 4:15 4:19 4:26 5:13 5:14 5:19 5:20 5:28 5:29 5:30 6:18 6:26 8:7

282 283 282 353 111 282 254 254 92 361 105 353 255 353 255 105 105 105 253 105 105 105 105 287 253 282 92 105 105 282

255 353 255 255 283 183 259 282 118 254 254 282 254 118 254 304 111

8:16 8:17 8:18 9:10 10:11 11:7 11:17 11:25–26 11:28 11:29 11:31 12:3 12:6 13:20 13:26 14:10 14:12 14:18 14:19 14:20 14:21–22 14:24 14:30 14:34 15:25–26 15:28 16:19 16:22 16:26 16:29 16:31 16:32 16:33 17:5 17:7 17:15 17:27 18:15 18:19 19:7–8 19:11 19:13 19:16 19:18 19:21–22 20:6 20:17 20:26 20:28

255 353 255 291 105 282 118 118 289 118 118 353 97 219 289 361 287 278, 344 119, 268 268 361 118, 282 297 105 268 268 361 118 100, 283 353 254 353 92 282 361 116 92 353 282 111 283, 353 283 283 283 283 361 292 298 298

488 Numbers (cont.) 21:1 21:22 21:26 21:28 21:29–30 22:4 22:8 22:16 22:18 22:27 22:31 23:3 23:5 23:7 23:10 23:13 23:23 23:26 23:27 24:2 24:3 24:4 24:7 24:10 24:11 24:15 24:16 24:19 25:13 27:11 27:16 27:18 27:20 28:6 28:14 28:23 30:6 30:9 30:13 31:9 31:14 31:19 32:14 32:31 33:52 33:54 33:55 34:6

index of ancient texts

296 292 296 150 92 287 289 336 287, 289 254 108 288 116 118 269 94 287 289 94 118, 290, 305 103 108 282 172 304, 361 103 108, 128 92 255, 282 300 118 118 361 305, 427 105 305, 427 268 268 268 285 285 283 255 289 92 253 305 287

35:24 35:34 Deuteronomy 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:13 1:14 1:15 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:28 1:41–42 1:41 2:12 2:21–23 2:25 2:30 2:34 3:4 3:5 3:8 3:12 3:17 3:18 3:21 3:22 3:23 4:1 4:6 4:8 4:11 4:13 4:18 4:19 4:26 4:28 4:30 4:32 4:37 4:39 4:49 5:5 5:8 5:10

300 297

287 282 287 253 95, 295 289 95, 295 287 287 287 287 287 296 289 255 255 254 118 287 287 128 287 287 254 287 287 296 287 300 283, 295 300 254 288 255 188, 209, 254 92 353 116 353 282 116, 255 254 288 255 119

489

index of ancient texts 5:24 6:4 7:9 7:10 7:12 7:13 7:20 7:22 7:24 8:3 8:13 8:17 8:18 8:19–20 9:3 9:14 9:21 10:6 10:15 10:18 11:4 11:9 11:11 11:12 11:14 11:17 12:2–3 12:2 13:6 13:4 13:6 13:8 13:15 13:18 14:8 14:22 14:24 14:28 15:20 16:3 16:16 16:19 17:3 17:4 17:9–11 17:16–17 19:18 20:11 20:15

353, 361 133 119 92 119 253 92 253 92, 255 353 253 285 285 92 92 255 99, 275, 281, 290 255 282 300 92, 285 282 292 105 103 92 92 254 96 96 96 291 278 253 283 105, 282 291 105 105 324 105, 172 95, 295 209 288 288 253 269 289 291

20:19 21:7 22:3 22:5 22:9 22:11 22:20 22:29 23:1 24:5 25:4 25:9 25:15 25:19 26:3 26:5 27:14–15 27:15 27:20 28:22 28:23 28:38 28:46 28:47 28:51 28:52 28:59 28:60 28:62 28:63 29:8 29:14 29:18 29:19 29:25 30:2 30:6 30:8–10 30:11 30:18 30:19 31:10 31:21 32:4 32:6 32:7 32:8 32:12 32:17

353 289 92 103, 298 282 298 361 255 108 105 292 289 278 255 288 92, 289 289 308 92, 108 92 254 282 282 255 92 128, 303 282 116 255 92, 253 293 150 100 256, 268 406 116 282 116 291 92, 288 282 105 282 278 295 282, 288 128, 353 297 406

490

index of ancient texts

Deuteronomy (cont.) 32:26 32:28 32:29 32:34 33:17 33:27 34:4 34:9

115 92, 297 293 214 361 255 282 118

Joshua 1:7–8 1:16 2:11 2:12 2:14 2:16 2:20 3:4 3:16 4:9 5:2 5:7 5:12 5:13 5:14 6:17 6:25 6:26 7:7 7:14 7:17 7:19 7:20 7:21 7:22 8:4 8:20 9:5 9:13 9:15 9:19 9:22 9:24 10:16 10:17 10:21 10:27 11:3

293 289 118, 255 119 119, 255, 361 349 108 291 291 254 270 255 100, 105 188 97 349 349 286, 339 92 103 103 288, 361 289 170, 254, 293 254 291 278 150 150 361 283 291 288–289 349 349 293 349 254

11:5 11:6 11:17 11:20 11:23 12:3 13:5 14:7 15:15–16 19:27 19:34 21:44 22:19 22:21 22:32 23:13 23:16 24:3 24:11 24:25 24:26 Judges 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:8–9 1:11–12 1:24 2:4 3:10 3:16 3:20 3:29 3:30 4:5 4:12 4:21 5:4 5:14 5:17 5:19–20 5:29 5:31 6:11 6:18 6:19 6:20

296 103 254 120 296 254 254 289 327 116 116 330 297 289 289 92 92 282 296 300 254

296 296 296 254 296 327 119 304 118 255 118 285 254 254 288 279 296 302 297 296 289, 295 92 254 116 254 89

491

index of ancient texts 6:21 6:26 6:34 7:5 7:6 7:8 7:13 7:14 7:15 8:1 8:3 8:7 8:8 8:9 8:18 8:35 9:5 9:7 9:17 9:21 9:23 9:26 9:29 9:38–39 9:38 9:45 9:57 10:8 10:18 11:3 11:4–6 11:8–9 11:9 11:12 11:20 11:25 11:27 11:29 11:32 11:40 12:1 12:3–4 13:12 13:19–20 13:25 14:6 14:9 14:17 14:19

283 245 118, 298 293 292, 294 255 96 89, 289 96, 116 296 89, 118 292 289 116 277 119 349 288, 304 296 304 118 303 253 296 294 296 116 99, 105 296 304 296 296 116 296 296 296 296 118 296 105 296 296 300 278 118 118 348 395 118

15:2 15:14 15:19 16:6 16:7 16:10 16:13 16:15 16:16 16:18 16:24 18:2 18:7 18:9 18:10 18:14 18:27 18:28 19:28 20:4 20:14 20:18 20:27 20:34 20:36 20:41 21:2 21:10 1 Samuel 1:2 1:7 1:11 1:12 1:15 1:17 2:3 2:4 2:8 2:18 2:20 2:25 2:27 3:7 3:13 3:21 4:9–10 4:17 4:19

255 118 118 288 353 288, 292 288, 292 172 395 288 253 285 291 291 303 289 303 291 289 289 296 296 89 283 303 283 304 285

256 105 282 253 289 289 128 285 118, 361 246 255, 282 89 108 108 288 108 296 289 116

492 1Samuel (cont.) 4:20 4:22 5:2 6:5 6:9 7:2 7:11 7:16 7:28 8:7 8:15 8:20 9:2 9:3 9:8 9:12 9:15 9:17 9:18 9:19 9:20 9:21 9:24 10:6 10:9 10:12 10:22 10:26 11:6 12:3 12:4 12:9 12:24 13:6 14:2 14:9 14:11 14:12 14:15 14:22 14:28 14:37 14:39 14:41 14:47 15:6 15:9 15:18

index of ancient texts

289 89, 361 89 89, 361 283 253 255 105 279 294 282 296 128 92 289 289, 304 108 289 304 289 92 289, 339 78 94 94 289 349 89, 283, 285 89 289 99 296 361 349 254 90 349 289 89 349 289 289 289 289 296 119 294 296

15:23 15:26 16:1 16:7 16:8 16:15 16:18 17:5 17:6 17:7 17:9 17:32–33 17:38 18:14–15 18:30 19:2 19:8 19:20 19:24 20:1 20:2 20:3 20:7 20:8 20:10 20:13 20:14–15 20:28 20:32 20:41 20:42 21:3 21:4 21:5–6 21:5 21:9 21:11 21:14 22:6 22:8 22:14 22:17 22:18 22:20 23:1 23:4 23:5 23:6 23:14

294 294 294 261, 294 295 89 289 298 307 150 296 296 298 293 220 349 296 78 78 304 108 289 289 119 289 108 119 289 289 172 282 323 254 289 254 254, 289 304 261 254 108 289 108, 304 246 304 296 289 296 304 89

493

index of ancient texts 23:16 23:23 24:22 25:10 25:12 25:21 25:28 26:6 26:8 26:14 26:21 26:22 27:4 27:11 28:1 28:6 28:8 28:15 29:8 29:9 30:9 30:12 30:22 30:24 31:1 31:12 31:13 2Samuel 1:16 1:19 1:20 1:24 1:27 2:5–6 2:6 2:23 2:27 2:28 3:5 3:8 3:10 3:11 4:3 4:8 4:9 5:8 5:12 6:3

89 349 282 289 288 255 296 289 89 78, 289 255 289 288, 304 288 296 96, 289 98 96, 296, 395 296 289 259 292 289 339 296 285 254

289 243 288 98 92 119 361 254 89 296 97 119 118 289 304 282 289 283 304 89

6:4 6:12 6:16 6:20 6:22 6:23 7:10 7:12 7:13 7:15 7:16 7:19 7:25 7:27 7:28 8:9 8:10 8:15 9:1 9:3 9:7 10:1 10:2 10:17 11:1 11:2 11:16 11:17 11:20 11:22 12:10 12:15 12:19 12:25 12:26–27 12:29 13:3 13:18 13:28 13:32 13:34 13:36 13:37 13:38 14:2 14:9 14:10 14:18 14:20

298 89 294 108 108 256 297 282 118 119 118 291 89 108 278 285 296 300 119 119 119 255 119 296 105 34, 37, 39 285 296 296 296 294 256 266 78 296 296 295 98 285 289 304 304 304 304 295, 298 118 283 289 295

494 2Samuel (cont.) 14:48 14:52 15:2 15:14 15:17 15:20 15:21 15:24 16:8 16:12 16:13 16:17 17:9 17:10 17:25 18:9 18:20 18:24 19:1 19:10 19:14 19:22 19:43–44 20:16 20:20 20:21 22:43 21:12 21:15 21:16 22:10 22:14 22:16 22:33 22:37 22:39 22:40 22:43 22:48 22:51 23:1 23:2 23:5 23:7 23:18 24:4 24:9 24:13 24:15

index of ancient texts

285 285 300 304 291 119 289 89 255 255 341 119 349 285 255 254 94 304 255 304 255 255, 289 289 295 289 304 290 105 296 282 254 128 108 285 254, 307 99, 254 254, 285 281 254 119, 282 103 290, 293 252 283 302 285 285 289 103

1 Kings 1:5 1:13 1:17 1:20 1:24 1:27 1:28 1:30 1:35 1:36 1:37 1:42 1:43 1:46 1:47–48 1:52 2:3 2:4 2:7 2:9 2:11 2:12 2:19 2:22 2:24 2:30 2:33 2:35 2:39 2:45 2:46 2:46[46e] 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:9 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:15 3:25 3:26 3:27 4:1 4:7 4:12 5:2 5:9 5:15

304 118 118 118 118 118 289 118, 255 118, 255 289 118 285 289 118 118 285 293 118, 361 119, 304 295 34, 37, 39 118 118 289 118 289 118, 282 255 304 118 295 296 89 118–119 255 283 89 295 361 96, 318 256 289 289 256 105 255 296 89 255

495

index of ancient texts 5:17 5:19 5:22–24 5:25 6:5 6:8 6:16 6:27 7:7[44] 7:24[11] 7:29[16] 7:30[17] 7:44[30] 7:45[31] 8:6 8:11 8:20 8:23 8:25 8:28 8:30 8:34 8:36 8:38 8:39 8:45 8:46 8:49 8:50 8:52 8:54 8:65 9:3 9:5 9:11 9:19[10:22a] 10:2 10:6 10:9 10:14 10:15 10:18–19 10:24 10:25 11:14 11:17 11:28 11:40 11:43

254 118, 255 252 105 341 341 341 283 118 255 255 255 254 269 254 361 118, 255 119, 255 118 120 119, 268 268 268 119 268 119 291 120 268 119 119 286 119 118 252 294 285 278–279 118 105 251 118 89 105 282 304 285 304 255

12:6 12:9 12:13 12:16 12:21 12:22 12:24 12:24[24p–q] 13:8–9 13:10 13:14 13:18–19 13:22 14:12 14:21 14:23 14:24 14:25 14:27 14:31 15:8 15:9 15:24 16:6 16:10 16:11 16:28 17:17 17:21 17:23 17:24 17:41–42 18:1 18:4 18:13 18:21 18:24 18:32 19:2 19:4 19:5 19:6 19:7 20[21]:1 20[21]:4 20[21]:6 20[21]:11 20[21]:12 20[21]:14–15

289 289 289 289 296 89 296 289 292 94 254 292 292 256 105 78, 128 254 105 255 255 255 105 255 255 255 118 255, 296 118 172 256 278–279 172 105 349 349 289 251, 289 282 103 254 254, 283 255 283 296 289 103 289 289 110

496

index of ancient texts

1Kings (cont.) 20[21]:17 20[21]:19 20[21]:22 20[21]:23 20[21]:24 20[21]:25 20[21]:26 20[21]:37 20[21]:39 20[21]:42 21[20]:6 21[20]:8 21[20]:27 21[20]:29 22:2 22:10 22:19 22:30 22:31–32 22:34 22:40 22:51

110 110 105 296 251, 255 296 105 94 255 255 255 214 111, 308 308 105 98, 118 118, 209 298 296 116 255 255

2Kings 1:7 1:10 1:11 1:12 2:24 3:11 3:21 3:27 4:16–17 4:29 5:15 5:18 5:25 5:26 5:27 6:8 6:29 7:1 7:2 7:8 7:13 7:17 7:18 7:19

300 289 94 289 256 289 296 255 103 289 318 268 318 116 282 296, 323 349 103 289 94 289 362 103 289

7:20 8:8–9 8:9 8:15 8:20 8:22 8:24 8:26 8:29 9:8 9:13 9:15 9:23 9:32 9:33 10:3 10:6 10:19 10:24 10:35 11:1 11:3 12:18 12:22 13:5 13:7 13:9 13:18–19 13:20 13:21 13:24 13:25 14:9 14:10 14:15 14:16 14:21 14:27 14:28 14:29 15:7 15:10 15:22 15:25 15:30 15:38 16:4 16:5 16:17

362 241 318 255 255 255 255 105 296 92 255 296 116 304 362 296 103 92 255 255 92, 282 349 296 255 255 92, 292, 362 255 172 105 283 255 172 362 304 296 255 255 255 296 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 296 255

497

index of ancient texts 16:20 17:3–4 17:4 17:7 17:10 17:16 17:20 17:24 18:5 18:7 18:9–10 18:17 18:19–22 18:21 18:24 18:33 18:36 19:8–9 19:10 19:18 19:24 19:29 19:37 20:3 20:12 20:21 21:3 21:5 21:18 21:24 21:26 22:17 23:4–5 23:6 23:15 23:19 23:24 23:30 23:34 24:2 24:4 24:6 24:17 24:18 25 25:8 25:11 25:25 25:27 25:29

255 241 105 255 128, 255 209 282 255 303 293 105 318 303 99 303 100 289 296 303 92 292 105 255 361 241 255 92, 209 209 255 255 255 255 209 281, 290 77–78, 281, 290 77 77 255 255 92 268 255 255 105 153 105 259 282 105 261

Isaiah 1:4 1:12 1:13 1:24 2:4 2:6 2:7 2:10 2:15 2:19 2:21 3:1 3:3 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:24 4:1 4:2 4:5 4:6 5:1 5:8 5:14 5:21 5:24 5:26 6 6:1 6:3 6:5 6:7 6:9–10 7:1 7:13 7:14 7:18 8:1 8:7 8:8 8:16 8:18 8:23 9:1 9:5 9:10 10:3 10:16 10:17

282 362 253 97 296 256 100 361 128 361 361 97 295, 406 254 289 293, 361 255 98 243, 361 150361 308 219 90 361 95 150 291 308 105, 304 361 308 90, 283 282 296 78, 89 3–4 100 115 361 90, 100 214 256 100 100 256 271 361 361 150

498 Isaiah (cont.) 10:20 10:33 11:2 11:7 11:10 11:11 12:2 12:4 13:7 13:8 13:12 13:14 13:16 13:19 14:9 14:10 14:11 14:14 14:20 14:32 15:1 16:4 16:5 16:8 17:4 18:2 18:3 18:7 19:2 19:11–12 19:11 19:18 19:19–20 20:1 21:9 21:14 21:16 22:3 22:8 22:14 22:17 22:18 22:21 23:3 23:8 23:9 24:6 24:15

index of ancient texts

361 97, 128 283 256 330 170 303 78 115 120 115 100 271 243 256 289 255 128 282 289 308 362 119 283 219, 361 269 100 100, 269 296 295 95 294 100 296 289 100 105, 361 304 108 108 103 100 298 282 339 243 115 89

24:16 25:1 25:8 25:10 25:12 26:5 26:6 26:7 26:14 26:21 27:9 27:11 27:13 28:1 28:2 28:3 28:4–5 28:11 28:15 28:17 28:27 28:28 29:1 29:7 29:11–12 29:11 29:14 29:23 29:24 30:1 30:4 30:12 30:30 30:23 30:25 30:32 31:2 32:4 32:10 33:7 33:8 33:15 33:18 33:19 34:4 34:8 34:15 34:16 35:2

243 278 78 292, 362 90 90 362 257 92 108 291 283 92, 100 243 100 362 243 293 257, 292 292, 300 292 281, 292 105, 296 97 327 214 92, 283, 295 256 283, 294 257 90 303 361 282 128, 242 296 295 286, 293 105 78, 336 115 257 327 283 209 105 297 78 361

499

index of ancient texts 35:6 36:5–9 36:6 36:9 36:10 36:18 36:21 37:7 37:10 37:14 37:18 37:19 37:25 37:30 37:38 38:3 40:9 40:10 41:2 41:8 41:11 41:15 41:17 41:20 41:25 41:26 41:28 42:3 42:22 43:2 43:5 43:9 43:10 43:17 44:3 44:4 44:12 44:13 44:25 44:28 45:3 45:13 45:19 45:23 45:25 46:12 47:2 47:3 47:5

293 303 99 251 100, 296 100 289 100 303 78 100 92 292 105 255 278 128 249 302 282 92 281, 290, 292 293 266, 293 302, 362 278 289 99 349 150 282 278 282 285, 426 282 242 292 277 95 252 308–309 302 282 293 282 291 108 78, 108 308

47:14 48:14 48:19 48:20 49:2 49:9 49:18 50:3 50:4 50:6 50:9 51:6 51:7 51:9 51:12 51:17 52:1 52:2 52:11 52:13 53:1 53:2 53:7 53:10 53:12 54:3 54:8 54:10 55:7 55:10 55:13 56:1 56:2 57:1 57:3–4 57:4–5 57:4 57:5 57:7 57:9 57:18 57:19 58:3 58:13 59:3 59:4 59:7 59:11 59:14

150 252 282 304 349 108 298 298 293 269 150 150, 255 115 298, 302 115 302 298 302 283 293 105 361 350 282 255 282 119 119 268 282 255 105 115 92, 266 282 256 293 254 128 291 278 291 252 252 293 278 91 291 291

500

index of ancient texts

Isaiah (cont.) 59:17 59:21 60:12 60:17 60:22 61:2 61:3 61:9 61:10 62:5 63:3 63:4 63:7 63:10 65:2 65:9 65:16 65:22 65:23 66:18 66:22

298 282 92 255 339 105 255 282 89, 298 89 362 105 119 296 278 282 278 94, 150 282 293 282

Jeremiah 1:6 1:9 1:10 1:19 2:5 2:10 2:18 2:20 2:21 3:6 3:13 3:15 3:16 3:19 4:9 4:10 4:14 4:18 4:20 4:22 4:30 5:1 5:7 5:15 6:21

97 90 92 296 291 266 292 128, 255 278–289 128 255 293 255 243 92 97, 283 91 283 78 95, 295 98 268 268 293 92

6:22 7:10 7:12 7:13 7:15 7:16 7:31 8:2 8:8–9 8:8 8:9 9:2[3] 9:4[5] 9:7[8] 9:11[12] 9:16[17] 9:22[23] 9:23[24] 10:9 10:15 11:1–4 11:4 11:5 11:11 11:20 11:23 12:14 12:17 13:22 13:25 15:7 15:11 15:20 16:15 17:5 17:6 17:7 17:8 17:26 18:7 18:18 18:20 19:4 19:5 19:13 20:10 20:12 21:4–5 22:11

302 318 297 289 282 78, 336 282 209 295 95 95 293 293 293 92, 282 295 295 293 298 92 81 336 289 78 108 105 283 92 108 303 92 78, 97 296 100 103 297 103 105, 242 241 92 92, 293 255 406 282 209 115 108 296 255

501

index of ancient texts 22:18 22:21 22:30 23:1 23:5 23:6 23:8 23:9 23:12 23:20 23:27–28 23:31 23:32 23:33 23:35 23:39 24:6 25:9 25[32]:10 25[32]:35 27:9 27[34]:10 27[34]:15 28[35]:3 28[35]:13 28[35]:16 29[36]:26 29[36]:32 30[37]:6 31[38]:8 31[38]:19 31[38]:20 31[38]:22 31[38]:27 31[38]:28 31[38]:34 31:36–37[38:37, 35] 32[39]:1 32[39]:10–11 32[39]:14 32[39]:24 32[39]:29 32[39]:44 33[40]:3 33[40]:8 33[40]:22 34[41]:1 34[41]:7 34[41]:22

362 259, 324, 344 103, 382 92 293 297 100, 282 103 105 266, 283 96 293 96 271 289 271 269 228 92 92 96 92 92 397 255 105 255 288 103 287 288 256 103 282 92 268 288 105 214 215 296 296 214 289 268 209 296 296 296

35[42]:7 35[42]:9 36[43]:1 36[43]:3 36[43]:7 36[43]:28 36[43]:31 37[44]:1 37[44]:8 37[44]:10 37[44]:20 38[45]:4 38[45]:12 38[45]:26 40[47]:15 41[48]:1 41[48]:5 41[48]:8 41[48]:12 42[49]:2 42[49]:4 42[49]:9 43[50]:10 44[51]:3 44[51]:15 44[51]:20 45:1[51:31] 45:4[51:34] 46[26]:4 46[26]:8 46[26]:27 47[29]:2 48[31]:8 48[31]:12 48[31]:27 48[31]:28 48[31]:32 48[31]:36 48[31]:44 48[31]:45 48[31]:46 49:7[30:1] 49:10[30:4] 49:20[30:14] 49[30]:10 49:15[30:9] 49:38[25:18] 50[27]:6 50[27]:7

282 282 105 268 120 291 288 255 296 296 120 296 255 120 92 288 241 309 296 120 289 120 78, 269 406 289 289 105 269 298 92 282, 395 112 92 290 296 297 283 92 105 150 92 92 108 339 112 294 92 92 255

502

index of ancient texts

Jeremiah (cont.) 50[27]:9 50[27]:11 50[27]:20 50[27]:41 51[28]:1 51[28]:9 51[28]:11 51[28]:13 51[28]:18 51[28]:23 51[28]:28 51[28]:30 51[28]:55 51[28]:57 51[28]:58 51[28]:61 51[28]:64 52 52:20 52:29 52:31

302 292 268 302 302 283, 290, 305 302 297 92 251 251 296 92 251, 295 128 78 181 153 255 153 105

Ezekiel 1 1:4 1:7 1:8 1:13 1:19 1:20–21 1:20 1:21 1:22 1:23 3:6 3:14 3:26 4:4 4:6 4:8 4:9 4:15 5:5–6 5:8 6:3 6:12 6:13 7:12

307, 355 303, 307 303, 307, 355 255 261 290, 305 305 290 290 307 255 293 290, 305 293, 350 341 105, 341 341 341 255 100 100 92 291 255 90

7:20 7:26 7:27 9:2–3 9:2 9:10 9:11 10:2 10:6–7 10:6 10:9–10 10:16 10:20 11:15 11:16–17 11:22 12:15 12:22 13:5 13:6 13:7–9 13:11 13:13 13:14 13:19 14:3–4 14:3 14:7 16:10 16:14 16:25 16:36–37 16:49 16:57 17:5 17:6 17:10 17:13 17:14 17:22 17:23 17:24 18:6 19:5 19:8 20:3 20:5 20:6 20:15

243 92 298 246, 298 318–319 78 246, 289, 298 246, 255, 298 246, 298 318–319 261 290, 305 255 291 100 290, 305 100 92, 291 330 292 293 112 112 90, 108 293 289 289 289 298 361 307 108 259, 324, 344 108 282 255 283 282 304 128 255 128 304 92 110 289 282 243 243, 290, 305

503

index of ancient texts 20:23 20:31 20:34 20:37 20:41 21:3 21:14 21:15 21:16 21:24 21:29 21:31 21:33 21:34 22:4 22:5 22:10 22:15 22:27 22:28 23:6 23:7 23:10 23:12 23:15 23:18 23:22 23:23 23:29 24:4 24:5 24:27 25:4 25:7 25:9 25:16 26:11 26:16 26:17 26:20 27:8–9 27:10 28:3 28:12 28:16 29:7 29:12 29:18 30:7 30:13

100, 290, 305 289 100 254 100 150 269 269 269 100 108 128 269, 303 292 100 291 108 100 92 292 251, 298 239 108 239, 251, 298 261 108 302 239, 251 108 307 239, 255 350 297 92, 100 243 92 362 98 92 243 295 361 295 214 92 99 100 269 100 92

30:23 30:26 31:6 31:14 31:16 32:13 32:27 33:22 34:3 34:4 34:13 34:14 34:16 34:18 35:10 36:3 36:19 36:34 37:10 37:11 38:4 38:22 39:21 39:27 40:2 40:3 41:5 41:6 41:21 41:26 42:14 43:7 43:9 43:19 44:17 44:22 45:25 46:5 46:7 46:11 46:14 46:15 46:20 46:23 47:1 48:15 48:18 48:21 48:23

100 100 255, 297 292 292 92 254 350 98 92 100 219 92 292, 362 100 293 100 255 287 92 298 112 300 100 128 303 341 341 261 341 298 297 297 282 298 282 241 241 241 241, 406 241 241 241 255 255 259 259 259 259

504

index of ancient texts

Hosea 1:2 2:11 2:12 4:2 4:13 4:14 7:1 7:6 7:13 7:16 10:11 10:13 12:2 13:15 14:7 14:10

256 103 108 283 255 283 108 150 292 293 292 303 293 397 362 282, 295

Joel 1:11 1:19 2:3 2:4 2:13 2:19 3:1 4:4 4:5 4:7 4:8 4:9 4:12 4:17 4:21

92 150 150 261 344 289 96 78 239 302 291 302 302 297 297

Amos 1:3 1:8 2:4 2:9 2:13 2:14 3:7 3:12 3:15 4:8 5:13 7:2 7:14

292 92 293 255 255 92 108 307 92 292 293 268 289

9:3 9:5

349 283

Obadiah 1:3 1:7 1:8 1:12 1:18

297 255 92, 95, 295 92 150

Jonah 1:3 1:5–6 1:6 1:8 1:10 1:14 3:5 3:6 3:9 4:2 4:5 4:10

304 279 92 100 304 92 298 283 92 304, 344 255 92

Micha 1:6 1:9 2:2 2:9 3:11 4:3 4:4 4:9 4:10 4:12 4:13 5:3 5:7 5:9 6:3 6:5 6:7 6:12 7:2 7:5 7:14 7:18

108 283 103 361 289 291, 296 255 92 297 283 281, 290, 292 72 362 92 289, 395 289 219 293 92 303 297 290, 305

505

index of ancient texts Nahum 1:3 1:8 2:8 2:10 3:3 3:5 3:14

344 112 108 397 303 108 362

Habakkuk 1:16 2:1 2:2 2:5 2:6–7 2:18 2:19 3:3 3:7 3:12 3:14

72 289 289 103 72 72 302 362 255 292 72

Zephaniah 1:5 1:8 1:12 1:14 1:16 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:10 2:13 2:21 3:9 3:13

209, 251 298 286 251 128 251 289 92 255 92 251 294 293

Haggai 1:1 1:6 1:14 2:2 2:12–13 2:12–14 2:21

132 98 132, 302 132 283 289 132

Zechariah 1:6 1:10–13

289 289

2:4 2:12 2:14–15 2:17 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:10 4:1 4:5–6 4:10 4:11 4:16 5:7 5:11 6:4–5 6:12 6:13 6:15 7:14 8:3 8:8 8:14–15 8:23 9:2 9:5 9:10 10:1 10:2 10:3 10:9 11:8 12:10 13:4 13:7 14:5 14:12 Malachi 1:7 1:8 1:10 1:12 2:9 2:15 3:6 3:21

304 283 297 302 298 289, 298 98 255 302 289 294 289 105 290, 305 169–170 289 255 362 291 406 278–279, 297 297 282 293 78 92 249 103 96 362 291 78 18 298 103, 302 90 293

294 251 252 294 294 282 261 255

506 Psalms 1:2 1:6 2:5 2:10 2:12 3:1 3:5 4:2 4:3 4:5 4:6 5:2 5:7 5:10 5:12 6:3–4 6:11 6:10 7:6 7:12 7:18[17] 8:2 8:5 8:6 8:7 9:3[2] 9:4 9:6–7 9:9 9:11 9:19 9:20–21 10:7[9:28] 10:8–9[9:29–30] 10:16[9:37] 10:18 [9:39] 12[11]:4–5 14[13]:2 14[13]:3 15[14]:1 15[14]:3 15[14]:4 16[15]:3 16[15]:7 16[15]:9 17[16]:2 17[16]:6 17[16]:12

index of ancient texts

252 92 120 293 92 304 78 191 292 308 303 282 92, 293 293 297 120 120 120 297, 362 344 128 362 115 361 255 128 92 92 257 303 92 115 254, 293 308 92 115 293 293 294 297 293 294 252 284 294, 297 257 191 308

18[17]:10 18[17]:14 18[17]:16 18[17]:26 18[17]:37 18[17]:39 18[17]:40 18[17]:43 18[17]:46 18[17]:48 18[17]:51 19[18]:3 19[18]:5 19[18]:10 19[18]:13 19[18]:14 21[20]:6 21[20]:8 21[20]:11 22[21]:2 22[21]:5 22[21]:8 22[21]:16 22[21]:24 22[21]:25 22[21]:31 23[22]:2 24[23]:7 24[23]:9 25[24]:3 25[24]:11 25[24]:13 26[25]:9 27[26]:4 27[26]:7 28[27]:1 28[27]:2 28[27]:3 28[27]:5 28[27]:9 29[28]:4 29[28]:7 30[29]:6 30[29]:8 30[29]:13 31[30]:12 31[30]:13 31[30]:21 32[31]:3

254 128 108 103 255 254 255 290 150 254 282 295 290 278–279 282 78 361 128, 303 92, 282 291 303 278 293 282 294 282 297 304 304 78 268 282 100 278 191 78 191 100 282 304 361 150 252 120, 252 308 278 92 293 150

507

index of ancient texts 32[31]:6 32[31]:8 33[32]:15 34[33]:1 34[33]:9 34[33]:14 35[34]:1 35[34]:12 35[34]:13 35[34]:15 35[34]:26 35[34]:28 36[35]:4 37[36]:3 37[36]:20 37[36]:23 37[36]:25–26 37[36]:27 37[36]:28 37[36]:29 37[36]:30 38[37]:21 39[38]:2 39[38]:3 39[38]:4 39[38]:10 40[39]:5 40[39]:6 40[39]:9 41[40]:2 41[40]:6 45[44]:1 45[44]:2 45[44]:4 45[44]:5 45[44]:6 45[44]:17 46[45]:5 47[46]:3 47[46]:4 48[47]:3 48[47]:6 49:11[48:10] 49[48]:11 49[48]:15 49[48]:21 50[49]:14 50[49]:18 50[49]:19

89, 112 284 283 261 103 293 296 255 298, 395 308 298 294 293 297 92 103 282 297 282 297 294 255 294 350 294 350 103, 292 91 252 293 92 261 294 361–362 361 255 255 128 128 254 341 120 95, 295 92 150 282 128 278 294

50[49]:22 51[50]:10 51[50]:16 52[51]:4 52[51]:6 52[51]:7 52[51]:9 53[52]:3 53[52]:6 53[52]:7 54[53]:4 55[54]:2 55[54]:10 55[54]:14 56[55]:2–3 56[55]:2 56[55]:6 57[56]:1 57[56]:3 57[56]:5 57[56]:9 58[57]:2 58[57]:4 58[57]:8 58[57]:10 59[58]:9 60[59]:1 60[59]:14 61[60]:3 62[61]:5 62[61]:10 63[62]:4 64[63]:2 64[63]:4 64[63]:5 64[63]:9 64[63]:10 65[64]:5 65[64]:6 65[64]:12 65[64]:14 66[65]:12 66[65]:17 66[65]:18 68[67]:3 68[67]:17 68[67]:19 68[67]:24 68[67]:25

282 78 294 294 294 269 103 293 294 89 191 120 294 115 296 8, 115 91 304 128 294 302 257 292 294 283 294 261 294 78 292 292 252 191 294 308 278, 294 293 297 291 105 298 115 254, 294 278 92 297 297 294 278

508 Psalms (cont.) 69[68]:1 69[68]:34 69[68]:37 71[70]:24 73[72]:3 73[72]:5 73[72]:8 73[72]:9 73[72]:11 73[72]:17 73[72]:20 73[72]:21 73[72]:22 73[72]:27 74[73]:2 75[74]:3 76[75]:7 77[76]:2 77[76]:11 78[77]:17 78[77]:20 78[77]:31 78[77]:35 78[77]:36 78[77]:55 78[77]:56 78[77]:59 78[77]:60 80[79]:1 80[79]:17 81[80]:6 82[81]:5 82[81]:6 83[82]:15 83[82]:16 83[82]:18 83[82]:19 85[84]:10 86[85]:7 86[85]:15 87[86]:5 88[87]:1 88[87]:4 88[87]:5 89[88]:5 89[88]:30 89[88]:37 89[88]:39

index of ancient texts

261 294 282, 297 294 278 115 282 294 128 283 96, 294 261 294 92 297 257 279 89 128 128 112 219 128 294 297 128 294 297 261 92 294 283 128 150 120 92, 120 128 297 78 278–279, 344 128 289 89 103 282 282 282 294

89[88]:49 90[89]:3 90[89]:7 90[89]:16 91[90]:1 91[90]:4 91[90]:9 91[90]:13 92[91]:2 92[91]:6 92[91]:7 92[91]:10 93[92]:1 93[92]:3 94[93]:7–8 94[93]:11 94[93]:12 96[95]:6 96[95]:10 97[96]:9 98[97]:2 98[97]:9 99[98]:4 101[100]:2 102[101]:11 102[101]:18 102[101]:24 102[101]:27 102[101]:29 103[102]:3 103[102]:8 103[102]:15 103[102]:21 104[103]:1 104[103]:12 104[103]:15 104[103]:18 104[103]:24 104[103]:32 105[104]:6 105[104]:15 105[104]:32 105[104]:44 106[105]:7 106[105]:18 106[105]:24 106[105]:26 106[105]:27 106[105]:42

103 115 120 361 128 254 128 362 128 91 283 92 298 304 283 91 103 361, 362 257 128 108 257 257 293 304 294 289 92, 150 282, 297 268 344 115 252 298, 361–362 297 115 128 253 283, 301 282 283 150 100 293 150 294 304 100, 282 254

509

index of ancient texts 106[105]:47 107[106]:3 107[106]:11 107[106]:18 107[106]:30 107[106]:43 108[107]:3 108[107]:14 109[108]:2 109[108]:3 109[108]:4 109[108]:5 109[108]:16 109[108]:18 109[108]:24 109[108]:29 110[109]:3 111[110]:3 112[111]:2 112[111]:10 116[114]:9 117[116]:1 119[118]:18 119[118]:27 119[118]:34 119[118]:42 119[118]:73 119[118]:92 119[118]:95 119[118]:99 119[118]:118 119[118]:125 119[118]:130 119[118]:141 119[118]:144 119[118]:155 119[118]:169 119[118]:170 119[118]:172 119[118]:176 120[119]:5 120[119]:7 120[119]:23 122[121]:7 126[125]:2 126[125]:6 127[126]:5 128[127]:4 129[128]:1–2

252 100 128 89 252 295 302 294 294 296 255 255 308 298 261 298 361 361–362 282 92 100 252 108 284 284 289 284 92 92 293 294 284 284 294 284 291 284 120 294 92 297 296 294 259, 324, 344 294 282 103 103 296

130[129]:1 132[131]:9 132[131]:16 132[131]:18 134[133]:2 137[136]:6 138[137]:6 139[138]:2 139[138]:4 139[138]:7 139[138]:8 139[138]:9 139[138]:19 139[138]:20 140[139]:4 142[141]:5 143[142]:1 143[142]:10 143[142]:12 144[143]:2 144[143]:3 144[143]:5 144[143]:13 145[144]:4 145[144]:5 145[144]:8 145[144]:12 145[144]:19 146[145]:4 147:12[1] 148:13 149:9 Job 1:1 1:5 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:11 1:19 2:3 2:5 2:9 2:10 3:3 3:6 3:21 3:23

78 298 298 298 304 294 128 91, 283 290, 294 304 291 297 100 91 254, 294 92 191 252 92 254 115 283 250 252 361–362 344 361 252 91–92 252 362 361

100, 278 266 289 278 289 283 283 278 283 89 89 92 105 309 103

510 Job (cont.) 4:2 4:4 4:5 4:7 4:9 4:11 4:12 4:16 4:17 4:20 5:1 5:4 5:8 5:12 5:13 5:17 5:19 5:21 5:25 6:2 6:7 6:18 6:24 6:25 6:26 6:30 7:1 7:5 7:14 7:17 8:6 8:10 8:13 8:19 8:21 8:22 9:2 9:4 9:7 9:13 9:25 10:4* 10:5 10:11 11:19 11:20 12:8 12:11

index of ancient texts

290 290 283 92, 278 92 92 278 277, 330 103, 115 92 242 339 89 278 95, 295 115 283 294, 349 282 186 283 92 295 278 290 294 115 98, 111 96 115 278 290 92 94 278 298 115 295 214 254 304 115 103, 115 298, 323 296 92 295 290

12:22 12:23 13:9 13:10 13:15 13:17 13:28 14:2 14:10 14:14 14:17 14:19 15:2 15:3 15:9 15:13 15:14 15:17 15:18 16:3* 16:4 16:21 17:8 17:10 18:2 18:15 18:16* 18:17 19:2 19:7 19:21 19:23 20:3 20:6 20:7 20:8 20:10 20:12 20:12* 20:16 20:19 20:27 20:29 21:2 21:11 21:21 22:2 23:5 23:15

108 92 115 339 100 290 150 304 103 103 214 92, 112, 115 295 290 283 290 115 295 95, 295 289 255, 290 103 278 278 290 297 255 92 290 78 283 290 283, 289 90 92 96 339 254 254, 294 294 99 108 89 290 256 252 293 290 266

511

index of ancient texts 24:1 24:4 24:14 24:16 24:25* 25:4 26:4 26:5* 25:6 26:8* 27:17 27:22 28:3* 28:4 28:5* 28:12 28:13 28:15* 28:20 28:24 28:28 29:8 29:9 29:10 29:10* 29:13 29:14 39:20 29:22 29:25 30:1* 30:2 30:7 30:9 30:10 30:15 31:8 31:19 31:40 32:2 32:3 32:6 32:8 32:9 32:10 32:11* 33:12 32:14 32:15*–16*

103 349 100 214 290 115 290 255 115 255 278 304 269 115 255 283, 287 115 255 283 254 283, 287 349 290 349 294 92 298 361 290 297 294 92 254 290 291 116 94 92 255 89 289 295 115 295 295 290 115 290 289

32:15* 32:17 33:1 33:2 33:15 33:16 32:18 33:8 33:26 33:29* 33:32 33:32* 34:2 34:3* 34:7* 34:9 34:14 34:16 34:34 34:35 35:4 35:16* 36:2 36:3 36:4 36:14 36:16* 36:20* 36:29* 37:3* 37:7 37:14 37:22 37:24 38:2 38:3 38:4 38:18 38:23 38:30 38:36 38:41 39:3 39:15* 39:17 39:19 39:26 39:28 40:1–2

290 295 290 294 97 108, 215 290 290 115 103 289 290 95, 290, 295 290 103 89, 103 118 283, 290 103, 295 293 290 290 290, 295 291 290 242 255 255 283 255 214 266 362 295 290 103, 289 283 266 103 349 283, 287 256 256 292, 362 283 298 283, 287 308 289

512

index of ancient texts

Job (cont.) 40:7 40:10 40:21 41:3 41:5 41:15 41:22 41:26 42:7–8

103, 289 98, 361 254 254 108 111 254 128 278

Ruth 1:5 1:8 1:9 1:14 2:6 2:7 2:9 2:11 2:12 3:7 4:1 4:16

256 405 304 304 289 318 283 289 254 108 323 256

Proverbs 1:2 1:3 1:5–6 1:5 1:6 1:32 1:33 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:9 2:16 2:21 3:4 3:5 3:16 3:35 4:1 4:5 4:7 4:12 4:24 5:8

266, 283 278 295 266 95, 266 92, 259, 324, 344 297 283 309 283 283 291 297 89, 297 283 294 95, 295 283 283 283 282 291 291

5:9 5:15 6:6 6:17 6:19 6:24 6:29 6:34 7:4 8:5 8:9 8:12 8:14 8:26 9:6 9:8–9 9:10 9:12 10:1 10:4 10:5 10:8 10:12 10:13 10:14 10:20 10:28 10:31 11:7 11:8 11:10 11:13 12:8 12:4 12:15 12:18–19 12:18 12:19 13:10 13:14 13:19 13:20 14:1 14:3 14:5 14:7 14:15 14:16 14:23

94, 362 292 295 294 292 294 283 103 283 266 283 297 283 100 283 295 283 295 295 295 279 295 302 295 95, 295 294 92 294 92 255 92 108 95 293 295 294 295 278–279 295 295 291 95, 295 295 95, 295 292 295 229 295 259

513

index of ancient texts 14:24 14:25 14:29 15:2 15:4 15:7 15:12 15:18 15:20 15:28 15:29 15:30 15:33 16:13 16:14 16:16 16:21 16:23 16:32 17:1 17:3 17:13 17:20 17:22–23 17:24 17:27 18:13 18:15 18:19 18:21 18:27 18:29–33 19:5 19:7 19:8 19:9 19:14 19:20 19:21 19:22 19:25 20:1 20:24 20:26 20:29 21:6 21:11–12 21:11 21:20

95, 295 292 344 95, 294–295 294 95, 295 95, 295 344 295 289 291 278 289 293 295 283 295 295 344 259, 324, 344 293 255 294 293 295 344 289 95, 295 293 294 293 293 293 291 304 92 293 295 293 292 266 295 103, 266 295 361 294 293 295 295

21:22 21:23 21:28 21:29 22:15 22:17 22:21 22:27 23:1 23:3 23:4 23:9 23:15 23:19 23:21 23:23 23:24 24:5 24:7 24:22 24:23 24:26 25:12 25:15 25:23 26:4–5 26:5 26:7 26:12 26:16 26:25 26:28 27:5 27:10 27:11 27:20 28:5 28:11 28:21 28:28 29:3 29:4 29:7 29:8–9 29:8 29:11 29:19 30:1 30:2

295 294 92, 292 283 291 95, 295 278, 289 255 266 292 283 290 295 295 298 283 295 295 295 294 95, 295 289 295 294 294 289 295 307 295 295 115 294 108 291 295 294 266, 283 266, 295 103 92 92 100 283 295 95 295 266 103 283

514

index of ancient texts

Proverbs (cont.) 30:8 30:10 30:13 30:19 30:24 31:6 31:16 31:25

291–292 97 304 103 95, 295 92 278 361

Song of Songs 1:4 2:6 2:7 2:10 2:12 2:14 3:5 4:1 4:11 4:12 4:16 5:3 7:10 8:1 8:3 8:4–5 8:5 8:7 8:14

257 254 302 289 90 261 302 108 254, 294 214 302 298 257 294 254 302 254 294 304

Ecclesiastes 1:3 1:9 1:13 1:14 2:3 2:7 2:8 2:11 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:19 2:20 2:22 3:1

254 254 254 254 254 302 110 254 295 259 295 254 254 254, 295 254 254 254

3:2 3:5 3:6 3:16 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:7 4:13 4:15 5:2 5:3 5:6 5:7 5:12 5:13 5:17 6:1 6:8 6:11 6:12 7:4–5 7:4 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:11 7:15 7:16 7:24 8:1 8:4 8:5 8:9 8:14 8:15 8:17 9:1 9:3 9:6 9:9 9:11 9:13 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:18 10:2 10:5

269 302 92 254 254 252 254, 379 254 256, 295 254–256 96 252 96 110, 128 254 92 254 254 295 259 254 295 95 254 92, 295 344 278 92 259 291 295 302 295 254 90 252, 254 254, 295 95, 295 254 92, 254 254 95, 254, 295 254 295 294 95, 295 92 295 254

515

index of ancient texts 10:12 10:18 11:6 12:1 12:9 12:10 12:11 12:13

295 253 282 90, 252 259, 295 252 95, 259, 295 181

Lamentations 1:1 1:6 2:2 2:3 2:9 2:14 3:1 3:14 3:18 3:27 3:33 3:34 3:35 3:38 3:39 3:42 3:60–61 3:66 4:1 4:4 4:10 4:14–15 4:22

110 361 90 150 92 108 103 150 92 103 289 254 103, 128 128 103 268 91 255 261 294 256 283 108

Esther 1:1 1:3 1:8 1:13 1:16 1:22 2:3 2:4 2:10 2:12 2:15 2:18 2:20 3:1

110, 153, 416 110, 239 252 95 110 110 110 255 287–288 90 90 110 287–288 283

3:4 3:8 3:9 3:12 3:13 3:14 4:1 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:7 4:8 4:11 4:14 4:16 5:1 5:2 5:6 5:11 6:1 6:8 6:9 6:11 6:13 6:14 7:3 7:4 7:8 7:72 8:1 8:3 8:5 8:8 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:12–13 8:13 8:15 8:17 9:1 9:2 9:3 9:4 9:6 9:12 9:16 9:20 9:24

287–288 110 92, 264 110, 154, 215, 251 92, 110 110 298 90, 110 298 263 92, 287–288 336 110 90, 92 92 98 283 336 288 327 98 239, 298 298 288 90 289 92 336 283 287–288 336 92, 110, 327 214 110, 153, 251, 416 214, 327 92 110 296 298 90, 110 90 110 110, 251 110 92 92, 336 110 110, 291 92, 296

516 Esther (cont.) 9:26 9:27 9:28[27] 9:28[27] 10:3 Daniel 1–12 1–6 1–3 1 1:1–2:4 1:1 1:2

1:3 1:4

1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:15–16 1:15 1:16 1:17

1:18 1:19 1:20 1:21

index of ancient texts

90 282 110 286 286

119, 232 260 61, 151, 192 89, 340 1 104, 232, 312, 332, 419 89, 97, 99–100, 109, 157, 168, 182, 221, 312, 333, 345, 416, 418 111, 116, 132, 232, 239– 240, 288, 333, 345 105, 106, 169, 256, 261, 272, 280, 293, 327, 328, 426, 429, 450 104, 113, 262, 328, 340, 357, 429, 448 116, 131–132, 163, 416 313 248, 259, 262, 336, 340 89, 340 97, 136, 175, 256 239 291, 336, 429 136, 163, 256, 261– 262, 340 190, 336, 357, 429, 448 262, 340 123, 256, 261, 313, 336, 430 239, 304 89, 93, 97, 105, 106, 164, 256, 272, 280, 327 313, 333 121, 328, 429, 450 93, 95, 101, 122, 137, 151, 164, 260, 357 104, 211, 232

2–6 2 2:1–3 2:1 2:2–11 2:2

2:3 2:4–7:28 2:4 2:5–7 2:5

2:6 2:7 2:8

2:9 2:10

2:11 2:12 2:13

2:14(15)–24(25) 2:14–15 2:14

2:15–23 2:15

2:16 2:17 2:18

2:19–20 2:19

19, 260 207, 423 97 104, 186, 232, 418 207 93, 250, 276, 318–319, 328, 332, 422, 424– 425, 429 117 1 61, 96, 147, 295 313 88, 96, 122–123, 183– 184, 272, 289, 360, 367, 417, 451 96, 392, 435 88, 96, 189, 289, 367, 373, 451 88, 141, 184, 263, 272– 273, 358, 360, 415, 423, 451 96, 122, 141, 260–261, 264, 300, 415 88, 93, 141, 170, 204, 265, 276, 289, 351, 367, 373, 415, 418, 451 94, 110, 141, 221–222, 415 91, 94, 206–207, 295 94, 100, 207, 258, 264, 313, 335, 342, 352, 422–423 269 176–177, 268 94–95, 100–101, 176, 258, 295, 352, 368– 369, 422 176 88, 110, 141, 176, 245, 264, 269, 342, 367– 368, 415, 451 141, 313, 335–336, 415 245, 288 91–92, 94–95, 127, 130, 180, 295, 335, 337, 415 371 108, 127, 141, 245, 415

517

index of ancient texts 2:20 2:21 2:22 2:23

2:24 2:25 2:26–27 2:26 2:27–28 2:27 2:28 2:29 2:30 2:31

2:32 2:33 2:34–35 2:34 2:35

2:36 2:37 2:38 2:39 2:40 2:41 2:42–44 2:42 2:43 2:44

88, 146, 176, 367, 415, 451 94, 101, 215, 260–262, 287, 386, 423, 435 108 141, 165, 226, 252, 335–336, 415, 423 92, 94–95, 117, 141, 295, 313, 415, 428 103, 114, 121, 245, 383 313 88, 96, 137, 289, 358, 367, 415, 452 18 88, 93–95, 289, 251, 367, 426, 452 96, 108, 133, 142, 146 91, 108, 124, 207–208, 418 91, 108, 114, 215, 313, 337, 428 125, 216–217, 257– 259, 277, 358, 388, 423 358 306, 313–314 223, 275 98, 274–275, 315–316, 358, 388 18, 98–99, 109, 122, 148, 222–223, 274, 290, 305, 337, 339, 358, 388 96, 300, 313, 338 233, 361 114, 327, 342–343, 431 94, 109, 148, 187, 339, 417, 430 98–99, 147, 274–275, 281, 425 101–102, 165, 313–314, 358 313 119, 190 102, 111, 115, 170–171, 190, 281, 358, 416 18, 98–99, 223, 274, 282

2:45

2:46 2:47

2:48 2:49 3 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:7 3:8 3:9

3:10 3:12

3:13 3:14 3:15–16 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:19 3:20–23 3:20 3:21 3:22–23

96, 98, 263, 274, 289, 300, 315–316, 337, 358 122, 142, 233 88, 108, 132, 265, 289, 337, 351, 360, 367, 426, 452 94–95, 109, 141, 245, 253, 295, 343 110, 335–336 195, 300, 432 109, 122, 127, 142–143, 152, 328, 358, 370, 416 110, 123, 142–143, 194, 251, 331, 351, 358, 370 110, 142, 193–194, 251, 358, 370, 417 117, 226, 359, 419 116, 142–143, 250, 358, 370 142–143, 226, 250, 358, 370, 419 103, 369, 383 88, 142, 204, 367, 369–370, 373, 418, 452 115, 143, 250, 358 103, 109, 114, 125, 143, 313, 354, 358, 375, 383, 455 103, 109, 114, 331–332, 376, 455 88, 142, 143, 204, 354, 358, 367, 452 313 142–143, 226, 250, 358 88, 142, 234, 289, 337, 367, 373, 452 133, 265, 351, 354, 415 143, 234, 354, 358 88, 260, 276–277, 299, 358, 372, 452 103 103, 253, 266, 359, 383 103, 456 377–380, 435

518 Daniel (cont.) 3:22 3:23 3:24[91]–26[93] 3:24[91]–25[92] 3:24[91]

3:25[92] 3:26[93]

3:27[94]

3:28[95]

3:29[96]

3:30[97] 3:31–33[4:37c] 3:31[4:37c] 4–6 4–5 4:1[4] 4:2[5] 4:3[6]–6[9] 4:3[6] 4:4[7] 4:5[8] 4:6[9] 4:7[10]–8[11] 4:7[10] 4:8[11] 4:9[12] 4:10[13] 4:11[14] 4:12[15]

index of ancient texts

100, 103, 258, 299, 422, 456 103, 313, 456 88 197–198 103, 142, 245, 263, 277, 367, 370, 372, 383, 452 103, 223–224, 358, 383, 453 127, 138, 194–195, 205, 331, 351–352, 415, 431, 453 103, 114, 122–123, 251, 260, 277, 358, 381– 382, 457 88, 120, 123, 134, 142, 205, 223–224, 260, 290, 302, 313, 354, 367, 395, 453 94, 120, 122–123, 134, 226, 264–265, 324, 351, 419, 423 109, 234, 256 237 109, 327, 339, 370 1, 29, 61, 150–151, 192– 193, 200 156 118 96, 235, 358 202, 417 94, 96 93, 96 96 96, 344, 358 339 109, 128, 358, 388 109, 125, 153, 249, 253, 297, 328 109–110, 201, 235, 254, 328, 343 241–242, 277, 358, 388 127, 201, 254, 269, 359 109, 339

4:13[16] 4:14[17] 4:14[17a] 4:15[18] 4:16[19] 4:17[20]–18[21] 4:17[20] 4:18[21] 4:19[22]–20[23] 4:19[22] 4:20[23] 4:21[24] 4:23[26] 4:24[27] 4:25[28] 4:26[29] 4:27[30] 4:28[31] 4:29[32] 4:30[33] 4:30[33a] 4:30[33b] 4:30[33c] 4:31[34] 4:32[35] 4:33[36] 4:34[37]

4:34[37a] 4:34[37b] 4:34[37c] 5 5–6 5:0 5:1 5:2–3 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:6

123, 260 122, 241, 244 109, 363 94–96, 288, 338, 344, 351, 358v 88, 91, 96, 154, 260, 289, 313, 363, 453 201 109, 125, 249, 253, 339, 358 253, 328 109, 339 109, 115, 125, 127–128, 253, 313 241–242, 269, 300, 358v 125, 127, 338 118, 363 118 125, 300 361 88, 289, 361, 367, 453 115, 120, 313, 361 115, 120, 361 253, 313 336 109, 260 127, 361 215, 252 109, 192, 328, 339, 359, 432 215, 257, 259, 335, 361 18, 95, 120, 122, 127, 252, 260–261, 351, 354 120, 122, 127 118, 122, 313, 328 122, 288, 313, 420 156, 162, 420 161 115, 127–128, 155–156, 313 122, 262 124, 331 128, 352 352 118, 156–157, 252 115, 277, 352, 358, 362 91, 257, 260

519

index of ancient texts 5:7

5:8 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:13 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:17 5:18–22 5:19 5:22 5:23 5:24 5:25–26 5:27 5:29 5:30 6 6:1[5:31–36:1] 6:3[2] 6:4[3] 6:5[4]–6[5] 6:5[4] 6:6[5] 6:7[6] 6:8[7]–9[8] 6:8[7] 6:9[8] 6:11[10] 6:12[11] 6:13[12]

6:13[12a]

88, 93–94, 98, 112, 148, 157–158, 159, 235, 288, 298, 314–315, 337, 359, 453 94, 159 115, 245, 257, 260, 288 88, 91, 257, 260, 453 93, 103, 114, 122, 272, 383 96, 117, 122, 215, 224, 259, 288 88, 289, 331, 367, 453 122, 259 93–94, 338 98, 112, 130, 235–236, 265, 288, 298, 314, 351 88, 94, 289, 392, 435, 454 162 100, 190, 258, 422 338 18, 115, 117, 122, 124, 252, 331, 358 338 338 122 98, 112, 314 100, 159, 258, 422 380 208, 404 190 117, 160–161, 190, 224, 259, 272, 338 313 121–122, 161–162, 172, 190, 324, 335, 351 103, 115, 122, 336, 338, 380, 457 115, 236 336 115, 162, 251, 335 162, 172, 260 122, 171, 190, 313 103, 122, 172, 335, 457 88, 115, 162, 260, 263, 289, 313, 335–336, 367, 373, 454 115, 122

6:14[13] 6:15[14] 6:16[15] 6:17[16] 6:18[17] 6:19[18]–20[19] 6:19[18] 6:21[20] 6:23[22] 6:24[23] 6:25[24] 6:26[25] 6:27[26] 6:28[27] 6:29[28] 7–12 7–8 7 7:1–2 7:1 7:2–14 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:6–7 7:6 7:7

7:8 7:9–28 7:9 7:10 7:11

7:13–14

121, 171, 335, 454 162, 190 103, 260, 458 88, 172, 313, 331, 354, 367, 395, 454 124, 162, 260, 331, 395 393–394 122 88, 192, 351, 354, 370, 395, 454 18, 115, 121, 161, 313, 395 122–123 99, 103, 114, 162, 274, 331, 382, 458 109, 125, 226, 328, 339, 419 115, 190 109, 339 116, 256 151, 192 420 117, 260 373–374 96, 143, 177, 232, 358, 374, 403 346 88, 184, 277, 358, 374, 388, 454 124, 171, 184, 355 109, 269, 277, 339, 358, 388 94, 110, 131, 165–166, 341, 449 277, 358, 388 225–226, 449 98, 259, 274–275, 296, 300, 313, 338, 355, 426 94, 122, 124, 143, 144, 388 16, 19 18, 118, 167, 185, 277, 358, 388 17, 185, 352, 354 92, 100, 117, 123, 258, 277, 358, 387–388, 422, 435 18

520 Daniel (cont.) 7:13 7:14 7:15 7:16 7:17–18 7:17 7:18 7:19

7:20 7:21 7:22 7:23–27 7:23 7:24 7:25 7:26 7:27 7:28 7:28[27] 8:1–12:13 8:1 8:2–3 8:2 8:3–4 8:3

8:4 8:5 8:6–7 8:6 8:7 8:8–9

index of ancient texts 8:8 15, 17–18, 115, 125, 277, 331, 351, 358, 388 116, 236, 354, 361, 432 172, 347–348, 374, 431 222, 263, 289, 300, 313, 335 346 109, 117, 177, 184, 339, 346 127 99, 173, 190, 244, 259, 265, 268–269, 275, 300, 355, 388, 426 94, 122, 124, 216–217, 258, 291, 338 18, 145, 388 125, 127, 300, 331, 351, 354 181 99, 109, 138, 198, 222, 275, 292, 339, 355, 417 17, 316, 338, 356 127, 260–261, 356 92, 117, 205, 300, 354 127, 133, 205, 254, 354, 432 91, 257, 356, 374 180 1 61, 93, 104, 232, 374, 384, 403 242–243 93, 109, 192, 338, 348, 383–384, 435 328, 429 120, 124, 128, 148, 173, 187, 304–305, 389, 435 113, 122, 127, 149, 206, 244, 251, 313 90, 99, 105, 109, 174, 279, 282, 332 328, 429 242–243, 332 90, 99, 109, 119, 125, 174, 178, 301, 303, 426 113

8:9–14 8:9–13 8:9 8:10

8:11 8:12–13 8:12 8:13

8:14 8:15–19 8:15

8:16 8:17–18 8:17 8:18 8:19 8:21 8:22

8:23 8:24–25 8:24 8:25

8:26 8:27

9 9:1–2 9:1

104, 113, 119–120, 124, 192, 213, 254–255, 319 441 360 149, 206, 209, 243– 244, 321 99, 109, 113, 127, 209, 271–272, 301, 321, 401, 428 113, 196–197, 221, 271– 272, 325 271 99, 109–100, 122, 256, 278, 321, 424, 428 93, 120, 191, 242, 301, 316–317, 322, 346, 400–401, 420, 436 317, 401, 436 222 93, 101, 103, 260, 277, 282, 328, 353, 374, 383–384, 429 105, 191, 210, 352–353 350, 404 93, 102, 105, 279, 282, 318–319, 332, 352, 362 90, 99, 109, 279, 319, 329, 429 362 104, 113, 218 119, 124, 213–214, 254–255, 319, 329, 429 105, 279, 282, 329, 429 256 107, 122, 285 104, 113, 122, 127, 213, 259, 324–325, 329, 428–429 104, 93, 121, 167, 188, 278, 360 105, 139, 174, 185–186, 188, 279, 282, 294, 374, 384 89 374, 403–404 104, 111, 209, 232, 286, 436

521

index of ancient texts 9:2

9:3 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:9 9:10 9:11 9:12 9:13 9:14 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:18 9:19[18] 9:19–20 9:19 9:20–21 9:20 9:21–27 9:21 9:22 9:23–25 9:23

9:24–27 9:24 9:25–27 9:25

9:25[27] 9:26 9:27 10

97, 104–105, 135, 227– 228, 232, 279, 282, 306, 327, 357 89, 97, 119, 121, 134, 260 89, 97, 104, 113, 119, 134 300 99, 107, 109, 191, 325 97, 99, 109, 291 97, 325 88, 97, 119 89, 97, 134, 191 89, 191 104, 113, 254, 333– 334, 357 89, 97, 106, 268, 278, 282, 284, 332 89, 97, 122, 134, 178, 191, 333–334, 416 89–90, 97, 99–100, 109, 122, 128, 134, 226 97, 107, 228, 285 89, 97, 191, 226 89, 119, 191, 267 97 107 89, 97, 122, 191 222 89, 97, 120 441 90, 93, 102, 124, 229, 283, 362 101, 105, 106, 145, 226, 228–229, 383, 396 282 105, 134, 135, 188, 250, 266, 287, 332, 357, 422 18, 22 93, 107, 181, 214, 333 196 106–107, 121, 197, 217, 268, 284, 289, 357, 420 116 107, 112, 332, 334 18, 104, 346, 420 404

10:1

10:2 10:3 10:4–6 10:4 10:5–6 10:5 10:6 10:7 10:8–10 10:8 10:9 10:10 10:11–12 10:11 10:12 10:13 10:14 10:15–19 10:15 10:16 10:17 10:18 10:19 10:20–11:2 10:20–21 10:20 10:21–11:11 10:21

11 11:1

11:2

101, 104–105, 108, 113, 188, 211, 232, 278, 279, 282, 357, 390, 403– 404, 436 174, 189, 374 110–111, 323, 332 139 104, 113, 139, 218 404 99, 112, 188, 246, 304 18, 123, 175, 229, 303, 355, 357 104, 113, 145, 167–168, 304, 349, 374 350 104, 113, 116, 118, 145, 211–212, 391, 435 99, 109, 174, 191–192, 279, 350, 357 90, 284 105, 279, 282 226, 301, 319, 329, 357 89, 134, 191, 218, 304, 332, 357 225, 325, 329, 332 93, 105, 107, 284, 288, 332 350 109, 350, 357 90, 97, 116, 229, 329, 340, 350, 352, 435 97, 117, 329, 450 90, 352 97, 404 402–403 404 18, 116, 226, 296, 325, 332, 334, 404 405 218, 225, 250, 278, 287–288, 325, 360, 405, 422 403 104, 232, 244–245, 329, 401–404, 420, 436 104, 113, 145, 168, 226, 250, 278, 287–288, 329, 360, 405, 422

522 Daniel (cont.) 11:3 11:4 11:5–6 11:5 11:6–7 11:6 11:7

11:8

11:9–10 11:9 11:10

11:11 11:12 11:13

11:14–15 11:14 11:15 11:16–17 11:16 11:17 11:18 11:19 11:20 11:21

11:22 11:23–24 11:23 11:24–25 11:24

index of ancient texts 11:25 104, 122, 249, 251, 329 119–120, 192, 249, 302, 329, 404 205 104, 249, 325 122 102, 104, 175–176, 257, 329, 333–334, 362 95, 135, 179, 244–245, 252–253, 329, 333– 334, 420vvv 89, 104, 135, 206, 312, 329, 334, 396–397, 449 333 116, 140, 179, 205 95, 111, 116–117, 122, 244, 252, 285, 333, 420 195, 205, 245, 303, 329, 426 120, 127, 195, 304 95, 104, 113, 116–117, 123, 218, 252, 267, 285, 287, 329, 333, 424 205 93, 95, 107, 304, 329 107, 116, 189, 329, 333 122 99, 109, 243, 251, 329, 333 230–231, 257, 329, 333–334 116, 228, 230–231 95, 99, 109, 116, 121, 231, 244, 420 119, 330, 361 212, 221, 259, 294, 324, 330, 333–334, 361 111, 112, 119, 196–197, 274, 413 122 124 282 102, 110, 206, 212, 219, 259, 324, 333

11:26 11:27 11:28 11:29 11:30 11:31 11:32 11:33 11:34 11:35 11:36 11:37 11:38 11:39 11:40–42 11:40 11:41 11:42 11:43 11:44 11:45 12:1

12:2 12:3 12:4 12:5 12:6–7 12:7 12:8 12:9–10 12:9 12:10

95, 104, 113, 117, 205, 252, 285, 287, 302, 330 95, 111, 212, 252–253, 262, 340 219, 256, 292, 418 99, 104, 109, 113, 116, 122 205, 218, 333 105, 116, 122, 279, 282, 333 244–245, 271, 330, 420 89, 107, 122, 285 95, 105–107, 149, 266, 268, 285 94, 119, 123, 192 96, 106, 220, 282, 363 113, 122, 127, 251, 256 89, 105, 113, 127, 182– 183, 297 221, 244, 420 122, 244–245, 254, 361, 420 199 99, 102, 109, 111, 200, 205, 333, 362 96, 99, 109, 200, 243, 333 99, 109, 200, 206 117, 206, 220, 308 104, 113, 120 243, 245, 333, 363 102, 104, 107, 113, 121, 127, 225, 286, 325, 327, 330, 347, 362 228, 313 106, 140, 415 215, 254, 327, 357, 403–404 120, 330, 374 112, 246 107, 127, 191, 320, 405, 436 97, 105, 191, 279, 282 18 102, 215, 357 105, 106, 268, 279, 282, 286

523

index of ancient texts 12:11–12 12:11 12:12 12:13

399 102, 271 18, 90, 123, 125 306, 330, 361, 363, 397–398

Ezra 1:1 1:5 2:1 2:59 2:63 3:5 3:10 3:11 4:15 4:21 4:22 4:24 5:4 5:5 5:8 5:10 6:6 6:8 6:9 6:12 7:4 7:6–7 7:9 7:11 7:13 7:15 7:16 8:15 8:16 8:27 8:36 9:2 9:3 9:6 9:8 9:9 10:2 10:9 10:12

302 302 110 282 330 305, 406 298 289 110 103 324 388 103 388 110 103 291 103 324 297 388 388 388 388 388 297 110 283 283 303 251 282 269 89 120 330 289 301 289

Nehemiah 1:3 1:9

110 297

2:7 2:9 2:14 3:25 4:13 4:14 5:14 5:15 5:18 7:2 7:6 7:61 7:65 7:72 8:2–3 8:6 8:7 8:8 8:11 8:12 9:3 9:6 9:8 9:17 9:20 9:21 10:1 10:2 11:3 10:13 10:29 10:34 10:35 10:36 12:26 12:43 13:7 13:9 13:11 13:10 13:25 1 Chronicles 1:44–50 4:40 4:41 5:22 7:11 7:40 10:1

251 251 255 128 291 296 132, 251 251 251 278 110 282 330 283 283 289 284 283 286 283 269 209 282 344 284 150 214, 256 214 110 105 283 305 105 105 251 256 283 241 319 304 269

255 219 255 255 296 296 296

524 1Chronicles (cont.) 10:12 10:13 11:27 11:36 12:19 12:33 15:29 16:13 16:22 16:27 16:35 17:1 17:9 17:11 17:25 18:10 19:1 19:7 19:10 19:17 20:11 21:12 21:16 21:20 22:12 22:15 23:25 24:5 25:7 25:19 26:6 26:11–12 26:13 26:20 26:32 27:1 27:10 28:2 28:4 28:12 28:13 28:18 29:1 29:7 29:11 29:13 29:17 29:25 29:28

index of ancient texts

254 289 323 323 298 283 294 282 283 361 252 255 297 282 89 296 255 296 296 296 100 289 304 292, 349 283 295 297 89 283 304 249, 295 295 295 89 89 105 323 89 252 89 397 288 90 90 362 90 90 361 255

2 Chronicles 1:8 2:6 2:11 2:12 2:13 3:11–12 4:15 4:19 5:1 5:7 5:12 6:1 6:2 6:10 6:19 6:21 6:25 6:27 6:30 6:36 6:39 6:40 6:41 7:7 7:14 8:13 9:5 9:12 9:13 9:14 9:24 9:31 10:2 10:6 10:9 10:13 10:14 10:16 11:1 11:4 11:22 12:10 12:15 12:16 13:12 13:15 13:16 13:18 13:23

255 95 283, 287 283 282 90 255 90 90 255 298 297 297 255 119 268 119 119 268 291 119, 268 90 298 241 268 105, 172 278–279 252 105 251 105 255 304 289 289 289 256 289 296 296 282 255 296 255 90, 296 90 90 286 255

525

index of ancient texts 14:10 15:1 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:16 15:18 16:14 17:1 17:10 18:9 18:18 18:24 18:29 18:30–31 18:33 19:3 20:2 20:5 20:7 20:17 20:20 20:23 20:29 20:33 21:1 21:8 21:10 21:12 22:1 22:2 22:6 22:9 22:10 22:12 23:3 23:17 24:5 24:13 24:20 24:23 24:27 25:5 25:8 25:18 25:20 25:24 26:1

115 90 278–279, 288 121 100 281 90 250 255 296 298 209 349 298 296 116 90 288 330 90, 282 296 287 171, 330 90, 296 90 255 255 255 255 255 105 296 349 282 349 103 290 90, 105 90, 330 90, 298, 330 105 255 330 90 362 90 90 255

26:5 26:6 26:7 26:18 26:23 27:5 27:9 28:4 28:5 28:15 28:24 28:27 29:18 29:31 30:12 30:16 30:22 30:23 31:13 31:21 32:2 32:5 32:8 32:13 32:27 32:29 32:31 32:33 33:3 33:5 33:13 33:20 33:25 34:4 34:7 34:12 34:15 34:25 34:31 34:32 35:10 35:22 36:1 36:8 36:10 36:19 36:21 36:22

90, 283 296 90 406 255 105 255 255 287 298 90 255 397 289 90 319 293 94 90 90 296 94 296 100 397 90 90 255 209 209 120 255 255 281, 290 281, 290 283 289 255 319 90 319 296 255 255 105 90 306 302

526 2

index of ancient texts Hebrew Bible: Other Versions and Translations

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls 1QDana 59 1:14 448 2:4 61 2:5 451 8:1 61 1QDanb 59, 436 3:22–23 377–379 3:23 456 3:24[91]–25[92] 198 3:24[91] 367, 372, 453 3:26[93] 453 3:27[94] 381–382, 457 4QDana 59, 151, 435– 436 1:20 152 2:10 451 2:19–20 371 2:20 146, 415, 451 2:21 386 2:26 452 2:27 452 2:28 147 2:40 147 5:7 148, 453 5:13 453 5:17 392, 435, 454 7:5 449 8:2 383–385 8:3 149, 389 8:4 149 4QDanb 59, 435–436 6:12[11] 457 6:14[13] 454 6:16[15] 458 6:19[18]–20[19] 393–394 6:21[20] 370, 454 7:1–2 373–374 7:11 387 8:1 61 8:2 383–385 8:3 149, 389 8:13 400 4QDanc 59, 435–436 10:6 229 10:8 391 11:1 401–404 11:17 230

4QDand 3:9 3:22–23 3:23 3:24[91]–25[92] 3:24[91] 3:25[92] 4QDane 6QpapDan 10:8 10:16 Aquila Genesis 1:5 1:8 1:10 2:21 4:26 41:43 Exodus 3:9 4:10 7:11 32:25 1 Samuel 9:24 19:20 19:24 26:14 2 Samuel 12:25 1 Kings 14:23 2 Kings 23:15 23:19 23:24 Isaiah 7:13 12:4 33:7 34:16 37:14 47:3 Jeremiah 4:20 7:16

59, 436 369 377–378 456 198 372–373 453 59 59 391 229–230

78 78 78 78 78 78 78 77–78 77–78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 77–78 77 77 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

527

index of ancient texts 11:11 15:11 29:12[36:11] 30[37]:15 34[43]:25 36[43]:15 43[50]:10 44[51]:23 51[28]:61 Ezekiel 9:10 Joel 4[3]:4 Zechariah 9:2 11:8 Psalms 3:5 19[18]:14 25[24]:3 28[27]:1 51[50]:10 61[60]:3 86[85]:7 130[129]:1 Ruth 1:12 Daniel 1:4 1:17 2:46 8:2 8:14 9:27 11:45

78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

Joshua 5:2 23:13 Ezekiel 9:2 9:11 10:2 Daniel 1–2 1 1:1 1:2–3 1:2

78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 240 349 323 240 246

1:3 1:4–5 1:4

1:5 1:6 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:15

Symmachus Exodus 32:25 Deuteronomy 31:20 Daniel 2:46 Theodotion Exodus 5:4 32:25

78 80 240

276 275

1:16 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:20

1:21 2–6 2 2:1

370 305 246 246 246 330 340 104, 113, 232, 312, 332, 419 334 89, 97, 99, 124, 157, 168, 182, 221, 312, 333, 345, 416, 419 239, 288, 333, 345 328 104, 106, 169, 256, 261, 266, 279–280, 330, 426, 429 104, 262, 340, 357, 429, 448 131, 163, 416 248, 259–260, 262, 340 89, 97, 119 97, 125, 175, 256, 306 239 291, 336, 429 122, 136, 163, 256, 261–262, 340 190–191, 336, 357, 429, 448 123, 256, 261–262, 336, 340, 429 239, 262, 340 89, 93, 97, 105, 106, 164, 256, 379, 429 333 121, 328, 330, 429 93, 101, 121, 137, 151, 164, 260, 272, 276, 357, 424–425 104, 232 260, 356 336, 423 104, 117, 232, 418

528 Daniel (cont.) 2:2 2:3 2:4–7 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7–8 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10

2:11 2:12 2:13–14 2:13 2:14–15 2:14 2:15–23 2:15 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:19–20 2:19 2:20 2:21 2:22 2:23 2:24 2:25 2:26–27 2:26 2:27

index of ancient texts

93, 250, 276, 328, 332, 422, 425, 429 117 96 295 88, 123, 183–184, 272– 273, 368, 417, 451 313, 392–393, 435 88, 368 367, 451 263, 272, 358, 360, 367, 415, 423, 451 96, 260–261, 264, 415 88, 93, 114, 170, 204, 265, 276, 351, 367– 368, 415, 418, 425, 451 93, 120, 221–222, 328, 415 91, 117, 206–207, 295 100, 352 258, 264, 335, 342, 422–423 176–177 258, 295, 422 176 88, 176, 314, 342, 367–368, 415, 451 335, 415 394 91, 117, 130, 180, 295, 335, 337, 415 371 108, 141, 394, 415 88, 146, 176, 367–368, 415, 451 101, 260–261, 287, 386, 423 108, 308 165, 252, 335, 415, 423 91, 117, 295, 313–314, 415, 428 103, 121, 345 88, 368 96, 137, 358, 367, 415, 452 93, 276, 289, 351, 367, 425, 426, 452

2:28–30 2:28 2:29–30 2:29 2:30 2:31 2:32 2:33–34 2:33 2:34 2:35

2:36 2:37 2:38 2:39 2:40 2:41–42 2:41 2:42 2:43 2:44 2:45 2:46 2:47

2:48 2:49 3 3:1 3:2–3 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8

108 96, 146 91 124, 207–208, 418 215, 314, 337, 428, 430 125, 216, 257–259, 276–277, 358, 423 358 307 314 98, 274, 277, 315–316, 358 98, 117, 121, 222–223, 274, 290, 305, 339, 358 96, 114, 338 233 327, 342–343, 353, 431 93–94, 109, 120, 187, 339, 417 98, 147, 274, 281, 425 307, 313 101, 165, 314, 358 119, 190, 314 101–102, 114, 170–171, 190, 281, 358, 416 93, 98, 120, 274, 282 96, 98, 263, 274, 289, 315–316, 337, 358 233, 240–241 88, 108, 132, 265, 289, 337, 351, 360–361, 367–368, 426, 452 141, 253, 295, 343, 394 335 153, 355, 432 122, 127, 152, 358, 416 122, 251 331, 351, 358 193–194, 358, 417 104, 359 116, 358, 362–363 300, 362–363 116, 358 103

529

index of ancient texts 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:19

3:20–21 3:20 3:21 3:22–23 3:22

3:23 3:24[91]–26[93] 3:24[91]–25[92] 3:24[91]

3:25[92] 3:26[93]

3:27[94]

3:28[95]

3:29[96] 3:30[97]

88, 204, 367, 369– 370, 418, 452 114, 116, 265, 358 300 103, 265, 354, 358, 375, 455 103, 331, 375–376, 455 88, 142, 204, 354, 358, 367–368, 452 116, 122, 142, 300, 313, 358, 362 88, 234, 337, 367– 368, 370, 452 133, 265, 300, 351, 354, 415 234, 354, 358 88, 260, 299–300, 358–359, 367–368, 372, 452 300 103–104, 266, 359 103, 375, 377, 456 377–378 100, 103, 124, 258– 259, 299, 375, 422, 456 103, 124, 300, 375, 456 88 197–198 103, 263, 367–368, 372–373, 394, 452– 453 103, 223, 358, 367– 368, 373, 453 127, 138, 194–195, 205, 300, 331, 351–352, 367–368, 373, 415, 431, 453 103, 122–123, 251, 260, 277, 358–359, 375, 381–383, 457 88, 123, 205, 223, 260, 290, 302, 354, 367– 368, 453 93, 120, 123, 264–265, 324, 351, 423 234, 256

3:31–33[98–100] 3:31[98] 3:32[99] 4:2[5] 4:3[6]–6[9] 4:3[6] 4:4[7] 4:5[8] 4:6[9] 4:7[10]–8[11] 4:7[10] 4:8[11] 4:9[12] 4:10[13] 4:11[14] 4:12[15] 4:13[16] 4:14[17] 4:15[18] 4:16[19] 4:17[20]–18[21] 4:17[20] 4:18[21] 4:19[22]–20[23] 4:19[22] 4:20[23] 4:21[24] 4:22[25] 4:25[28] 4:27[30] 4:29[32] 4:30[33] 4:31[34] 4:32[35] 4:33[36] 4:34[37] 5 5:1 5:2–3 5:4 5:5

237 370, 327–328, 339 122 96, 120, 126, 127, 235, 358 202, 417 94, 96, 265 93, 96, 276, 425 96, 117, 343 96, 117, 358 339 127, 277, 358 125, 127, 153, 249, 253, 297 201, 235, 254, 328 241, 277, 358 104, 201, 254, 359 339 114, 260 114, 127, 241 94, 96, 117, 265, 314, 338, 351, 358 88, 91, 96, 154, 362, 367–368, 453 201 125, 127, 249, 253, 339, 358 254, 328 339 125, 253 241, 261, 358 125, 127, 338 114, 127, 328 125 88, 361, 367–368, 453 114, 127, 328 114, 123, 253, 362 116, 127, 252 122, 192, 328, 339, 359–360, 432 116, 257–258, 276, 335 127, 252, 265, 300, 351, 354, 361 238 122 124, 331–332, 352 156–157, 252 114, 277, 352, 358– 359, 362

530 Daniel (cont.) 5:6 5:7

5:8–9 5:8 5:9 5:10

5:11 5:12 5:13 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:17

5:18 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:22 5:23 5:24–25 5:24 5:25–26 5:27 5:29 5:30 6 6:1[5:31–36:1] 6:3[2] 6:4[3]–6[5] 6:4[3] 6:5[4] 6:6[5]

index of ancient texts

91, 257, 260, 276 88, 93–94, 98, 148, 157–158, 159, 235, 276, 298, 314, 337, 359, 367–368, 373, 425, 453 394 94 120, 257, 260, 276 88, 91, 120, 257, 260, 276, 367–368, 373, 453 93, 103, 117, 121, 276, 425 96, 117, 224, 259 88, 331–332, 367– 368, 373, 453 117, 121, 259 93–94, 276, 337, 425 98, 130, 235–236, 265, 298, 300, 315, 351 88, 93, 104, 120, 314, 367, 373, 392–393, 454 127, 361 100, 125, 127, 190, 258, 422 117–118, 127 104, 114, 123, 127, 328, 353 338 124, 127, 252, 331–332, 358–359 218 338 338 121 98, 314–315 100, 159, 258, 422 355, 381 208 190 394 117, 160, 190, 224, 259, 338 121, 190, 324, 335, 351, 381 103, 121, 338, 375,

6:7[6] 6:8[7] 6:9[8] 6:10[9] 6:11[10] 6:12[11] 6:13[12]

6:14[13] 6:15[14] 6:16[15] 6:17[16] 6:18[17] 6:19[18]–20[19] 6:21[20] 6:22[21] 6:23[22] 6:24[23] 6:25[24] 6:26[25] 6:27[26] 6:28[27] 6:29[28] 7–8 7 7:1–2 7:1 7:2–14 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:6–7 7:6 7:7

7:8 7:9

380–381, 457 236, 381 114, 251, 335 260, 265 265 122, 171, 190, 218, 265 103, 121, 335, 375, 377, 457 88, 114, 263, 265, 335, 367–368, 370, 373, 394, 454 88, 171, 265, 335, 367, 454 190 103, 260, 265, 375, 377, 458 88, 331–332, 354, 367–368, 373, 454 124, 260, 331–332 393–394 88, 192, 265, 351, 354, 367, 370, 454 370, 394 121, 122, 161, 314 121, 124 98, 103, 274, 331–332, 375, 382–383, 458 125, 328, 339 125, 190, 265 122, 339 256, 338 238 260, 355 373 96, 143, 177, 232, 358 346 88, 277, 358, 454 124, 171, 184, 355–356 114, 269, 277, 307, 339, 358 94, 131, 165–166, 449 277, 358 93, 120, 225–226, 419, 449 98, 126, 259, 274–275, 296, 300, 307, 338, 355–356, 426 93, 114, 120, 124, 144 118, 167, 185, 277, 358

531

index of ancient texts 7:10 7:11

7:13 7:14 7:15 7:16 7:17–18 7:17 7:18 7:19

7:20 7:21 7:22 7:23–27 7:23

7:24 7:25 7:26 7:27 7:28 7:28[27] 8 8:1 8:2–3 8:2 8:3–4 8:3 8:4 8:5 8:6–7 8:6 8:7

352, 354 91, 100, 117, 123, 258, 277, 358–359, 387, 422 114, 125, 277, 331, 351, 353, 358 236, 354–355, 432 117, 120, 172, 347–348, 431 263, 335, 338 346 177, 339, 346 127 98, 126, 173, 190, 259, 265, 268–269, 274–275, 300, 307, 355–356, 394, 426 93, 120, 124, 216–217, 291, 338 122, 145, 277, 351, 358 125, 127, 300, 331, 351, 354 346 98, 99, 138, 198, 274– 275, 292, 339, 346, 355–356, 417 93, 120, 316, 338, 355– 356 127, 261, 356 91, 117, 205, 354 127, 133, 205, 254, 346, 354–355, 432 91, 257, 276, 356 180 330 93, 104, 23 242 93, 191, 338, 348, 383– 385 328, 429 120, 124, 128, 148, 173, 187, 304–305, 389 122, 149, 206, 251 90, 99, 105, 174, 282, 332 104, 328, 429 242, 332 90, 99, 119, 125, 174, 178, 301, 303, 426

8:8 8:9 8:10 8:11–13 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:18 8:21 8:22 8:23 8:24–25 8:24 8:25

8:26 8:27 9:1 9:2

9:3–4 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:6–7 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:9–11 9:9 9:10 9:11–15

104, 119, 124, 192, 213, 254 206, 243–244, 359 99, 209, 244, 301, 360, 428 271, 305, 424 113, 271, 325, 424 99–100, 109, 122, 256, 278, 321, 428 93, 191, 301, 316–317, 322, 346, 400, 420 122, 317, 401 93, 101, 191, 260, 328, 353, 429 191, 352–353 93, 102, 105, 115, 191, 282, 332, 352, 353 90, 99, 191, 279, 308, 328, 330, 429 104 104, 119, 213, 254, 319, 328–331, 429 105, 282, 329–331, 429 256 104, 107, 285 119, 213–214, 259, 324, 325, 329, 344, 428– 429 93, 167, 226, 278, 360 105, 122, 139, 174, 185– 186, 282, 294 104, 232, 286 97, 104–105, 227–228, 232, 282, 306, 357, 429 89, 97 260 97, 104, 119, 128 300 99 107, 190–191, 325 97, 291 97, 325 89 97 97, 190–191 89

532 Daniel (cont.) 9:11 9:12 9:13 9:14–15 9:14 9:15–17 9:15–16 9:15 9:16 9:17–20 9:17 9:18 9:19–20 9:19[18] 9:19 9:20 9:21 9:22 9:23

9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27 10 10:1 10:2 10:3 10:4 10:5–6 10:5 10:6 10:7–8 10:7 10:8 10:9

index of ancient texts

191 104, 254, 333–334, 357 97, 106, 278, 332, 360–361 122 97, 134, 178, 190–191, 333–334, 416 97 107 99 285, 352 89 190–191 191, 267, 352 107 97 97, 190 97, 119 90, 93, 102, 228, 241, 283, 363 101, 106, 228–229, 283, 396 105–106, 134, 188, 250, 266, 287, 332, 357, 390 93, 107, 181, 214, 267, 333 33, 102, 106, 116, 217, 238, 284, 357 106–107, 300, 332 238, 241, 346 307–308 101, 104, 106, 108, 211, 278, 357, 390, 436 174, 189 123, 323, 332, 334 104, 139 246 246 117, 123, 175, 229, 303, 306, 357 104 126–127, 145, 167–168, 349 104, 211, 361, 391 99, 174, 191, 192, 279, 308, 350, 357

10:10 10:11–12 10:11 10:12 10:13 10:14 10:15 10:16–17 10:16 10:17 10:18 10:19 10:20 10:21 11 11:1

11:2

11:3–5 11:3 11:4 11:5–6 11:5 11:6–7 11:6

11:7 11:8

11:9 11:10

11:11–13 11:11 11:12

90, 284 105 191, 301, 329, 357, 390 89, 126, 191, 332, 357 225, 325, 329–330, 332 93, 284, 332 99, 191, 308, 350, 357 104, 329 90, 97, 115, 175, 229, 340, 391 97, 330 90, 115 97, 126, 191 116, 296, 325, 332 218, 250, 278, 287, 325, 360 253 104, 232, 244–245, 329–330, 401–402, 420, 436 104, 145, 168, 250, 278, 287, 329, 331, 360 249 122, 251, 329 93, 119–120, 192, 269, 329 205 325 122 102, 104, 124, 175–176, 257, 329, 333– 334 95, 179, 244–245, 252, 329, 333–334, 421 45, 104, 124, 135, 312, 329–330, 333, 396– 397, 449 140, 179, 205, 333– 334 95, 117, 123, 244–245, 252, 267, 285, 333, 420, 426 117 195, 205, 303, 329– 330, 426 127, 272

533

index of ancient texts 11:13

11:14–15 11:14 11:15 11:16–17 11:16 11:17 11:18 11:19 11:20 11:21

11:22 11:23–24 11:23 11:24

11:25

11:26 11:27 11:28 11:29 11:30 11:31 11:32–33 11:32 11:33–35 11:33 11:35 11:36 11:37 11:38 11:39

95, 102, 104, 116, 252, 267, 285, 287, 329– 330, 333, 424, 426 205 95, 102, 107, 302, 329, 331 104, 107, 189, 329– 330, 333 122 99, 243–244, 251, 329–330, 333–334 230–231, 257, 329, 333–334 116, 230–231 95, 99, 116, 121, 231, 244–245, 420 119, 330–331, 361, 429 212, 259, 294, 324, 330, 333–334, 344, 361, 428 119, 196 122 124 102, 206, 219, 259, 324, 333–334, 344, 428 95, 104, 102, 205, 252, 285, 287, 302, 330, 426 95, 119, 212, 252, 262, 340 219, 256, 292, 418 99, 104, 113, 116, 122 116, 205, 333–334 105, 116, 122, 333– 334 244–245, 271, 305, 330, 421, 426, 429 107 45, 122, 285 95 105–106, 149, 285 106, 220 122, 127, 251, 256, 272 45, 105, 182–183, 297 244–245, 421 122, 244–245, 361, 421

11:40–42 11:40 11:41 11:43 11:44 11:45 12:1 12:3 12:4 12:5 12:6–7 12:7 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:11 12:12 12:13

99, 199 102, 119, 123, 205, 274, 333–334, 413 95, 243–244, 333– 334 220, 308–309 104, 113, 120 243–245, 333–334 102, 104, 107, 121, 286, 325, 330, 347, 429 106, 140, 415 102, 357, 429 120, 330 246 107, 127, 191, 272, 320, 405, 436 97, 105, 191, 282 102, 357 105–106, 268, 282, 286 102, 271, 305, 426 125 330–331, 397–398, 429

Peshitta Daniel 2:20 2:28 2:40 2:45 3:16 7:11 8:2 8:3 8:4 8:14 9:22 10:8 11:1 11:17 11:18 11:45 12:13

146 147 148 337 370 388 242, 384–385 149, 389 149 401 228 391 403 230 231 246 399

Vulgate Daniel 2:20 2:28

146 147

534 Daniel (cont.) 2:40 2:45 3:16 3:24[91] 5:7 7:11 8:2 8:3 8:4 8:14 8:17 9:22 10:8 10:16 11:17 11:18 12:13

index of ancient texts

148 337 370 372 148 388 242, 384–385 149, 389 149 318, 401 319 228, 396 391 230 230 231 399

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Additions to Daniel Bel and the Dragon 43, 62, 442 Prayer of Azariah (og/Th) 43, 46, 62, 442 3:24–90 46, 62 3:27, 31 278 Susanna (og) 43, 62, 442 10 308 37 277 44–45 222 48 289 62b 272 51 291 Susanna (Th) 43, 62 8 277 20 277 Additions to Esther C 11:7[A.6] 296 11:14[A.13] 288 13:1[B.1] 154, 251 14:13[C.24] 296 16:2[E.2] 154 Baruch 1:1–3:8 70, 71 1:15–12:19 29 2:16 266 4:20 298 5:1 298

Ben Sira 1:8 1:15 1:20 1:23 3:22 3:23 3:29 4:8 4:15 4:24 4:28 4:29 5:4 5:12 5:13–14 6:5 6:31 6:33–34 6:37 7:13 7:19 8:1 8:3 8:8 8:15 9:13 9:14 9:15 9:17 10:1 10:15 10:25 11:8 12:12 12:18 13:7 13:10 13:25 13:26 14:1 14:12 14:17 14:21 15:8 16:20 16:21 16:22 16:23

295 297 294 344 282 259, 288 282, 295 289 297 294 296 294 344 289 294 294 298 295 282 305 295 296 296 295 100 291 295 91 295 295 269 295 289 308 261 172 291 261 91 308 288 150 282, 308 291 282 308 291 282

535

index of ancient texts 16:25 17:3 17:6 17:7 17:12 18:27 18:29 19:16 19:25 20:5 20:7 20:13 20:17–18 20:21 20:27 20:29 21:7 21:13 21:15 21:17 21:26 22:27 23:19 24:4 24:8 24:32 25:7–8 25:17 25:23 26:6 27:5 27:8 27:11 27:12 27:20 28:14–15 28:16 28:17–18 29:13 30:12 30:23 31:15 31:24 32:3 33:2 33:4 33:5 33:8 33:11

263 298 282, 294 288 288 295 263 294 263 295 295 295 294 308 295 295 294 295 295 282 295 294 308 297 297 291 294 261 306 294 91 298 261 282 291 294 297 294 296 99 291 282 263 263 295 289 91 261 261

33:28 36:5 36:23 37:18 37:22–24 37:26 38:27 38:28 38:33 39:1 39:3 39:7 39:12 39:32 40:2 40:5 40:16 40:21 42:4 42:9 42:18 42:19 42:22 43:20 43:32 44:4 45:8 45:13 46:20 47:7 47:12 47:20 48:3 48:25 49:8 51:2 51:5 51:6 51:14 51:18 51:22 1 Enoch 1–36 1 Ezra 1:2 1:26 1:54 1:55 2:18

253 261 294 294 295 295 261 296 282 282 308 282, 308 282 282 91 261 269 294 263 308 282 308 278 298 308 295 298 298 288 294 293, 426 308 172 288, 308 288 294 294 294 336 282 294 242 298 296 306 306 288

536 1Ezra (cont.) 2:24 2:3 3:2 3:5 3:9 3:12 3:14 4:6 4:19 4:24 4:29 4:31 4:42 4:46 4:47–49 5:6 5:40 5:51 5:57 6:12 6:33 7:9 8:56 8:86 9:53 Jubilees 4:22 7:21 10:15 Judith 3:8 4:14 6:2 6:17 7:11 9:1 9:5 9:8 9:9 10:3 10:7 10:10 11:8 11:10 11:19 13:17 Letter of Jeremiah 7 23

index of ancient texts

297 297 251 295 295 154 251 296 278 278 278 278 295 336 251 295 298 305 298 289 264 298 303 278 285–286 242 242 242 294 305 296 289 296 298 266, 282 271 282 298 261 278 296 278 294 294 294 303

32 35 40 62 72 Odes of Solomon 2:4 2:6 3:10 7:27 7:31 12:0–4 12:7 12:13 15:3 16:10 17:37 1 Maccabees 1:23 1:26 1:28 2:17 2:19 2:36 2:40–41 2:61 2:63 2:66 3:2 3:3 3:10 3:12 3:14 3:17 3:21 3:43 3:58 4:18 4:20 4:41 4:46 5:3 5:16 5:30 5:32 5:35 5:50 5:57 5:65 6:31

298 339 336 261 291 278 295 295 278 278 294 344 100 294 291, 294 234, 295 308 261 298 289 289 289 296 266 91 296 296 298 296 296 296 296 296 296 296 296 278 296 289 296 296 296 296 296 296 296 296 296

537

index of ancient texts 6:37 6:39 6:52 6:63 8:4 8:10 8:12 8:19 8:24 8:26 8:32 9:8–9 9:22 9:30 9:44 9:64 9:68 10:21 10:26 10:35 10:55 10:62 10:63 10:75 11:12 11:28 11:41 11:46 11:50 11:55 11:62 11:66 11:65 12:13 12:14 12:24 12:40 12:53 13:8 13:9 13:29 13:35 13:45 13:47 14:1 14:9 14:13 14:26 14:32 15:19

296 303 296 296 291 296 291 289 249 296 296 296 259 296 296 296 296 298 257 395 289 298 395 296 261 336 296 296 296 296 336 336 296 296 395 296 296 296 289 296 278 289 336 296 296 298 296 296 296 296

15:33 15:36 15:39 16:2 2 Maccabees 2:8 3:10 3:16 3:17 3:31 3:33 4:19 4:40 5:4 5:14 6:18 7:8 7:10 7:17 7:28 8:14 8:29 9:15 9:23 9:26 10:4 10:8 10:16 10:17 10:26 11:17 11:24 11:31 12:1 12:11 12:24 12:42 12:44 13:4 13:22 13:25 14:9 14:20 14:26–27 15:14 15:18 15:27 15:33 15:36

289 289 296 296 336 288 261 278 336 298 336 339 336 339 216, 258 289 294 278 336 336 336 336 278 336 336 264 336 339 336 336 336 395 257 336 336 336 259 288 339 257 297 257 257 289 339 339 294 264

538 3Maccabees 1:2 1:3 1:22 1:27 2:11 2:17 3:8 3:24 3:27 4:11 5:13 5:15 5:19 5:26 5:29 6:4 6:17 6:18 4Maccabees 1:14 1:18 1:24 3:9 4:21–22 4:23–24 4:26 5:10 5:17 6:6 7:18 7:23 10:2 10:6 10:17 10:19 10:21 11:9 14:13 15:4 15:19 17:7 17:14 18:21 Psalms of Solomon 1:7 2:4 2:26 4:1

index of ancient texts

282 264 282 278 278 294 278 297 100 264 336 288 288 288 288 294 278 278 261 261 266 262 296 264 264 278 336 341 297 295 264 307 294 294 294 341 278 277 278 278 278 294 308 291 294 291

4:2 259 4:4 294 4:5 308 7:6 297 8:10 257 8:20 295 11:7 298 13:3 99, 269 14:4 269 15:7 291 16:1 291 17:37 224, 295 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Reuben 5:6–7 242 Testament of Naphtali 3:5 242 Tobit 1:13 277 1:17 278 1:19 288 1:22 336 2:14 289 3:2 278 3:5 278 4:2 288 4:20 288 5:1 289 5:11 288 7:10 288 11:16 278 12:6 288 12:19 278 13:4 288 Wisdom of Solomon 1:6 278, 294 1:11 294 1:16 257 2:17 278 4:17 295 5:18 298 6:7 297 6:12 278 6:17 278 6:24 295 7:15 295 7:20 91 10:3 100 10:21 294

539

index of ancient texts 12:21 12:27 13:5 13:13 13:16 13:18 14:17

3

257, 263 278 278 253 297 336 291

242

1qha Thanksgiving Hymns 13:34

391

8ḤevXIIgr Greek Minor Prophets Scroll 31, 50, 71–75 Mic 5:3 72 Nah 2:6–7 72 Hab 1:16 72 Hab 2:6–7 72 Hab 2:18 72 Hab 2:20 72 Hab 3:14 72

Hellenistic Jewish Writers

Josephus Jewish Antiquities 10.264 10.266

5

278, 344 278 339 278 277 278 269

Judean Desert Document

1QapGen Genesis Apocryphon

4

15:1 16:7 17:2 17:6 18:1 19:7–8 19:18

385 443

10.267 10.268 10.272

443 443 384

Other Jewish Literature

Mishnah m. Meg. 1:8 Palestinian Talmud y. Šabb. 6:9–10, 8b y. Ned. 5:6 y. Meg. 1:9, 71c

33

224 32–33 33

Babylonian Talmud b. B. Bat. 133b 134a b. Sukkah 28a b. Meg. 3a 9b

32 33 33 33–34 33

540 6

index of ancient texts New Testament

Matthew 13:32

18

Mark 4:31–32 14:62

18 18–19

Luke 13:19

18

John 19:37

18

Acts 14:14

17

1Corinthians 15:54

18

7

Hebrews 11:33

18

James 1:12

18

Revelation 1:1 1:7 1:13 12:7 13:7 19:6 20:4 20:11

222 18–19 26 18 18 18, 26 18 18

Christian Literature

Early Christian Writings Epistle of Barnabas 4:5 17 Shepherd of Hermas 16–17 1.4.2 16 Church Fathers Augustine The City of God 18.42–43 14 18.43 13 Homilies on the Gospel of St. John 35:7 443 Basil Hexaemeron 4.5 438 Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.4 18 1.21 18 1.22 13–14 2.11 18 3.3 18

Clement of Rome First Epistle to the Corinthians 1.34 17 Eusebius of Caesarea Church History 6.1–39 (pg 20:519a–636c) 4 5.8 9, 13 6.16 5–6, 9, 13 6.17 79 6.36 8 The Proof of the Gospel 14 Epiphanius of Salamis Treatise on Weights and Measures 4–5, 7, 9, 14, 79, 440 The Panarion Books ii and iii (pg 41:1067d–1076b) 4 iv:44 [64].3.1–4 (pg 41:1073b–c) 5 iv:44 [64].63.7–8 4 Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel 442

index of ancient texts Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies (pg 7:437a–1224d) 3 1.19.2 18 3.21.1(pg 7:946a–b) 3 3.21.1 (pg 7:946b) 4 3.21.2 13 3.21.2–4 14 4.26.1 18 5.25.4 18 Jerome of Stridon Apology against Rufinius pl 23:450d–451a 7 2.22 4 2.25 6 2.33 8, 440–443 2.23–34 13 3.23 4 Commentary on Daniel 11, 443 pl 25:514a 8 4:6 440 Commentary on Titus pl 26:595a–b 7 Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (pl 23:663b–667b) 4 54 4–5, 12, 79, 441 Letter to Paula 33 438 36 4 Letter to Pammachius 58.19 13 Letter to Augustine 75.5.19 438–441 Preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius 5, 11, 79 Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions 13 Preface to Chronicles pl 28:1324b–1325a 7, 438 pl 28:1325a 8 Preface to Daniel 10, 441–442

541 Preface to the Four Gospels 12 Preface to Genesis 14 Preface to Joshua pl 28:464a 10 Preface to Job 11, 78, 438–439, 441 pl 28:1079a–1084a 11 Preface to Psalms 439 Preface to the Translation of Origen’s Two Homilies on the Song of Songs 5 John Chrysostom Gospel of St. Matthew 5.4 14 Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 15–17 31 16 71 13 To the Greeks 14 Apology 1.51 15 Origen Commentary on John 2.24 13 Epistle to Africanus 8, 442 pg 11:60b–61a 6 pg 11:47b–86d 7 Commentary in Mathew 15 (pg 13:1924a–c) 6 Stromata 8 pg 11:101a–108a 8 Rufinus Apology 2.33 8 2.36 8 Tertullian Apology 18 14 An Answer to the Jews 14 18 Theodoret of Cyrus Commentary on Daniel 442–443