“The Relationship Between the Greek Translations of Daniel 1–3.” In BIOSCS 37 (2004): 29-53.
The Relationship Between the Greek Translations of Daniel 1–3
In BIOSCS 37 (2004): 29-53.
Scholars in the field of Daniel studies know well that the Old Greek (OG) translation of chaps. 4–6 is significantly different in character compared to the remainder of the translation of the book, though there is no consensus among scholars to account for this. Nor is there an established consensus regarding the relationship between the OG version and the so-called Theodotion (Th ) version. Though few scholars have actually given any evidence for their views it would be fair to say that the majority believe that Th is a revision of the OG. Among the few who have dissented from the majority view are: P. Grelot, who described Th as a translation “entièrement refaite” ; and A. Di Lella, who has stated that, “It is best to consider Theodotion-Daniel a fresh translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic form of the book with an eye on LXX-Daniel rather than a recension.” In my own work I have taken a position similar to that of Di Lella, but I have emphasized more strongly the independence of the Th version. Approximately ten years ago in the published form of my dissertation I devoted three pages to describing the relationship of the Th version to the OG version in Daniel, stating:
Besides the certain evidence that OG is corrupted with Th readings, there is ample evidence that Th was translating independently from OG. For the most part, Th employs the common SE [stereotyped equivalents] for MT that are found throughout the LXX. However, we have seen how Th has his own pattern of translation equivalents for vocabulary sharing the same domain (e.g. knowing, wisdom) and his own way of resolving conflicts when two words are collocated that he normally renders by the same lexeme. That Th's translation pattern is substantially his own is also verified by the numerous HL [hapax legomenna] and translation equivalents employed by Th that are not shared with OG. Furthermore, we have seen how Th consistently makes his own contextual guess, rather than follow OG, when he does not understand [the] MT. Finally, we have seen numerous omissions against [the] MT and [the] OG that would not be there if Th were revising [the] OG toward [the] MT. For these reasons, we can affirm that in the book of Daniel, the available evidence supports that Th is an independent translation of [the] MT and not merely a revision of [the] OG.
Despite the attempt to describe the relationship between the two versions, an accurate description of their relationship had to be tempered with some equivocating remarks due to the paucity of the available evidence. Thus, the paragraph immediately following the one cited above begins: ATo claim that Th is an independent translation does not necessarily deny that Th had any knowledge of OG or that he may have occasionally borrowed from OG. However, the evidence of such borrowing is scarce, and does not support a position that Th systematically revised OG toward MT.@
In the past 10 years it does not seem that much has changed regarding the evaluation of Th as a revision. Despite the work that has demonstrated that Th should not be considered part of the so-called kaige tradition, and the questions that have been raised about the legitimacy of whether such an individual ever existed, these results have not made much impact in LXX literature or Danielic studies. Collins, for example, clearly defines the Th version as a revision of the OG. And, in a recent article discussing the nature of the relationship between the Greek versions of Daniel, Di Lella agrees with Collins’ comment that “the difference between . . . a correcting revision and a fresh translation with an eye on the OG does not . . . appear to be either clear-cut or very significant.” However, though Collins may be correct that it is difficult to distinguish the difference between “a correcting revision and a fresh translation with an eye on the OG”, it does not follow that greater clarity regarding this issue cannot be achieved. It is also important to investigate this matter more thoroughly because the results may have significant bearing on our knowledge of the textual criticism and the transmission of biblical texts, the Greek texts of Daniel more specifically, and the origins and growth of the book of Daniel. Therefore, it is my intention to build on my previous research and to provide a more substantive argument that just as Th is not a revision of the OG in chaps. 4–6, it is not a revision in chaps. 1–3.
In two other articles I have examined various aspects of the Greek translations of chaps. 4–6. In one the focus is particularly on the value of papyrus 967 as a witness to an alternative order of chapters for an earlier Vorlage for the book of Daniel. In that article an explanation is offered for the origins of Daniel that takes into consideration the evidence of the Greek versions as well as the DSS. Moreover, additional evidence is provided that OG chaps. 4–6 are based on the work of an independent translator, which strengthens the position of L. Wills and R. Albertz that these chapters originally circulated independently. In the second article a detailed analysis of the relationship between the OG and Th texts in chaps. 4–6 is undertaken. Part of the conclusion of that article is worth citing:
Generally speaking there is very little shared vocabulary in the Greek versions of Daniel in chs.4–6. However, where they do agree, it is almost verbatim. The statistics reveal that 392/471 agreements or 82% are verbatim. . . . Given the high percentage of verbatim agreements despite the low frequency of shared readings overall, the only reasonable explanation is that the majority of these agreements are due to textual corruption. In addition to what is the best explanation for the agreements, all of them have been examined and numerous passages have been isolated where there are double translations in the OG that include the reading of Th. The evidence is incontrovertible. Indeed, scholars have been correct to posit that there are numerous accretions and additions to the OG version, but the primary (but not the only!) source for these additions is scribal corrections from the text of Th. Given the supremacy that Th achieved over time and the fact that these texts co-existed, this conclusion is to be expected. The cumulative weight of these facts requires the conclusion, even when the available textual evidence and the readings of the OG do not provide double translations, that all verbatim agreements in these chapters be treated as textually suspect in the OG.
The force of the conclusions from the investigation of chaps. 4–6 have no small bearing on the remainder of the Greek texts in the book of Daniel. If it has been demonstrated that OG chaps. 4–6 are riddled with secondary additions and corrections based on the text of Th, then it only stands to reason that the same holds true throughout the rest of the book. Therefore, given the fact that one should expect Th readings infiltrated the OG during the transmission process and the fact that there are only three witnesses to the OG, it is only to be expected that there should be difficulty establishing a critical text for the OG. In many places a majority text is all that can be reconstructed because the OG reading has not been preserved. On this basis, there is both a more informed perspective for reconstructing the OG as well as for explaining the nature of the relationship between the OG and Th elsewhere in the book. In light of this evidence, the intention of this paper is to examine the shared agreements in chaps. 1–3 in order to determine the nature of the textual relationships between the two Greek versions.
Presuppositions for Understanding the Relationship Between the OG and Th
Prior to a more detailed analysis of the relationship between the OG and Th in chaps. 1–3, it will be beneficial to set out the presuppositions that should guide the analysis. Six are enumerated below.
1. If there was a historical personage named Theodotion who lived in the second century, he had nothing to do with the Th version in Daniel, because the Th version is employed by the New Testament writers.
2. Furthermore, it has been established that Th is not related to other books that are known under that siglum in the LXX tradition. That is, Th is not part of kaige-Th, though it is probably best to describe kaige-Th as a tradition of translation that is generally characterized by formal equivalence.
3. Based on 1 and 2 above it is obvious that the relationship between Th and OG in Daniel has to be established on a close study of the texts.
4. As mentioned previously in this article, a detailed analysis of chaps. 4–6 has determined that the majority of the agreements between Th and OG in those chapters are due to secondary additions, expansions, and corrections to the OG based on Th. The Greek versions are clearly independent in these chapters.
5. Based on 4, it is reasonable to expect that the remainder of the OG version of Daniel has suffered similarly from scribal corrections based on Th.
6. Therefore, it follows from 1, 2, 4, and 5 that it is contrary to the established evidence to assume that shared readings in the Greek versions is due to Th revising the OG in chaps. 1–3 and 7–12. Granted, it does not preclude the possibility either; but the issue requires careful investigation.
So, “How is the relationship between the Greek versions of Daniel determined?” First, armed with what has already been established it is possible to investigate the texts without a biased view that Th is a revision of the OG. Second, on the basis of what has been established principles may be constructed for interpreting the material.
Generally speaking, there are three types of relationships between the readings found in the two Greek versions. First, there are instances where the vocabulary and syntax is completely different. In this case there is no problem acknowledging that there is no necessary relationship between the OG and Th. However, these readings are very important for an additional reason. The presence of readings in Th that exhibit independence as a translator are positive evidence that Th does not rely on the OG. Unusual or rare vocabulary and singular readings or contextual guesses in Th are all indications that it did not rely on the OG. These may be referred to as distinctive disagreements, and these distinctive readings have to be part of evaluating the nature of shared readings. Second, there are instances where the texts are exactly the same. In the past scholars have assumed that shared readings in the texts are because Th revised the OG and retained the OG readings where they were suitable. But, it has already been established that this assumption is invalid. There are three reasons why the texts could exhibit agreement: Th retaining the OG, textual corruption, or coincidental readings. Where the Greek versions are translating a similar Vorlage, it would be expected that in many cases they would choose similar vocabulary. For example, Klm is more than likely going to be translated by basileu\j. Similarly, it cannot be assumed that distinctive agreements of unique readings can be attributed to Th retaining the OG since it could be the result of textual corruption. The third type of readings in the OG and Th is there will be places where their texts are similar. The same principle applies to understanding the relationship in these cases as instances of verbatim agreement. It cannot be assumed that just because the vocabulary is similar that Th was dependent upon the OG.
The lynchpin in the whole discussion of the relationship between the OG and Th is the evaluation of the second type of readings: verbatim agreements. How many are there and how are they best explained? For example, Tov has noted that a revision must be characterized by a significant number of distinctive agreements to prove that one used the other and that there must be evidence that the reviser worked in a certain way. In the case of Th, the version is obviously toward the MT. The evaluation of the distinctive agreements is both difficult and crucial for the versions of Daniel because the analysis of chaps. 4–6 provides the leverage to know that it has to be established that distinctive agreements in vocabulary and/or syntax between the OG and Th are due to Theodotionic revision since they may be the result of textual corruption in the OG. Thus, without the first criterion, the second one offered by Tov may offer no positive evidence for revision; because how does one distinguish between revising toward the MT and translating a text by means of formal equivalence? This important distinction is evident when Jeansonne defines revisional activity in Th according to agreements with the OG and “grammatical fidelity to M and standardization of word equivalents.” If Th employed standard equivalents for vocabulary or tried to mirror the Semitic syntax or grammar, that does not require influence from the OG. Jeansonne’s understanding of what constitutes an “agreement” is not entirely clear in her volume either, because it seems to include verbatim agreements as well as any general relationship of vocabulary in the two versions. It bears repeating that similar or the same vocabulary in the OG and Th is not necessarily evidence of revisional activity. If both translators had similar Vorlagen, it would be likely that occasionally they would make similar renderings for vocabulary, though an extended agreement of vocabulary and syntax in the Greek texts would possibly qualify as a distinctive agreement. In fact, if one version is a revision of another, frequent instances where the texts have lengthy agreements would be expected because there should be instances where the reviser would not have to make changes to the base text. This is why distinctive agreements are the primary evidence to establish revisional activity. Distinctive agreements provide the foundation for explaining and understanding why the texts have extended agreements. In order to bring more balance to this issue it is also imperative that due weight is given to the evidence that is contrary to revisional activity, i.e. distinctive disagreements. This is particularly important since it cannot be assumed that agreements are due to revision.
Obviously, there are no easy solutions in this matter, but, ideally, definitive evidence for a revision would be established by three characteristics. First, and most important, there should be frequent distinctive agreements between the base text and the revision that establish a clear connection and a direction of dependence from one text to the other. These distinctive agreements should include not only rare translations and unique equivalents, but also extended agreements between the texts. However, the presence of some extended agreements alone is not sufficient to establish revisionary work since they may be the result of textual corruption. Second, there should be relatively little evidence of distinctive disagreements in the presumed revision. Third, and least important, there should be evidence that the reviser is operating based on certain principles. It is best to acknowledge that in some cases it will be a matter of perception whether something is evidence of revision or not.
Unfortunately, unlike the analysis of chaps. 4–6, it would take too much space in the present paper to examine every possible agreement between the Greek texts of Daniel in 1–3. Based on the surviving witnesses it is obvious from the outset that the OG and Th texts are translations of Vorlagen that are much closer to the MT; therefore, the presentation and description of the evidence is much more difficult. However, specific examples and passages from the first three chapters of Daniel will be analyzed in order to determine the nature of their relationship. It has already been established that the major issue in deciding the relationship between the texts is verbatim agreements, so that will be the focus of the investigation. Since some verbatim agreements may be coincidental or due to textual corruption, the limits of the investigation will be narrowed even more by concentrating on extended agreements. In this analysis five words are the arbitrary minimum, excluding names or titles, required to qualify for an extended agreement. For the purposes of the statistics any proper names or titles and their accompanying definite articles have also been excluded. The reason for this is that the inclusion of such items is one way that statistics would be distorted. Extensive agreement among names and titles would be expected. This procedure may lower the percentage of overall agreement, but the statistic is more than made up for by the number of isolated or inconsequential agreements in the texts based on definite articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. The one exception to this rule is if the shared reading is included within an agreement that extends for five or more words.
The presentation of the agreements is based on files in which there is a running text of the two Greek versions along with the MT in parallel alignment. Only the Greek texts are provided here.
Chapter 1
In chapter one of Th there are approximately 389 words excluding titles or names, of which 115 (30%) exhibit verbatim agreement with the OG. Of those 115 agreements 23 are comprised of articles, conjunctions and prepositions. There are several verses that exhibit virtually no relationship between the OG and Th. There also a number of verses (1:1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16) that include extensive agreements. In these seven verses there are 61 agreements. Before analyzing the cases of extended agreement, vv. 9, 13, and 18 will be examined as examples where there is little or no agreement between the two texts.
Chapter 1: passages with few or no agreements
Th 1:9
kai\ e1dwken o( qeo\j to\n Danihl ei)j e1leon kai\ ei)j oi)ktirmo\n e)nw/pion tou= a)rxieunou/xou.
OG 1:9
kai\ e1dwken ku/rioj tw|= Danihl timh\n kai\ xa/rin e)nanti/on tou= a)rxieunou/xou.
Presuming that the Vorlagen for both versions could easily have read Ntyw, as in the MT, the agreement between the verbs is quite normal.
Th 1:13
kai\ o)fqh/twsan e)nw/pio/n sou ai( I)de/ai h(mw=n kai\ ai( I)de/ai tw=n paidari/wn tw=n e)sqo/ntwn th\n tra/pezan tou= basile/wj kai\ kaqw\j a@n i1dh|j poi/hson meta\ tw=n pai/dwn sou
OG 1:13
kai\ e)a\n fanh=| h( o1yij h(mw=n diafanh\j para\ tou\j a!llouj neani/skouj tou\j e)/sqontaj e)k tou= basilikou= dei/pnou kaqw\j e)a\n qe/wrh|j ou#tw xrh=sai toi=j paisi/ sou
Both versions appear to be based on a text basically the same as the MT, yet the OG employs a freer approach where Th tends to mirror the syntax of the Hebrew.
Th 1:18
kai\ meta\ to\ te/loj tw=n h(merw=n, w{n ei]pen o( basileu\j ei)sagagei=n au)tou/j, kai\ ei)sh/gagen au)tou/j o( a)rxieunou=xoj e)nanti/on Nabouxodonosor.
OG 1:18
meta\ de\ ta\j h(me/raj tau/taj e)pe/tacen o( basileu\j a)gagei=n au)tou/j, kai\ h!xqhsen u(po\ tou= a)rxieunou/xou e)pi\ to\n basile/a Nabouxodonosor
Both versions employ the same preposition. The difference between the simple and compound verbs is not evidence of Th revision. It only testifies to a translation based on formal equivalence.
Chapter 1: passages with agreements
The following verses represent those instances where there is extensive agreement between the OG and Th. Note that the verbatim agreement is almost always characterized by strict formal equivalence to the MT.
Th 1:1
ei)j Ierousalhm kai\ e)polio/rkei au)th/n
OG 1:1
ei)j Ierousalhm kai\ e)polio/rkei au)th/n
The beginning of v.1 is quite different even though the names of the kings are shared by the versions. However, the final five words of the verse are verbatim. The verb poliorke/w does render rwc 5/5 times in 2 and 4 Reigns, and Nebuchadnezzar is described as besieging Jerusalem in 4 Reigns 24:11, so it is possible that this rendering is coincidental. However, it is also noticeable that in each instance in Reigns the preposition l( is rendered with e)pi\ while neither Th or OG does so in Daniel.
Th 1:4
kai\ oi[j e)stin I)sxuj e)n au)toi=j e)sta/nai e)n tw|= oi1kw| tou= basile/wj kai\ dida/cai au)tou\j gra/mmata kai\ glw=ssan
OG 1:4
kai\ i))sxu/ontaj ei]nai e)n tw|= oi1kw| tou= basile/wj kai\ dida/cai au)tou\j gra/mmata kai\ dia/lekton
Whereas Th and OG are quite distinct in the rest of the verse, here they agree and follow the MT.
Th 1:7
kai\ e)pe/qhken au)toij o( a)rxieunou=xoj a)no/mata tw|= Danihl Baltasar
OG 1:7
kai\ e)pe/qhken au)toij o( a)rxieunou=xoj a)no/mata tw|= me\n Danihl Baltasar
There is no doubt that the texts agree and follow the MT.
Th 1:10
kai\ ei1pen o( a)rxieunou=xoj tw|= Danihl Fobou=mai e)gw\ to\n ku/rio/n mou to\n basile/a to/n e)kta/canta th\n brw=sin u(mw=n kai\ th\n po/sin mh/pote i1dh| ta\ pro/swpa u(mw=n skuqrwpa\ para\ ta\ paida/ria ta\ sunh/lika u(mw=n kai\ katadika/shte th\n kefalh/n mou tw|= basilei=
OG 1:10
kai\ ei1pen o( a)rxieunou=xoj tw|= Danihl ) )Agwniw= dia\ to\n ku/rio/n mou to\n basile/a to/n e)kta/canta th\n brw=sin u(mw=n kai\ th\n po/sin i3na mh\ e)a\n i1dh| to000\ pro/swpon u(mw=n diatetramme/non kai\ a)sqene\j para\ tou\j suntrefome/nouj u(mi=n neani/skouj tw=n a)llogenw=n, kinduneu/sw tw=| i)di/w| traxh/lw|
Th and OG agree and follow the MT quite closely at the beginning of the verse, yet they are distinct at the end. Note, for example, Th’s rare vocabulary choices skuqrwpa\ (1/3 in the LXX) and katadika/shte (1/11 in the LXX) and how the OG does not follow the MT.
Th 1:12
Pei/rason dh\ tou\j pai=da/j sou h(me/raj de/ka kai\ do/twsan h(mi=n
OG 1:12
Pei/rason dh\ tou\j pai=da/j sou e)f )h(me/raj de/ka kai\ do/twsan h(mi=n
In the remainder of the verse Th and the OG give faithful but different renderings of Vorlagen basically identical to the MT, but here they agree and follow it.
Th 1:14
kai\ ei)sh/kousen au)tw=n kai\ e)pei/rasen au)tou\j h(me/raj de/ka
OG 1:14
kai\ e)xrh/sato au)toi=j to\n tr/pon tou=ton kai\ e)pei/rasen au)tou\j h(me/raj de/ka
Once again, the distinct nature of the two translations can be observed for part of a verse, yet they agree exactly and follow the MT at the end.
Th 1:16
kai\ e)geneto Amelsad a)nairou/menoj to\ dei=pnon au)tw=n kai\ to\n oi1non
OG 1:16
kai\ h}n Abiesdri a)nairou/menoj to\ dei=pnon au)tw=n kai\ to\n oi1non au)tw=n
The choice of the participle a)nairou/menoj is a distinctive agreement, but the evidence to determine the direction of borrowing in this verse is mixed. Elsewhere in this chapter Th employs tra/peza (1:5, 8, 13, 15) rather than dei=pnon, while OG has employed relative clauses previously in vv. 5 (kai\ tou= oi1nou ou{ pi/nei) and 8 (kai\ e)n w|{ pi/nei oi1nw|) for a Vorlage similar to Mhyt#m Nyyw. Thus, in this case there is evidence that the formal equivalence to the MT in the OG is due to Th influence, even though dei=pnon may be OG.
Chapter 1: summary
There are verses and parts of verses in chapter one where there is virtually no evidence that the OG and Th versions are dependent upon one another even though a Vorlage very similar to the MT seems to be the basis for both. Based on this chapter, generally speaking, Th exhibits greater formal equivalence to the Semitic syntax of the MT while the OG is characterized by a freer though faithful approach. However, there are instances where the OG and Th exhibit extended verbatim agreement and this pattern is marked primarily by its faithfulness to the syntactical structure of the MT.
Chapter 2
Chapter 2 mirrors to a large degree the situation in chapter 1. In chapter two of Th there are approximately 1075 words excluding titles or names, of which 389 (36%) exhibit verbatim agreement with the OG. There are several verses that exhibit virtually no relationship between the OG and Th, but there are twelve verses (2:4, 22, 23, 24,28[2], 31, 32, 34, 35[2], 39, 42, 47) with a total of fourteen instances that include extensive agreements. In these twelve verses there are 161 agreements. It is also apparent that the first twenty verses or so have fewer agreements than the remainder of the chapter. Several verses where there is little or no agreement will be examined and then some passages that include extensive agreements.
Chapter 2: passages with few or no agreements
Th 2:11–16
o3ti o( lo/goj, o$n o( basileu\j e)perwta=|, baru/j, kai\ e3teroj ou)k e1stin, o4j a)naggelei= au)to\n e)nw/pion tou= basile/wj, a)ll ) h@ qeoi/, w{n ou)k e1stin h( katoiki/a meta\ pa/shj sarko/j. 12 to/te o( basileu\j e)n qumw=| kai\ o)rgh=| pollh|= ei]pen a)pole/sai pa/ntaj tou\j sofou\j Babulw=noj: 13 kai\ to\ do/gma e)ch=lqe, kai\ oi( sofoi\ a)pekte/nnonto, kai\ e)zh/thsan Danihl kai\ tou\j fi/louj au)tou= a)nelei=n. 14 to/te Danihl a)pekri/qh boulh\n kai\ gnw/mhn tw|= Ariwx tw| a)rximagei/rw| tou= basile/wj, o$j e)ch=lqen a)nairei=n tou\j sofou\j Babulw=noj 15 )/Arxwn tou= basile/wj, peri\ ti/noj e)ch=lqen h( gnw/mh h( a)naidh\j e)k prosw/pou tou= basie/wj; e)gw/rise de\ to\ r(h=ma Ariwx tw|= Danihl. 16 kai\ Danihl h)ci/wse to\n basile/a o#pwj xro/non dw|= au)tw=|, kai\ th\n su/gkrisin a)naggei/lh| tw|= basilei=.
OG 2:11–16
kai\ o( lo/goj, o$n zhtei=j, basileu=, baru/j e)sti kai\ e)pi/docoj, kai\ ou)dei/j e)stin, o4j dhlw/sei tau=ta, ei) mh/ tij a1ggeloj, ou{ ou)k e1sti katoikhth/rion meta\ pa/shj sarko/j: o#qen ou)k e)nde/xetai gene/sqai kaqa/per oi1ei. 12 to/te o( basileu\j su/nnouj kai\ peri/lupoj geno/menoj prose/tacen e)cagagei=n pa/ntaj tou\j sofista\j th=j Babulwni/aj: 13 kai\ e)dogmati/sqh pa/ntaj a)poktei=nai, e)zhth/qh de\ Danihl kai\ pa/ntaj oi( met ) au)tou= xa/rin tou= sunapole/sqai. 14 to/te Danihl ei]pe boulh\n kai\ gnw=sin Ariwx tw| a)rximagei/rw| tou= basile/wj, w|{ proseta/gh e)cagagei=n tou=j sofista\j th=j Babulwni/aj, 15 kai\ e)punqa/neto au)tou= le/gwn Peri\ ti/noj dogmatizetai pikrw=j para\ tou= basile/wj; to/te to/ pro/stagma e)sh/manen o( Ariwx tw|= Danihl. 16 o( de\ Danihl taxe/wj ei)sh=lqe pro\j to\n basile/a kai\ h)ci/wsen i3na doqh|= au)tw=| xro/noj, kai\ dhlw/sh| pa/nta e)pi\ tou= basile/wj.
For the above six verses there are agreements between Th and the OG 19/85 times when names and titles are excluded or 36/113 if all the agreements of names and titles are included based on Th’s text. Given the number and type of the agreements in the two texts, would the relationship between them best be characterized by saying that Th is a revision of the OG? One can plainly see that there are no extensive agreements between the texts. In fact, generally speaking, though they are similar and it can be assumed that they are based on a Vorlage that is close to the MT they are quite different. There are, however, several readings that one might classify as distinctive agreements: baru/j, peri\ ti/noj, and possibly ou)k e1stin h( katoiki/a meta\ pa/shj sarko/j. This is the only occurrence of baru/j in the Greek texts of Daniel and it is the only time that it translates ryqy in the LXX. Thus, this is definitely a distinctive agreement, and there is no evidence that Th has borrowed from the OG. However, the OG includes a double translation for ryqy in kai\ e)pi/docoj; therefore, the double reading in the OG, and the fact that both terms are rare equivalences in the LXX, is evidence that the agreement of baru/j is actually due to correction of the OG. The only other occurrence of Peri\ ti/noj is 2 Esd 12:4, so there is no possibility of determining the direction of borrowing. Finally, it could be suggested that ou)k e1stin h( katoiki/a meta\ pa/shj sarko/j is similar to an extended agreement because several words are shared in the two versions and Th’s choice of katoiki/a was influenced by katoikhth/rion in the OG. The problem with this view is the text of the OG. The plus o#qen ou)k e)nde/xetai gene/sqai kaqa/per oi1ei, which may be classified as a distinctive disagreement in the OG, is evidence that ou{ ou)k e1sti katoikhth/rion meta\ pa/shj sarko/j is rooted in corruption from Th’s text. In this case, the plus does not create a double reading, but one must admit that the plus is very different from Th/MT and the OG is characterized by freer readings that cannot be based on the MT.
In addition to the fact that the texts do not indicate any substantive evidence that Th is based on the OG and at least one, if not two, of the distinctive agreements can be traced to corruption of the OG, examples of Th’s translation also weigh against revision. For example, h( gnw/mh h( a)naidh\j is a very free and colorful translation while OG’s choice of a verb plus adverb is arguably closer to the MT. In addition, Th’s choice of qumw=| for snb is also unque for the whole LXX, though the rendering with qumo/j is probably because of its frequent collocation with o)rgh/.
Chapter 2: passages with agreements
Four of the twelve verses that have extended agreements meet the arbitrary minimum of 5 words in succession (vv. 4, 22, 24, 39) and in each case the agreements exhibit close formal equivalence to the MT. Note part of v. 24 as an example.
Th 2:24
kai\ ei1pen au)tw=| Tou\j sofou\j Babulw=noj mh\ a)pole/sh|j ei)sa/gage de/ me e)nw/pion tou= basile/wj kai\ th\n su/gkrisin tw|= basilai= a)naggelw=
OG 2:24
ei1pen au)tw=| Tou\j me\n sofista\j Babulw=noj mh\ a)pole/sh|j ei)sa/gage de/ me pro\j to\n basile/a kai\ e3kasta tw|= basilei= dhlw/sw
This verse is another example of how both versions are based on a text similar to the MT, yet the OG does not follow it formally when using the prepositional phrase pro\j to\n basile/a or the general term e3kasta. The agreements occur where both texts follow the MT quite closely, though the inclusion of the postpositive conjunction is an example of free translation. However, there is another instance in this shared agreement that indicates Th influence on the OG. This is the only occurrence of any form of the verb a)po/lummi prior to chapter seven in the OG. Th employs the verb in 2:12, 18 and the aorist infinitive previously in v. 24. OG has the aorist infinitive a)poktei=nai earlier in the verse, so there is good reason to argue that the agreement of a)pole/sh|j is due to corruption in the OG.
Th 2:28
a)ll ) h@ e1sti qeo\j e)n ou)ranw|= a)pokalu/ptwn musth/ria kai\ e)gnw/rise tw=| basilei= Nabouxodonosor a# dei= gene/sqai e)p ) e)sxa/twn tw=n h(merw=n. to\ e)nu/pnion sou kai\ ai( o(ra/seij th=j kefalh=j sou e)pi\ th=j koi/thj sou tou=to/ e)sti.
OG 2:28
a)lla\ e1sti ku/rioj e)n ou)ranw|= fwti/zwn musth/ria, o4j e)dh/lwse tw=| basilei= Nabouxodonosor a# dei= gene/sqai e)p ) e)sxa/twn tw=n h(merw=n. basileu=, ei)j to\n ai)w=na zh/sh|: to\ e)nu/pnion sou kai\ to\ o3rama th=j kefalh=j sou e)pi\ th=j koi/thj sou tou=to/ e)sti.
Like v. 35, this verse has two places where there are extensive agreements and has the general appearance that Th has revised the OG because there is so much verbatim agreement between the versions. On closer inspection, however, things may not be quite as they seem. For example, there is the lengthy shared reading of a# dei= gene/sqai e)p ) e)sxa/twn tw=n h(merw=n. In chapter 2 )whl yd hm occurs in the MT four times: v. 28, 29(2), and 45. In each instance Th renders it with a #(ti once in v. 29) dei= gene/sqai. Reconstructing the OG prior to access to papyrus 967 Ziegler had a# dei= gene/sqai for the three occurrences in vv. 28 and 29, but ta\ e)so/mena in v. 45. However, papyrus 967 reads o3sa dei= gene/sqai for the first occurrence in v. 29 and a$ me/llei gine/sqai for the second, which explains the changes in Munnich’s text. Given v. 29 and the very different reading in v. 45, is it not likely that the text of the OG in v. 28 is corrupt? The agreement of e)pi\ th=j koi/thj sou also is suspect. The phrase e)pi\ th=j koi/thj + possessive pronoun occurs 7 times in the Th text for bk#m-l( + pronominal suffix (2:28, 29; 4:2, 7, 10, 13; 7:1); therefore, this rendering is characteristic of Th. Munnich’s OG text reads the phrase as well in 2:28; 4:2; 7:1,2. In 2:29 OG has e)pi\ th=j kli/nhj sou and there are no equivalents in 4:10, 13. However, even though the phrase is present in papyrus 967 in 4:7, it is marked by the asterisk in codex 88, which is why Ziegler omitted it from his critical text. This phrase has been examined elsewhere and it has been demonstrated that it should not be considered original. At least one of the double readings in 7:1 and 2 is also suspect, so that leaves questions about 2:28. Is Th retaining the OG in 2:28 and 7:1 or has the OG been corrupted with corrections from Th?
Chapter 2: summary
Though other verses could be examined, those selected offer a fairly good overview of the type of material that one encounters in the first three chapters of Daniel. There are verses where there is very little relationship between the OG and Th. In other cases there are more verbatim agreements and generally a closer relationship to one another and the MT, and in a few cases there are verses where the agreements and affinity to the MT is even greater. In those cases where there is agreement at least one case has been discovered where the influence of Th on the OG is almost certain (baru/j) and several other instances where it is likely but cannot be proven. Other than the agreements there is no actual evidence that Th is revising the OG.
Chapter 3
Chapter three exhibits a much higher degree of relationship than chaps. 1–2. Based on the 30 verses in chapter three where Th and the OG are translating a Semitic Vorlage (3:1–23, 91-97), there are approximately 680 words excluding titles or names, of which 301 (44%) exhibit verbatim agreement with the OG. The number of verbatim agreements is increased because there is some information (musical instruments, the fiery furnace, the golden image, and the list of officials) that is repeated several times. Yet, the agreements might have been even higher if the OG had not omitted portions of the lists in places (vv. 3, 7, 10, 15). In those 30 verses there are only three (vv. 23, 96–97) that exhibit little agreement between the Greek versions, apart from those verses where the OG has minuses, while there are eighteen cases of extensive agreement (vv. 1[2], 4, 5, 6[2], 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17[2], 93, 94, 95[3]). Clearly, there is a much closer relationship between the OG and Th versions in this chapter.
Chapter 3: passages with few or no agreements
Th 3:96–97 (MT 3:29–30)
kai\ e)gw\ e)kti/qemai do/gma Pa=j lao/j, fulh/, glw=ssa, h$ e)a\n ei1ph| blasfhmi/an kata\ tou= qeou= Sedrax, Misax, Abdenagw, ei)j a)pw/leian e!sontai kai\ oi( oi]koi au)tw=n ei)j diarpagh/n, kaqo/ti ou)k e1sti qeo\j e3teroj o#stij dunh/setai r(u/sasqai ou#twj. to/te o( basileu\j kateu/qune to\n Sedrax, Misax, Abdenagw e)n th=| xw/ra| Babulw=noj kai\ h)ci/wsen au)tou\j h(gei=sqai pa/ntwn tw=n 0Ioudai/wn tw=n o!ntwn e)n th|= basilei/a| au)tou=.
OG 3:96–97 (MT 3:29–30)
kai\ nu=n e)gw\ kri/nw i3na pa=n e1qnoj kai\ pa=sai fulai\ kai\ glw=ssai, o$j e)a\n blasfhmh/sh| ei)j to\n ku/rion qeo\n Sedrax, Misax, Abdenagw, diamelisqh/setai kai\ h) ou)si/a au)tou= dhmeuqh/setai, dio/ti ou)k e1sti qeoj e3teroj o$j dunh/setai e)cele/sqai ou#twj. ou#twj ou]n o( basileu\j tw|= Sedrax, Misax, Abdenagw e)cousi/an dou\j e)f )o#lhj th=j xw/raj au)tou= kate/sthsen au)tou\j a!rxontaj.
Generally speaking, it can be observed that the versions are related to a Vorlage similar to the MT in v. 96. Furthermore, it should be noted that Th makes a contextual guess ei)j a)pw/leian e!sontai kai\ oi( oi]koi au)tw=n ei)j diarpagh/n for the MT hwt#y ylwn htybw db(ty Nymdh that is based on his translation of the similar Aramaic in 2:5 (the person of the verb and the pronominal suffix are different), but in neither instance does Th employ the OG. This is a distinctive disagreement that demonstrates that Th is translating independently. There is also one portion of v. 96 that exhibits a close relationship between the Greek texts: ou)k e1sti qeo\j e3teroj o#stij dunh/setai, and it is noticeable that the texts also mirror the MT. However, even though most of the agreement is difficult to question, there is one element in the OG that is highly unlikely.
The equation of qeo\j for hl) (Nyhl)) is definitely not automatic in the OG. In fact, the OG seems to prefer forms of ku/rioj for references to the divinity. For example, though ku/rioj is by no means absent from Th, note 1:2, 17; 2:19, 20, 23, 28, 37 as instances where the OG reads ku/rioj while Th has qeo\j. In fact, it is more likely that the OG does not employ qeo\j at all in the first two chapters and rarely in chapter three. qeo\j does not appear in chap. 1 in the OG according to Munnich’s text and only three times in chap. 2 (vv. 44, 45, 47). The rendering in v. 44 is dubious because in all three prior instances (vv. 19, 28, 37) where )ym# is collocated with hl) the OG renders hl) with ku/rioj. The plus that is evident in e)sti\n o) qeo\j u(mw=n qeo\j tw=n qew=n kai\ ku/rioj tw=n kuri/wn kai\ ku/rioj tw=n basile/wn where Th has o) qeo\j u(mw=n au)to/j e)sti qeo\j qew=n kai\ ku/rioj tw=n basile/wn in v. 47 is likewise due to correction from Th. Without the secondary addition from Th, the OG would read e)sti\n o) ku/rioj u(mw=n kai\ ku/rioj tw=n kuri/wn kai\ ku/rioj tw=n basile/wn or, even more likely, e)sti\n ku/rioj tw=n kuri/wn kai\ ku/rioj tw=n basile/wn. That leaves v. 45 as the only instance in the first two chapters where qeo\j renders hl), when everywhere else ku/rioj is the designated term for the deity. How likely is that?
The only occurrences of qeo\j in the translated portions of the OG according to Munnich in chap. 3 are vv. 14, 15, 17, 92, 93, 95(3), and 96(2). Immediately, the preponderance of appearances at the end of the chapter are noticeable. In vv. 95 and 96 the first occurrence of qeo\j is a doublet for ku/rioj. The secondary character of qeo\j is again evident when compared to Th/MT, which have only one divine name. The collocation of qeou= with a)gge/lou in 3:92 is also dubious. Elsewhere a!ggeloj is a replacement for the deity in the OG and is never part of a divine epithet in the translated portions of the book. A similar case to 3:92 is found in 2:11 where a!ggeloj alone renders Nyhl). 3:17 has the interesting rendition e)sti ga\r o( qeo\j o( e)n ou)ranoi=j ei{j ku/rioj h(mw=n for )nhl) yty) Nh in the MT. Given the preference for ku/rioj elsewhere and the fact that the postpositive conjunction reflects a distinctive agreement with Th (e)sti ga\r qeo\j) there is good reason to question this text. There are several variants, but, on the basis of the same kind of double readings noted elsewhere, the OG would read well without the agreement with Th: e)n ou)ranoi=j ei{j ku/rioj h(mw=n or ei{j ku/rioj h(mw=n e)n ou)ranoi=j. That would leave vv. 14, 15, 93, 95(2) and the passage in 96 as the only possible places in the translated portions of chaps. 1–3 where qeo\j appears in the OG. The instance in v. 96 is clearly similar to other instances where qeo\j has been added as a correction for ku/rioj, while those in 93 and 95(2) occur in texts that are very close to Th. These passages along with the remaining two in vv. 14 and 15 have to be considered tenuous based on the pattern of translating in the OG.
The end of v. 97 in the OG has some differences in the syntax that may be evidence that its Vorlage differed, but the readings may also be more indicative of the approach in the OG.
Chapter 3: passages with agreements
A few passages with lengthy shared readings and some distinctive agreements are analyzed below.
Th 3:2
kai\ a)pe/steile sunagagei=n tou\j u(pa/touj kai\ tou\j strathgou\j kai\ tou\j topa/rxaj, h(goume/nouj kai\ tura/nnouj kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j a!rxontaj tw=n xwrw=n e)lqei=n ei)j ta\ e)gkai/nia th=j ei)ko/noj, h{j e1sthse Nabouxodonosor o( basileu/j:
OG 3:2
kai\ Nabouxodonosor basileu/j basile/wn kai\ kurieu/wn th=j oi)koume/nhj o3lhj a)pe/steilen e)pisunagagei=n pa/nta ta\ e1qnh kai\ fula\j kai\ glw/ssaj, satra/paj kai\ strathgou\j, topa/rxaj kai\ u(pa/touj, dioikhta\j kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n kata\ xw/ran kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j kata\ th\n oi)koume/nhn e)lqei=n ei)j to\n e)gkainismo\n th=j ei)ko/noj th=j xrush=j, h{j e1sthse Nabouxodonosor o( basileu/j:
This verse is typical of what is found in chaps. 4–6. There are agreements between the OG and Th, but many of the shared readings have all the appearance of double translations in the OG. There is also a related but important difference between the OG and Th/MT. In the OG the gathering includes basically everyone (“all the nations, and tribes and languages”), while Th/MT focuses exclusively on various kinds of officials. In addition to the fact that OG includes a more general listing of people, it is a characteristic of the OG, particularly noticeable in this chapter, for it to shorten lists of any kind (e.g. vv. 3, 7, 10, 15). Therefore, it is unlikely that OG has both the pluses pa/nta ta\ e1qnh kai\ fula\j kai\ glw/ssaj as well as a long list of officials. Thus, it is probable that the verbatim agreements strathgou\j, topa/rxaj and u(pa/touj are secondary additions to the OG based on Th. This would allow satra/paj kai\ dioikhta\j in the OG to serve as general terms that would include all officials. It is almost impossible to sort out the texts, but textual corruption is also evident in kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n kata\ xw/ran kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j kata\ th\n oi)koume/nhn. For example, kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j kata\ th\n oi)koume/nhn in the OG repeats what has already been stated by pa/nta ta\ e1qnh kai\ fula\j kai\ glw/ssaj. The shared reading kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n is the rare example of an OG reading that has been added to Th. The reason for this is that Th has two references to all those in authority: kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j a!rxontaj tw=n xwrw=n. Where the OG translates N+l# it employs e)cousi/a in each instance but one. In contrast, Th exhibits significant variety in his renderings, and, though he has the same equivalence in some cases as well (3:100; 4:31; 7:6, 14[2], 27), Th renders the identical Aramaic with kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j a!rxontaj tw=n xwrw=n in the very next verse. Therefore, kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n is not part of Th’s text. Finally, though it cannot be proved, the ending of the verse in the OG reads suspiciously close to Th, particularly h{j e1sthse Nabouxodonosor basileu/j.
Th 3:8
die/balon tou\j Ioudaiouj
OG 3:8
die/balon tou\j Ioudaiouj
The verb is a distinctive agreement because outside of Daniel it only occurs in 2 Macc 3:11 and 4 Macc 4:1. However, the fact that Th renders the same vocabulary in 6:24
(yhwcrq wlk)) with the identical expression while the OG employs katamarturh/santej is evidence that the Th reading has corrupted the OG in 3:8.
Th 3:91(24)
Kai\ Nabouxodonosor h!kousen u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n kai\ e)qau/mase kai\ e)cane/sth e)n spoudh|= kai\ ei]pe toi=j megista=sin au)tou=
OG 3:91(24)
Kai\ e)ge/neto e)n tw=| a)kou=sai to\n basile/a u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n kai\ e(stw\j e)qew/rei au)tou\j zw=ntaj, to/te Nabouxodonosor o( basileu\j e)qau/mase kai\ a)ne/sth speu/saj kai\ ei]pe toi=j fi/loij au)tou=
As previously mentioned, 3:21–97 in the OG was edited by a later hand who inserted the hymnic material, so evaluating the relationships between the OG and Th in this material has further complications. However, the examination of a few distinctive agreements can still be rewarding. The shared plus u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n as well as the agreement of e)qau/mase, which in Th translates hwt, would both have to be considered distinctive agreements. Though e)qau/mase is a good rendering and one might consider it coincidental that OG and Th employ the same verb, it is also unique and it is part of a longer section in Th that one might suppose is dependent upon the OG. But, these shared readings and the longer equivalent for the MT in the OG also merit closer scrutiny in order to determine the reason for their relationship. For example, the OG contains two references to the king, so that, except for the omission of u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n, to/te Nabouxodonosor o( basileu\j e)qau/mase kai\ a)ne/sth speu/saj kai\ ei]pe toi=j fi/loij au)tou= is equivalent to Th. This equivalence in the OG contains a second reference to the king, the distinctive reading e)qau/mase, two verbal forms (a)ne/sth speu/saj) related to Th, as well as the less significant agreement of kai\ ei]pe toi=j . . . au)tou=. Though it could not be described it as a double translation in the OG (since it would not be based on a similar Vorlage), the nature of the remaining material in the OG is such that it gives the content of the king’s response: Kai\ e)ge/neto e)n tw=| a)kou=sai to\n basile/a u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n kai\ e(stw\j e)qew/rei au)tou\j zw=ntaj. It is not absolutely necessary for the present purposes to account for the origin of the adverbial participle u(mnou/ntwn and its pronoun because the distinctive agreement could be the work of the later redactor. However, it should be noted that u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n is not required by the syntax of the OG, while it is in Th where the finite verb is employed. Therefore, without the certain corruption from Th the OG could be reconstructed to read:
Kai\ e)ge/neto e)n tw=| a)kou=sai to\n basile/a [u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n], e(stw\j e)qew/rei au)tou\j zw=ntaj, kai\ ei]pe toi=j fi/loij au)tou=
Th 3:94(27)
kai\ ta\ sara/bara au)tw=n ou)k h)lloiw/qh, kai\ o)smh\ puro\j ou)k h}n e)n au)toi=j.
OG 3:94(27)
kai\ ta\ sara/bara au)tw=n ou)k h)lloiw/qhsan, ou)de\ o)smh\ puro\j h}n e)n au)toi=j.
The relationship between the Greek versions is obvious from the overlap of material as well as by the distinctive agreement sara/bara. Though the shared reading of o)smh\ puro\j may be an example of a coincidental reading because both are stereotyped equivalents in the LXX, this is not true of all the agreements. The distinctive agreement sara/bara, glossed as “trousers”, is particularly significant because the OG employs a different rendering (u(podh/mata) for Nwhylbrs earlier in v. 21 where Th has sara/bara. The agreement in v. 94 is due to a scribal correction of the OG.
Chapter 3: summary
The relationship between the two Greek versions is different in chap. 3 than it is in chaps. 1–2 because there are many more agreements. However, the relationship is much the same in that where there are shared readings, particularly extensive agreements, they invariably exhibit formal equivalence to the MT. Apart from the passages where the OG has large omissions there are only a few verses that demonstrate little or no relationship between the two versions. However, evidence for a number of other instances where the OG has been corrupted with Th readings has also been discovered as well as additional instances where it is most likely that the OG is the victim of scribal corrections. The reading kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n in 3:2 is the only instance where the evidence supported that an OG reading has corrupted Th. However, it is essential to recognize that this variant is a double reading in Th. In other words, it is due to textual corruption of Th as opposed to Th revising the OG. Given the evidence of the corruption of the OG and the nature of the agreements, many of the shared readings in this chapter would have to be questioned; particularly since a good portion of them are based on repetitions about musical instruments, the fiery furnace, the golden image, and other lists.
Conclusion
Based on the three criteria for a revision it is clear that Th chaps. 1–2 do not qualify. In neither case could they be defined as demonstrating the most important criterion: frequent distinctive agreements between the base text and the revision that establish a clear connection and a direction of dependence from one text to the other. In fact, where the direction of dependence for distinctive agreements can be established, one normally finds that Th readings have corrupted the OG. These findings are consistent with what has been argued previously. Second, though little time was spent investigating the possibilities, there was further evidence of distinctive disagreements that establish the independence of Th’s translation.
Chapter three is distinguished from chaps. 1–2 by the frequency of the shared readings, especially of more extensive agreements. However, the only distinctive agreement that was isolated as evidence of an OG reading in Th was kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n in 3:2, but this is a double reading in Th and is not evidence that Th is revising the OG. In contrast, more evidence from distinctive agreements and other parallels that Th readings have corrupted the OG was uncovered.
It is only chap. 3 that at first glance one might be tempted to characterize as a revision of the OG based on the number of shared readings. However, shared readings, even extensive agreements, are not sufficient evidence to establish that Th is a revision in this chapter. At this point the reader may protest that one is engaging in special pleading. They may point to the shared readings as evidence for revision and argue that places where Th corruptions of the OG have been argued for are spurious because there is no manuscript evidence for the reconstructions. However, the case against Th as a revision is summarized below.
At the beginning of this article it was established that “a detailed analysis of chapters 4–6 has determined that the majority of the agreements between Th and OG in those chapters are due to secondary additions, expansions, and corrections to the OG based on Th. The Greek versions are clearly independent in these chapters.” Based on this finding, “it is reasonable to expect that the remainder of the OG version of Daniel has suffered similarly from scribal corrections based on Th.” For this reason, “it is contrary to the established evidence to assume that shared readings in the Greek versions is due to Th revising the OG in chaps. 1–3 and 7–12.” It is the nature of the shared agreements, not distinctive agreements, that is at the heart of the issue in chap. 3 and it has been established that shared agreements that correspond to the MT are most likely due to Th corruption of the OG. The certainty of what can be determined from chaps. 4–6 is the leverage for evaluating shared readings elsewhere in Daniel. So, are many or all of these agreements due to corruption of the OG or revision by Th?
Prior to discussing the types of shared readings found in chaps. 1–3, the reader is reminded that there are many passages throughout chaps. 1–3 where the two versions are clearly independent. For example, even though there were only a few verses that showed little or no relationship between the versions in chap. 3 (vv. 23, 96–97), there are other passages where the OG has minuses that also demonstrate independence (vv. 3, 7, 10, 15). These passages, including those with the omissions, have to be given a central role for deciding the nature of the OG translation for chap. 3. After all, given the fact that it is known that textual corruption is inevitable in the transmission of texts, the best place to begin for reconstructing the original text is with the readings that can be established with the highest degree of probability. In the case of the OG, this is most true of readings that depart from both the MT and Th, and, secondly, of readings that depart from Th but may be based on a similar Vorlage to the MT. Not only in chap. 3, but also in chaps. 1–2 there are numerous passages where the two Greek versions are clearly independent from one another. The passages where the versions are clearly independent have to serve as a measuring stick for those passages that exhibit shared readings.
There are six ways that the passages that have shared readings in chaps. 1–3 may be described.
1. There are readings that are clearly secondary in the OG. In 1:16 OG employed relative clauses previously in vv. 5 (kai\ tou= oi1nou ou{ pi/nei) and 8 (kai\ e)n w|{ pi/nei oi1nw|) for a Vorlage similar to Mhyt#m Nyyw. In 2:11 baru/j is a Th addition. Th’s contextual guess ei)j a)pw/leian e!sontai kai\ oi( oi]koi au)tw=n ei)j diarpagh/n for the MT in 3:96 and 2:5 is a distinctive disagreement. die/balon is a secondary addition to the OG in 3:8. The distinctive agreement sara/bara in v. 94 is due to a scribal correction of the OG.
2. There are secondary readings in the OG from Th that are discernible based on the presence of pluses in the OG. The dependence of ou{ ou)k e1sti katoikhth/rion meta\ pa/shj sarko/j upon Th in 2:11 is suggested by the plus o#qen ou)k e)nde/xetai gene/sqai kaqa/per oi1ei, which is clearly OG. The reading of qeo\j is a doublet for ku/rioj in 3:94, 96 and there is a large addition to the OG in 2:45. In 3:91 to/te Nabouxodonosor o( basileu\j e)qau/mase kai\ a)ne/sth speu/saj is a plus in the OG that agrees very closely with Th.
3. There are readings that may be determined to be secondary in the OG based on the translation technique of the OG and Th elsewhere. The agreement of the verb a)pole/sh|j in 2:24 is likely Th because it appears previously in 2:12, 18, and 24. The shared readings a# dei= gene/sqai0 and e)pi\ th=j koi/thj sou in 2:28 are characteristic of Th. Employing qeo\j as a designation for the deity is unlikely in 2:44 and 3:96, and the collocation of qeou= with a)gge/lou in 3:92 is also dubious. The remaining appearances of qeo\j in 3:14, 15, 17, 93, and 95(2) are tenuous and it has been argued that in 3:17 qeo\j is part of a doublet with ku/rioj. The verbatim agreements strathgou\j, topa/rxaj and u(pa/touj in 3:2 are secondary additions based on Th. Textual corruption is also evident in kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j kata\ th\n oi)koume/nhn in 3:2.
4. There are distinctive readings between the OG and Th for which the direction of dependence is unclear: the verb poliorke/w in 1:1; the participle a)nairou/menoj in 1:16; peri\ ti/noj in 2:15; and u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n in 3:91 (though it is more likely Th).
5. There are readings that are OG that are found in Th: dei=pnon in 1:16 and kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n in 3:2.
6. There are the remaining shared readings that are characterized by formal equivalence to the MT. Many of these agreements are also insignificant with respect to the question of revision since they consist of expected equivalences and minor words.
The weight of the cumulative evidence is that Th is not a revision of the OG in chaps. 1–3. Throughout most of chaps. 1–2 and for portions of chap. 3 it is clear that the OG does not exhibit formal equivalence to the MT and contains readings that are clearly distinct from Th/MT. In those passages that contain distinctive agreements and shared readings (i.e., they depart from the OG’s normal approach and show greater affinity to Th/MT), they can often be identified as due to secondary corrections and corruptions from Th. This is consistent with what has been established in chaps. 4–6 as well as previous research. In the passages examined there were only two instances when one can provide evidence of a distinctive agreement where Th is dependent upon the OG, and one of them is clearly secondary to Th. It is only in chap. 3 that there is a high degree of agreements between the texts, so it is also unlikely that one chapter out of the first six would be a revision. Therefore, rather than speak of revision in these chapters the evidence points to the conclusion that textual corruption has occurred in the OG due to the dominance of the Th version. These conclusions are based on a careful analysis of the texts and the overwhelming practice of the OG and Th translators. Where there are agreements between the OG and Th in chaps. 1–3 that are not explainable as coincidental readings based on the same Vorlage, the probability is that the OG has been corrupted by readings from Th.
The Relationship Between the Greek Translations of Daniel 1–3
In BIOSCS 37 (2004): 29-53.
Scholars in the field of Daniel studies know well that the Old Greek (OG) translation of chaps. 4–6 is significantly different in character compared to the remainder of the translation of the book, though there is no consensus among scholars to account for this. Nor is there an established consensus regarding the relationship between the OG version and the so-called Theodotion (Th ) version. Though few scholars have actually given any evidence for their views it would be fair to say that the majority believe that Th is a revision of the OG. Among the few who have dissented from the majority view are: P. Grelot, who described Th as a translation “entièrement refaite” ; and A. Di Lella, who has stated that, “It is best to consider Theodotion-Daniel a fresh translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic form of the book with an eye on LXX-Daniel rather than a recension.” In my own work I have taken a position similar to that of Di Lella, but I have emphasized more strongly the independence of the Th version. Approximately ten years ago in the published form of my dissertation I devoted three pages to describing the relationship of the Th version to the OG version in Daniel, stating:
Besides the certain evidence that OG is corrupted with Th readings, there is ample evidence that Th was translating independently from OG. For the most part, Th employs the common SE [stereotyped equivalents] for MT that are found throughout the LXX. However, we have seen how Th has his own pattern of translation equivalents for vocabulary sharing the same domain (e.g. knowing, wisdom) and his own way of resolving conflicts when two words are collocated that he normally renders by the same lexeme. That Th's translation pattern is substantially his own is also verified by the numerous HL [hapax legomenna] and translation equivalents employed by Th that are not shared with OG. Furthermore, we have seen how Th consistently makes his own contextual guess, rather than follow OG, when he does not understand [the] MT. Finally, we have seen numerous omissions against [the] MT and [the] OG that would not be there if Th were revising [the] OG toward [the] MT. For these reasons, we can affirm that in the book of Daniel, the available evidence supports that Th is an independent translation of [the] MT and not merely a revision of [the] OG.
Despite the attempt to describe the relationship between the two versions, an accurate description of their relationship had to be tempered with some equivocating remarks due to the paucity of the available evidence. Thus, the paragraph immediately following the one cited above begins: ATo claim that Th is an independent translation does not necessarily deny that Th had any knowledge of OG or that he may have occasionally borrowed from OG. However, the evidence of such borrowing is scarce, and does not support a position that Th systematically revised OG toward MT.@
In the past 10 years it does not seem that much has changed regarding the evaluation of Th as a revision. Despite the work that has demonstrated that Th should not be considered part of the so-called kaige tradition, and the questions that have been raised about the legitimacy of whether such an individual ever existed, these results have not made much impact in LXX literature or Danielic studies. Collins, for example, clearly defines the Th version as a revision of the OG. And, in a recent article discussing the nature of the relationship between the Greek versions of Daniel, Di Lella agrees with Collins’ comment that “the difference between . . . a correcting revision and a fresh translation with an eye on the OG does not . . . appear to be either clear-cut or very significant.” However, though Collins may be correct that it is difficult to distinguish the difference between “a correcting revision and a fresh translation with an eye on the OG”, it does not follow that greater clarity regarding this issue cannot be achieved. It is also important to investigate this matter more thoroughly because the results may have significant bearing on our knowledge of the textual criticism and the transmission of biblical texts, the Greek texts of Daniel more specifically, and the origins and growth of the book of Daniel. Therefore, it is my intention to build on my previous research and to provide a more substantive argument that just as Th is not a revision of the OG in chaps. 4–6, it is not a revision in chaps. 1–3.
In two other articles I have examined various aspects of the Greek translations of chaps. 4–6. In one the focus is particularly on the value of papyrus 967 as a witness to an alternative order of chapters for an earlier Vorlage for the book of Daniel. In that article an explanation is offered for the origins of Daniel that takes into consideration the evidence of the Greek versions as well as the DSS. Moreover, additional evidence is provided that OG chaps. 4–6 are based on the work of an independent translator, which strengthens the position of L. Wills and R. Albertz that these chapters originally circulated independently. In the second article a detailed analysis of the relationship between the OG and Th texts in chaps. 4–6 is undertaken. Part of the conclusion of that article is worth citing:
Generally speaking there is very little shared vocabulary in the Greek versions of Daniel in chs.4–6. However, where they do agree, it is almost verbatim. The statistics reveal that 392/471 agreements or 82% are verbatim. . . . Given the high percentage of verbatim agreements despite the low frequency of shared readings overall, the only reasonable explanation is that the majority of these agreements are due to textual corruption. In addition to what is the best explanation for the agreements, all of them have been examined and numerous passages have been isolated where there are double translations in the OG that include the reading of Th. The evidence is incontrovertible. Indeed, scholars have been correct to posit that there are numerous accretions and additions to the OG version, but the primary (but not the only!) source for these additions is scribal corrections from the text of Th. Given the supremacy that Th achieved over time and the fact that these texts co-existed, this conclusion is to be expected. The cumulative weight of these facts requires the conclusion, even when the available textual evidence and the readings of the OG do not provide double translations, that all verbatim agreements in these chapters be treated as textually suspect in the OG.
The force of the conclusions from the investigation of chaps. 4–6 have no small bearing on the remainder of the Greek texts in the book of Daniel. If it has been demonstrated that OG chaps. 4–6 are riddled with secondary additions and corrections based on the text of Th, then it only stands to reason that the same holds true throughout the rest of the book. Therefore, given the fact that one should expect Th readings infiltrated the OG during the transmission process and the fact that there are only three witnesses to the OG, it is only to be expected that there should be difficulty establishing a critical text for the OG. In many places a majority text is all that can be reconstructed because the OG reading has not been preserved. On this basis, there is both a more informed perspective for reconstructing the OG as well as for explaining the nature of the relationship between the OG and Th elsewhere in the book. In light of this evidence, the intention of this paper is to examine the shared agreements in chaps. 1–3 in order to determine the nature of the textual relationships between the two Greek versions.
Presuppositions for Understanding the Relationship Between the OG and Th
Prior to a more detailed analysis of the relationship between the OG and Th in chaps. 1–3, it will be beneficial to set out the presuppositions that should guide the analysis. Six are enumerated below.
1. If there was a historical personage named Theodotion who lived in the second century, he had nothing to do with the Th version in Daniel, because the Th version is employed by the New Testament writers.
2. Furthermore, it has been established that Th is not related to other books that are known under that siglum in the LXX tradition. That is, Th is not part of kaige-Th, though it is probably best to describe kaige-Th as a tradition of translation that is generally characterized by formal equivalence.
3. Based on 1 and 2 above it is obvious that the relationship between Th and OG in Daniel has to be established on a close study of the texts.
4. As mentioned previously in this article, a detailed analysis of chaps. 4–6 has determined that the majority of the agreements between Th and OG in those chapters are due to secondary additions, expansions, and corrections to the OG based on Th. The Greek versions are clearly independent in these chapters.
5. Based on 4, it is reasonable to expect that the remainder of the OG version of Daniel has suffered similarly from scribal corrections based on Th.
6. Therefore, it follows from 1, 2, 4, and 5 that it is contrary to the established evidence to assume that shared readings in the Greek versions is due to Th revising the OG in chaps. 1–3 and 7–12. Granted, it does not preclude the possibility either; but the issue requires careful investigation.
So, “How is the relationship between the Greek versions of Daniel determined?” First, armed with what has already been established it is possible to investigate the texts without a biased view that Th is a revision of the OG. Second, on the basis of what has been established principles may be constructed for interpreting the material.
Generally speaking, there are three types of relationships between the readings found in the two Greek versions. First, there are instances where the vocabulary and syntax is completely different. In this case there is no problem acknowledging that there is no necessary relationship between the OG and Th. However, these readings are very important for an additional reason. The presence of readings in Th that exhibit independence as a translator are positive evidence that Th does not rely on the OG. Unusual or rare vocabulary and singular readings or contextual guesses in Th are all indications that it did not rely on the OG. These may be referred to as distinctive disagreements, and these distinctive readings have to be part of evaluating the nature of shared readings. Second, there are instances where the texts are exactly the same. In the past scholars have assumed that shared readings in the texts are because Th revised the OG and retained the OG readings where they were suitable. But, it has already been established that this assumption is invalid. There are three reasons why the texts could exhibit agreement: Th retaining the OG, textual corruption, or coincidental readings. Where the Greek versions are translating a similar Vorlage, it would be expected that in many cases they would choose similar vocabulary. For example, Klm is more than likely going to be translated by basileu\j. Similarly, it cannot be assumed that distinctive agreements of unique readings can be attributed to Th retaining the OG since it could be the result of textual corruption. The third type of readings in the OG and Th is there will be places where their texts are similar. The same principle applies to understanding the relationship in these cases as instances of verbatim agreement. It cannot be assumed that just because the vocabulary is similar that Th was dependent upon the OG.
The lynchpin in the whole discussion of the relationship between the OG and Th is the evaluation of the second type of readings: verbatim agreements. How many are there and how are they best explained? For example, Tov has noted that a revision must be characterized by a significant number of distinctive agreements to prove that one used the other and that there must be evidence that the reviser worked in a certain way. In the case of Th, the version is obviously toward the MT. The evaluation of the distinctive agreements is both difficult and crucial for the versions of Daniel because the analysis of chaps. 4–6 provides the leverage to know that it has to be established that distinctive agreements in vocabulary and/or syntax between the OG and Th are due to Theodotionic revision since they may be the result of textual corruption in the OG. Thus, without the first criterion, the second one offered by Tov may offer no positive evidence for revision; because how does one distinguish between revising toward the MT and translating a text by means of formal equivalence? This important distinction is evident when Jeansonne defines revisional activity in Th according to agreements with the OG and “grammatical fidelity to M and standardization of word equivalents.” If Th employed standard equivalents for vocabulary or tried to mirror the Semitic syntax or grammar, that does not require influence from the OG. Jeansonne’s understanding of what constitutes an “agreement” is not entirely clear in her volume either, because it seems to include verbatim agreements as well as any general relationship of vocabulary in the two versions. It bears repeating that similar or the same vocabulary in the OG and Th is not necessarily evidence of revisional activity. If both translators had similar Vorlagen, it would be likely that occasionally they would make similar renderings for vocabulary, though an extended agreement of vocabulary and syntax in the Greek texts would possibly qualify as a distinctive agreement. In fact, if one version is a revision of another, frequent instances where the texts have lengthy agreements would be expected because there should be instances where the reviser would not have to make changes to the base text. This is why distinctive agreements are the primary evidence to establish revisional activity. Distinctive agreements provide the foundation for explaining and understanding why the texts have extended agreements. In order to bring more balance to this issue it is also imperative that due weight is given to the evidence that is contrary to revisional activity, i.e. distinctive disagreements. This is particularly important since it cannot be assumed that agreements are due to revision.
Obviously, there are no easy solutions in this matter, but, ideally, definitive evidence for a revision would be established by three characteristics. First, and most important, there should be frequent distinctive agreements between the base text and the revision that establish a clear connection and a direction of dependence from one text to the other. These distinctive agreements should include not only rare translations and unique equivalents, but also extended agreements between the texts. However, the presence of some extended agreements alone is not sufficient to establish revisionary work since they may be the result of textual corruption. Second, there should be relatively little evidence of distinctive disagreements in the presumed revision. Third, and least important, there should be evidence that the reviser is operating based on certain principles. It is best to acknowledge that in some cases it will be a matter of perception whether something is evidence of revision or not.
Unfortunately, unlike the analysis of chaps. 4–6, it would take too much space in the present paper to examine every possible agreement between the Greek texts of Daniel in 1–3. Based on the surviving witnesses it is obvious from the outset that the OG and Th texts are translations of Vorlagen that are much closer to the MT; therefore, the presentation and description of the evidence is much more difficult. However, specific examples and passages from the first three chapters of Daniel will be analyzed in order to determine the nature of their relationship. It has already been established that the major issue in deciding the relationship between the texts is verbatim agreements, so that will be the focus of the investigation. Since some verbatim agreements may be coincidental or due to textual corruption, the limits of the investigation will be narrowed even more by concentrating on extended agreements. In this analysis five words are the arbitrary minimum, excluding names or titles, required to qualify for an extended agreement. For the purposes of the statistics any proper names or titles and their accompanying definite articles have also been excluded. The reason for this is that the inclusion of such items is one way that statistics would be distorted. Extensive agreement among names and titles would be expected. This procedure may lower the percentage of overall agreement, but the statistic is more than made up for by the number of isolated or inconsequential agreements in the texts based on definite articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. The one exception to this rule is if the shared reading is included within an agreement that extends for five or more words.
The presentation of the agreements is based on files in which there is a running text of the two Greek versions along with the MT in parallel alignment. Only the Greek texts are provided here.
Chapter 1
In chapter one of Th there are approximately 389 words excluding titles or names, of which 115 (30%) exhibit verbatim agreement with the OG. Of those 115 agreements 23 are comprised of articles, conjunctions and prepositions. There are several verses that exhibit virtually no relationship between the OG and Th. There also a number of verses (1:1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16) that include extensive agreements. In these seven verses there are 61 agreements. Before analyzing the cases of extended agreement, vv. 9, 13, and 18 will be examined as examples where there is little or no agreement between the two texts.
Chapter 1: passages with few or no agreements
Th 1:9
kai\ e1dwken o( qeo\j to\n Danihl ei)j e1leon kai\ ei)j oi)ktirmo\n e)nw/pion tou= a)rxieunou/xou.
OG 1:9
kai\ e1dwken ku/rioj tw|= Danihl timh\n kai\ xa/rin e)nanti/on tou= a)rxieunou/xou.
Presuming that the Vorlagen for both versions could easily have read Ntyw, as in the MT, the agreement between the verbs is quite normal.
Th 1:13
kai\ o)fqh/twsan e)nw/pio/n sou ai( I)de/ai h(mw=n kai\ ai( I)de/ai tw=n paidari/wn tw=n e)sqo/ntwn th\n tra/pezan tou= basile/wj kai\ kaqw\j a@n i1dh|j poi/hson meta\ tw=n pai/dwn sou
OG 1:13
kai\ e)a\n fanh=| h( o1yij h(mw=n diafanh\j para\ tou\j a!llouj neani/skouj tou\j e)/sqontaj e)k tou= basilikou= dei/pnou kaqw\j e)a\n qe/wrh|j ou#tw xrh=sai toi=j paisi/ sou
Both versions appear to be based on a text basically the same as the MT, yet the OG employs a freer approach where Th tends to mirror the syntax of the Hebrew.
Th 1:18
kai\ meta\ to\ te/loj tw=n h(merw=n, w{n ei]pen o( basileu\j ei)sagagei=n au)tou/j, kai\ ei)sh/gagen au)tou/j o( a)rxieunou=xoj e)nanti/on Nabouxodonosor.
OG 1:18
meta\ de\ ta\j h(me/raj tau/taj e)pe/tacen o( basileu\j a)gagei=n au)tou/j, kai\ h!xqhsen u(po\ tou= a)rxieunou/xou e)pi\ to\n basile/a Nabouxodonosor
Both versions employ the same preposition. The difference between the simple and compound verbs is not evidence of Th revision. It only testifies to a translation based on formal equivalence.
Chapter 1: passages with agreements
The following verses represent those instances where there is extensive agreement between the OG and Th. Note that the verbatim agreement is almost always characterized by strict formal equivalence to the MT.
Th 1:1
ei)j Ierousalhm kai\ e)polio/rkei au)th/n
OG 1:1
ei)j Ierousalhm kai\ e)polio/rkei au)th/n
The beginning of v.1 is quite different even though the names of the kings are shared by the versions. However, the final five words of the verse are verbatim. The verb poliorke/w does render rwc 5/5 times in 2 and 4 Reigns, and Nebuchadnezzar is described as besieging Jerusalem in 4 Reigns 24:11, so it is possible that this rendering is coincidental. However, it is also noticeable that in each instance in Reigns the preposition l( is rendered with e)pi\ while neither Th or OG does so in Daniel.
Th 1:4
kai\ oi[j e)stin I)sxuj e)n au)toi=j e)sta/nai e)n tw|= oi1kw| tou= basile/wj kai\ dida/cai au)tou\j gra/mmata kai\ glw=ssan
OG 1:4
kai\ i))sxu/ontaj ei]nai e)n tw|= oi1kw| tou= basile/wj kai\ dida/cai au)tou\j gra/mmata kai\ dia/lekton
Whereas Th and OG are quite distinct in the rest of the verse, here they agree and follow the MT.
Th 1:7
kai\ e)pe/qhken au)toij o( a)rxieunou=xoj a)no/mata tw|= Danihl Baltasar
OG 1:7
kai\ e)pe/qhken au)toij o( a)rxieunou=xoj a)no/mata tw|= me\n Danihl Baltasar
There is no doubt that the texts agree and follow the MT.
Th 1:10
kai\ ei1pen o( a)rxieunou=xoj tw|= Danihl Fobou=mai e)gw\ to\n ku/rio/n mou to\n basile/a to/n e)kta/canta th\n brw=sin u(mw=n kai\ th\n po/sin mh/pote i1dh| ta\ pro/swpa u(mw=n skuqrwpa\ para\ ta\ paida/ria ta\ sunh/lika u(mw=n kai\ katadika/shte th\n kefalh/n mou tw|= basilei=
OG 1:10
kai\ ei1pen o( a)rxieunou=xoj tw|= Danihl ) )Agwniw= dia\ to\n ku/rio/n mou to\n basile/a to/n e)kta/canta th\n brw=sin u(mw=n kai\ th\n po/sin i3na mh\ e)a\n i1dh| to000\ pro/swpon u(mw=n diatetramme/non kai\ a)sqene\j para\ tou\j suntrefome/nouj u(mi=n neani/skouj tw=n a)llogenw=n, kinduneu/sw tw=| i)di/w| traxh/lw|
Th and OG agree and follow the MT quite closely at the beginning of the verse, yet they are distinct at the end. Note, for example, Th’s rare vocabulary choices skuqrwpa\ (1/3 in the LXX) and katadika/shte (1/11 in the LXX) and how the OG does not follow the MT.
Th 1:12
Pei/rason dh\ tou\j pai=da/j sou h(me/raj de/ka kai\ do/twsan h(mi=n
OG 1:12
Pei/rason dh\ tou\j pai=da/j sou e)f )h(me/raj de/ka kai\ do/twsan h(mi=n
In the remainder of the verse Th and the OG give faithful but different renderings of Vorlagen basically identical to the MT, but here they agree and follow it.
Th 1:14
kai\ ei)sh/kousen au)tw=n kai\ e)pei/rasen au)tou\j h(me/raj de/ka
OG 1:14
kai\ e)xrh/sato au)toi=j to\n tr/pon tou=ton kai\ e)pei/rasen au)tou\j h(me/raj de/ka
Once again, the distinct nature of the two translations can be observed for part of a verse, yet they agree exactly and follow the MT at the end.
Th 1:16
kai\ e)geneto Amelsad a)nairou/menoj to\ dei=pnon au)tw=n kai\ to\n oi1non
OG 1:16
kai\ h}n Abiesdri a)nairou/menoj to\ dei=pnon au)tw=n kai\ to\n oi1non au)tw=n
The choice of the participle a)nairou/menoj is a distinctive agreement, but the evidence to determine the direction of borrowing in this verse is mixed. Elsewhere in this chapter Th employs tra/peza (1:5, 8, 13, 15) rather than dei=pnon, while OG has employed relative clauses previously in vv. 5 (kai\ tou= oi1nou ou{ pi/nei) and 8 (kai\ e)n w|{ pi/nei oi1nw|) for a Vorlage similar to Mhyt#m Nyyw. Thus, in this case there is evidence that the formal equivalence to the MT in the OG is due to Th influence, even though dei=pnon may be OG.
Chapter 1: summary
There are verses and parts of verses in chapter one where there is virtually no evidence that the OG and Th versions are dependent upon one another even though a Vorlage very similar to the MT seems to be the basis for both. Based on this chapter, generally speaking, Th exhibits greater formal equivalence to the Semitic syntax of the MT while the OG is characterized by a freer though faithful approach. However, there are instances where the OG and Th exhibit extended verbatim agreement and this pattern is marked primarily by its faithfulness to the syntactical structure of the MT.
Chapter 2
Chapter 2 mirrors to a large degree the situation in chapter 1. In chapter two of Th there are approximately 1075 words excluding titles or names, of which 389 (36%) exhibit verbatim agreement with the OG. There are several verses that exhibit virtually no relationship between the OG and Th, but there are twelve verses (2:4, 22, 23, 24,28[2], 31, 32, 34, 35[2], 39, 42, 47) with a total of fourteen instances that include extensive agreements. In these twelve verses there are 161 agreements. It is also apparent that the first twenty verses or so have fewer agreements than the remainder of the chapter. Several verses where there is little or no agreement will be examined and then some passages that include extensive agreements.
Chapter 2: passages with few or no agreements
Th 2:11–16
o3ti o( lo/goj, o$n o( basileu\j e)perwta=|, baru/j, kai\ e3teroj ou)k e1stin, o4j a)naggelei= au)to\n e)nw/pion tou= basile/wj, a)ll ) h@ qeoi/, w{n ou)k e1stin h( katoiki/a meta\ pa/shj sarko/j. 12 to/te o( basileu\j e)n qumw=| kai\ o)rgh=| pollh|= ei]pen a)pole/sai pa/ntaj tou\j sofou\j Babulw=noj: 13 kai\ to\ do/gma e)ch=lqe, kai\ oi( sofoi\ a)pekte/nnonto, kai\ e)zh/thsan Danihl kai\ tou\j fi/louj au)tou= a)nelei=n. 14 to/te Danihl a)pekri/qh boulh\n kai\ gnw/mhn tw|= Ariwx tw| a)rximagei/rw| tou= basile/wj, o$j e)ch=lqen a)nairei=n tou\j sofou\j Babulw=noj 15 )/Arxwn tou= basile/wj, peri\ ti/noj e)ch=lqen h( gnw/mh h( a)naidh\j e)k prosw/pou tou= basie/wj; e)gw/rise de\ to\ r(h=ma Ariwx tw|= Danihl. 16 kai\ Danihl h)ci/wse to\n basile/a o#pwj xro/non dw|= au)tw=|, kai\ th\n su/gkrisin a)naggei/lh| tw|= basilei=.
OG 2:11–16
kai\ o( lo/goj, o$n zhtei=j, basileu=, baru/j e)sti kai\ e)pi/docoj, kai\ ou)dei/j e)stin, o4j dhlw/sei tau=ta, ei) mh/ tij a1ggeloj, ou{ ou)k e1sti katoikhth/rion meta\ pa/shj sarko/j: o#qen ou)k e)nde/xetai gene/sqai kaqa/per oi1ei. 12 to/te o( basileu\j su/nnouj kai\ peri/lupoj geno/menoj prose/tacen e)cagagei=n pa/ntaj tou\j sofista\j th=j Babulwni/aj: 13 kai\ e)dogmati/sqh pa/ntaj a)poktei=nai, e)zhth/qh de\ Danihl kai\ pa/ntaj oi( met ) au)tou= xa/rin tou= sunapole/sqai. 14 to/te Danihl ei]pe boulh\n kai\ gnw=sin Ariwx tw| a)rximagei/rw| tou= basile/wj, w|{ proseta/gh e)cagagei=n tou=j sofista\j th=j Babulwni/aj, 15 kai\ e)punqa/neto au)tou= le/gwn Peri\ ti/noj dogmatizetai pikrw=j para\ tou= basile/wj; to/te to/ pro/stagma e)sh/manen o( Ariwx tw|= Danihl. 16 o( de\ Danihl taxe/wj ei)sh=lqe pro\j to\n basile/a kai\ h)ci/wsen i3na doqh|= au)tw=| xro/noj, kai\ dhlw/sh| pa/nta e)pi\ tou= basile/wj.
For the above six verses there are agreements between Th and the OG 19/85 times when names and titles are excluded or 36/113 if all the agreements of names and titles are included based on Th’s text. Given the number and type of the agreements in the two texts, would the relationship between them best be characterized by saying that Th is a revision of the OG? One can plainly see that there are no extensive agreements between the texts. In fact, generally speaking, though they are similar and it can be assumed that they are based on a Vorlage that is close to the MT they are quite different. There are, however, several readings that one might classify as distinctive agreements: baru/j, peri\ ti/noj, and possibly ou)k e1stin h( katoiki/a meta\ pa/shj sarko/j. This is the only occurrence of baru/j in the Greek texts of Daniel and it is the only time that it translates ryqy in the LXX. Thus, this is definitely a distinctive agreement, and there is no evidence that Th has borrowed from the OG. However, the OG includes a double translation for ryqy in kai\ e)pi/docoj; therefore, the double reading in the OG, and the fact that both terms are rare equivalences in the LXX, is evidence that the agreement of baru/j is actually due to correction of the OG. The only other occurrence of Peri\ ti/noj is 2 Esd 12:4, so there is no possibility of determining the direction of borrowing. Finally, it could be suggested that ou)k e1stin h( katoiki/a meta\ pa/shj sarko/j is similar to an extended agreement because several words are shared in the two versions and Th’s choice of katoiki/a was influenced by katoikhth/rion in the OG. The problem with this view is the text of the OG. The plus o#qen ou)k e)nde/xetai gene/sqai kaqa/per oi1ei, which may be classified as a distinctive disagreement in the OG, is evidence that ou{ ou)k e1sti katoikhth/rion meta\ pa/shj sarko/j is rooted in corruption from Th’s text. In this case, the plus does not create a double reading, but one must admit that the plus is very different from Th/MT and the OG is characterized by freer readings that cannot be based on the MT.
In addition to the fact that the texts do not indicate any substantive evidence that Th is based on the OG and at least one, if not two, of the distinctive agreements can be traced to corruption of the OG, examples of Th’s translation also weigh against revision. For example, h( gnw/mh h( a)naidh\j is a very free and colorful translation while OG’s choice of a verb plus adverb is arguably closer to the MT. In addition, Th’s choice of qumw=| for snb is also unque for the whole LXX, though the rendering with qumo/j is probably because of its frequent collocation with o)rgh/.
Chapter 2: passages with agreements
Four of the twelve verses that have extended agreements meet the arbitrary minimum of 5 words in succession (vv. 4, 22, 24, 39) and in each case the agreements exhibit close formal equivalence to the MT. Note part of v. 24 as an example.
Th 2:24
kai\ ei1pen au)tw=| Tou\j sofou\j Babulw=noj mh\ a)pole/sh|j ei)sa/gage de/ me e)nw/pion tou= basile/wj kai\ th\n su/gkrisin tw|= basilai= a)naggelw=
OG 2:24
ei1pen au)tw=| Tou\j me\n sofista\j Babulw=noj mh\ a)pole/sh|j ei)sa/gage de/ me pro\j to\n basile/a kai\ e3kasta tw|= basilei= dhlw/sw
This verse is another example of how both versions are based on a text similar to the MT, yet the OG does not follow it formally when using the prepositional phrase pro\j to\n basile/a or the general term e3kasta. The agreements occur where both texts follow the MT quite closely, though the inclusion of the postpositive conjunction is an example of free translation. However, there is another instance in this shared agreement that indicates Th influence on the OG. This is the only occurrence of any form of the verb a)po/lummi prior to chapter seven in the OG. Th employs the verb in 2:12, 18 and the aorist infinitive previously in v. 24. OG has the aorist infinitive a)poktei=nai earlier in the verse, so there is good reason to argue that the agreement of a)pole/sh|j is due to corruption in the OG.
Th 2:28
a)ll ) h@ e1sti qeo\j e)n ou)ranw|= a)pokalu/ptwn musth/ria kai\ e)gnw/rise tw=| basilei= Nabouxodonosor a# dei= gene/sqai e)p ) e)sxa/twn tw=n h(merw=n. to\ e)nu/pnion sou kai\ ai( o(ra/seij th=j kefalh=j sou e)pi\ th=j koi/thj sou tou=to/ e)sti.
OG 2:28
a)lla\ e1sti ku/rioj e)n ou)ranw|= fwti/zwn musth/ria, o4j e)dh/lwse tw=| basilei= Nabouxodonosor a# dei= gene/sqai e)p ) e)sxa/twn tw=n h(merw=n. basileu=, ei)j to\n ai)w=na zh/sh|: to\ e)nu/pnion sou kai\ to\ o3rama th=j kefalh=j sou e)pi\ th=j koi/thj sou tou=to/ e)sti.
Like v. 35, this verse has two places where there are extensive agreements and has the general appearance that Th has revised the OG because there is so much verbatim agreement between the versions. On closer inspection, however, things may not be quite as they seem. For example, there is the lengthy shared reading of a# dei= gene/sqai e)p ) e)sxa/twn tw=n h(merw=n. In chapter 2 )whl yd hm occurs in the MT four times: v. 28, 29(2), and 45. In each instance Th renders it with a #(ti once in v. 29) dei= gene/sqai. Reconstructing the OG prior to access to papyrus 967 Ziegler had a# dei= gene/sqai for the three occurrences in vv. 28 and 29, but ta\ e)so/mena in v. 45. However, papyrus 967 reads o3sa dei= gene/sqai for the first occurrence in v. 29 and a$ me/llei gine/sqai for the second, which explains the changes in Munnich’s text. Given v. 29 and the very different reading in v. 45, is it not likely that the text of the OG in v. 28 is corrupt? The agreement of e)pi\ th=j koi/thj sou also is suspect. The phrase e)pi\ th=j koi/thj + possessive pronoun occurs 7 times in the Th text for bk#m-l( + pronominal suffix (2:28, 29; 4:2, 7, 10, 13; 7:1); therefore, this rendering is characteristic of Th. Munnich’s OG text reads the phrase as well in 2:28; 4:2; 7:1,2. In 2:29 OG has e)pi\ th=j kli/nhj sou and there are no equivalents in 4:10, 13. However, even though the phrase is present in papyrus 967 in 4:7, it is marked by the asterisk in codex 88, which is why Ziegler omitted it from his critical text. This phrase has been examined elsewhere and it has been demonstrated that it should not be considered original. At least one of the double readings in 7:1 and 2 is also suspect, so that leaves questions about 2:28. Is Th retaining the OG in 2:28 and 7:1 or has the OG been corrupted with corrections from Th?
Chapter 2: summary
Though other verses could be examined, those selected offer a fairly good overview of the type of material that one encounters in the first three chapters of Daniel. There are verses where there is very little relationship between the OG and Th. In other cases there are more verbatim agreements and generally a closer relationship to one another and the MT, and in a few cases there are verses where the agreements and affinity to the MT is even greater. In those cases where there is agreement at least one case has been discovered where the influence of Th on the OG is almost certain (baru/j) and several other instances where it is likely but cannot be proven. Other than the agreements there is no actual evidence that Th is revising the OG.
Chapter 3
Chapter three exhibits a much higher degree of relationship than chaps. 1–2. Based on the 30 verses in chapter three where Th and the OG are translating a Semitic Vorlage (3:1–23, 91-97), there are approximately 680 words excluding titles or names, of which 301 (44%) exhibit verbatim agreement with the OG. The number of verbatim agreements is increased because there is some information (musical instruments, the fiery furnace, the golden image, and the list of officials) that is repeated several times. Yet, the agreements might have been even higher if the OG had not omitted portions of the lists in places (vv. 3, 7, 10, 15). In those 30 verses there are only three (vv. 23, 96–97) that exhibit little agreement between the Greek versions, apart from those verses where the OG has minuses, while there are eighteen cases of extensive agreement (vv. 1[2], 4, 5, 6[2], 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17[2], 93, 94, 95[3]). Clearly, there is a much closer relationship between the OG and Th versions in this chapter.
Chapter 3: passages with few or no agreements
Th 3:96–97 (MT 3:29–30)
kai\ e)gw\ e)kti/qemai do/gma Pa=j lao/j, fulh/, glw=ssa, h$ e)a\n ei1ph| blasfhmi/an kata\ tou= qeou= Sedrax, Misax, Abdenagw, ei)j a)pw/leian e!sontai kai\ oi( oi]koi au)tw=n ei)j diarpagh/n, kaqo/ti ou)k e1sti qeo\j e3teroj o#stij dunh/setai r(u/sasqai ou#twj. to/te o( basileu\j kateu/qune to\n Sedrax, Misax, Abdenagw e)n th=| xw/ra| Babulw=noj kai\ h)ci/wsen au)tou\j h(gei=sqai pa/ntwn tw=n 0Ioudai/wn tw=n o!ntwn e)n th|= basilei/a| au)tou=.
OG 3:96–97 (MT 3:29–30)
kai\ nu=n e)gw\ kri/nw i3na pa=n e1qnoj kai\ pa=sai fulai\ kai\ glw=ssai, o$j e)a\n blasfhmh/sh| ei)j to\n ku/rion qeo\n Sedrax, Misax, Abdenagw, diamelisqh/setai kai\ h) ou)si/a au)tou= dhmeuqh/setai, dio/ti ou)k e1sti qeoj e3teroj o$j dunh/setai e)cele/sqai ou#twj. ou#twj ou]n o( basileu\j tw|= Sedrax, Misax, Abdenagw e)cousi/an dou\j e)f )o#lhj th=j xw/raj au)tou= kate/sthsen au)tou\j a!rxontaj.
Generally speaking, it can be observed that the versions are related to a Vorlage similar to the MT in v. 96. Furthermore, it should be noted that Th makes a contextual guess ei)j a)pw/leian e!sontai kai\ oi( oi]koi au)tw=n ei)j diarpagh/n for the MT hwt#y ylwn htybw db(ty Nymdh that is based on his translation of the similar Aramaic in 2:5 (the person of the verb and the pronominal suffix are different), but in neither instance does Th employ the OG. This is a distinctive disagreement that demonstrates that Th is translating independently. There is also one portion of v. 96 that exhibits a close relationship between the Greek texts: ou)k e1sti qeo\j e3teroj o#stij dunh/setai, and it is noticeable that the texts also mirror the MT. However, even though most of the agreement is difficult to question, there is one element in the OG that is highly unlikely.
The equation of qeo\j for hl) (Nyhl)) is definitely not automatic in the OG. In fact, the OG seems to prefer forms of ku/rioj for references to the divinity. For example, though ku/rioj is by no means absent from Th, note 1:2, 17; 2:19, 20, 23, 28, 37 as instances where the OG reads ku/rioj while Th has qeo\j. In fact, it is more likely that the OG does not employ qeo\j at all in the first two chapters and rarely in chapter three. qeo\j does not appear in chap. 1 in the OG according to Munnich’s text and only three times in chap. 2 (vv. 44, 45, 47). The rendering in v. 44 is dubious because in all three prior instances (vv. 19, 28, 37) where )ym# is collocated with hl) the OG renders hl) with ku/rioj. The plus that is evident in e)sti\n o) qeo\j u(mw=n qeo\j tw=n qew=n kai\ ku/rioj tw=n kuri/wn kai\ ku/rioj tw=n basile/wn where Th has o) qeo\j u(mw=n au)to/j e)sti qeo\j qew=n kai\ ku/rioj tw=n basile/wn in v. 47 is likewise due to correction from Th. Without the secondary addition from Th, the OG would read e)sti\n o) ku/rioj u(mw=n kai\ ku/rioj tw=n kuri/wn kai\ ku/rioj tw=n basile/wn or, even more likely, e)sti\n ku/rioj tw=n kuri/wn kai\ ku/rioj tw=n basile/wn. That leaves v. 45 as the only instance in the first two chapters where qeo\j renders hl), when everywhere else ku/rioj is the designated term for the deity. How likely is that?
The only occurrences of qeo\j in the translated portions of the OG according to Munnich in chap. 3 are vv. 14, 15, 17, 92, 93, 95(3), and 96(2). Immediately, the preponderance of appearances at the end of the chapter are noticeable. In vv. 95 and 96 the first occurrence of qeo\j is a doublet for ku/rioj. The secondary character of qeo\j is again evident when compared to Th/MT, which have only one divine name. The collocation of qeou= with a)gge/lou in 3:92 is also dubious. Elsewhere a!ggeloj is a replacement for the deity in the OG and is never part of a divine epithet in the translated portions of the book. A similar case to 3:92 is found in 2:11 where a!ggeloj alone renders Nyhl). 3:17 has the interesting rendition e)sti ga\r o( qeo\j o( e)n ou)ranoi=j ei{j ku/rioj h(mw=n for )nhl) yty) Nh in the MT. Given the preference for ku/rioj elsewhere and the fact that the postpositive conjunction reflects a distinctive agreement with Th (e)sti ga\r qeo\j) there is good reason to question this text. There are several variants, but, on the basis of the same kind of double readings noted elsewhere, the OG would read well without the agreement with Th: e)n ou)ranoi=j ei{j ku/rioj h(mw=n or ei{j ku/rioj h(mw=n e)n ou)ranoi=j. That would leave vv. 14, 15, 93, 95(2) and the passage in 96 as the only possible places in the translated portions of chaps. 1–3 where qeo\j appears in the OG. The instance in v. 96 is clearly similar to other instances where qeo\j has been added as a correction for ku/rioj, while those in 93 and 95(2) occur in texts that are very close to Th. These passages along with the remaining two in vv. 14 and 15 have to be considered tenuous based on the pattern of translating in the OG.
The end of v. 97 in the OG has some differences in the syntax that may be evidence that its Vorlage differed, but the readings may also be more indicative of the approach in the OG.
Chapter 3: passages with agreements
A few passages with lengthy shared readings and some distinctive agreements are analyzed below.
Th 3:2
kai\ a)pe/steile sunagagei=n tou\j u(pa/touj kai\ tou\j strathgou\j kai\ tou\j topa/rxaj, h(goume/nouj kai\ tura/nnouj kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j a!rxontaj tw=n xwrw=n e)lqei=n ei)j ta\ e)gkai/nia th=j ei)ko/noj, h{j e1sthse Nabouxodonosor o( basileu/j:
OG 3:2
kai\ Nabouxodonosor basileu/j basile/wn kai\ kurieu/wn th=j oi)koume/nhj o3lhj a)pe/steilen e)pisunagagei=n pa/nta ta\ e1qnh kai\ fula\j kai\ glw/ssaj, satra/paj kai\ strathgou\j, topa/rxaj kai\ u(pa/touj, dioikhta\j kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n kata\ xw/ran kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j kata\ th\n oi)koume/nhn e)lqei=n ei)j to\n e)gkainismo\n th=j ei)ko/noj th=j xrush=j, h{j e1sthse Nabouxodonosor o( basileu/j:
This verse is typical of what is found in chaps. 4–6. There are agreements between the OG and Th, but many of the shared readings have all the appearance of double translations in the OG. There is also a related but important difference between the OG and Th/MT. In the OG the gathering includes basically everyone (“all the nations, and tribes and languages”), while Th/MT focuses exclusively on various kinds of officials. In addition to the fact that OG includes a more general listing of people, it is a characteristic of the OG, particularly noticeable in this chapter, for it to shorten lists of any kind (e.g. vv. 3, 7, 10, 15). Therefore, it is unlikely that OG has both the pluses pa/nta ta\ e1qnh kai\ fula\j kai\ glw/ssaj as well as a long list of officials. Thus, it is probable that the verbatim agreements strathgou\j, topa/rxaj and u(pa/touj are secondary additions to the OG based on Th. This would allow satra/paj kai\ dioikhta\j in the OG to serve as general terms that would include all officials. It is almost impossible to sort out the texts, but textual corruption is also evident in kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n kata\ xw/ran kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j kata\ th\n oi)koume/nhn. For example, kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j kata\ th\n oi)koume/nhn in the OG repeats what has already been stated by pa/nta ta\ e1qnh kai\ fula\j kai\ glw/ssaj. The shared reading kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n is the rare example of an OG reading that has been added to Th. The reason for this is that Th has two references to all those in authority: kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j a!rxontaj tw=n xwrw=n. Where the OG translates N+l# it employs e)cousi/a in each instance but one. In contrast, Th exhibits significant variety in his renderings, and, though he has the same equivalence in some cases as well (3:100; 4:31; 7:6, 14[2], 27), Th renders the identical Aramaic with kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j a!rxontaj tw=n xwrw=n in the very next verse. Therefore, kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n is not part of Th’s text. Finally, though it cannot be proved, the ending of the verse in the OG reads suspiciously close to Th, particularly h{j e1sthse Nabouxodonosor basileu/j.
Th 3:8
die/balon tou\j Ioudaiouj
OG 3:8
die/balon tou\j Ioudaiouj
The verb is a distinctive agreement because outside of Daniel it only occurs in 2 Macc 3:11 and 4 Macc 4:1. However, the fact that Th renders the same vocabulary in 6:24
(yhwcrq wlk)) with the identical expression while the OG employs katamarturh/santej is evidence that the Th reading has corrupted the OG in 3:8.
Th 3:91(24)
Kai\ Nabouxodonosor h!kousen u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n kai\ e)qau/mase kai\ e)cane/sth e)n spoudh|= kai\ ei]pe toi=j megista=sin au)tou=
OG 3:91(24)
Kai\ e)ge/neto e)n tw=| a)kou=sai to\n basile/a u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n kai\ e(stw\j e)qew/rei au)tou\j zw=ntaj, to/te Nabouxodonosor o( basileu\j e)qau/mase kai\ a)ne/sth speu/saj kai\ ei]pe toi=j fi/loij au)tou=
As previously mentioned, 3:21–97 in the OG was edited by a later hand who inserted the hymnic material, so evaluating the relationships between the OG and Th in this material has further complications. However, the examination of a few distinctive agreements can still be rewarding. The shared plus u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n as well as the agreement of e)qau/mase, which in Th translates hwt, would both have to be considered distinctive agreements. Though e)qau/mase is a good rendering and one might consider it coincidental that OG and Th employ the same verb, it is also unique and it is part of a longer section in Th that one might suppose is dependent upon the OG. But, these shared readings and the longer equivalent for the MT in the OG also merit closer scrutiny in order to determine the reason for their relationship. For example, the OG contains two references to the king, so that, except for the omission of u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n, to/te Nabouxodonosor o( basileu\j e)qau/mase kai\ a)ne/sth speu/saj kai\ ei]pe toi=j fi/loij au)tou= is equivalent to Th. This equivalence in the OG contains a second reference to the king, the distinctive reading e)qau/mase, two verbal forms (a)ne/sth speu/saj) related to Th, as well as the less significant agreement of kai\ ei]pe toi=j . . . au)tou=. Though it could not be described it as a double translation in the OG (since it would not be based on a similar Vorlage), the nature of the remaining material in the OG is such that it gives the content of the king’s response: Kai\ e)ge/neto e)n tw=| a)kou=sai to\n basile/a u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n kai\ e(stw\j e)qew/rei au)tou\j zw=ntaj. It is not absolutely necessary for the present purposes to account for the origin of the adverbial participle u(mnou/ntwn and its pronoun because the distinctive agreement could be the work of the later redactor. However, it should be noted that u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n is not required by the syntax of the OG, while it is in Th where the finite verb is employed. Therefore, without the certain corruption from Th the OG could be reconstructed to read:
Kai\ e)ge/neto e)n tw=| a)kou=sai to\n basile/a [u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n], e(stw\j e)qew/rei au)tou\j zw=ntaj, kai\ ei]pe toi=j fi/loij au)tou=
Th 3:94(27)
kai\ ta\ sara/bara au)tw=n ou)k h)lloiw/qh, kai\ o)smh\ puro\j ou)k h}n e)n au)toi=j.
OG 3:94(27)
kai\ ta\ sara/bara au)tw=n ou)k h)lloiw/qhsan, ou)de\ o)smh\ puro\j h}n e)n au)toi=j.
The relationship between the Greek versions is obvious from the overlap of material as well as by the distinctive agreement sara/bara. Though the shared reading of o)smh\ puro\j may be an example of a coincidental reading because both are stereotyped equivalents in the LXX, this is not true of all the agreements. The distinctive agreement sara/bara, glossed as “trousers”, is particularly significant because the OG employs a different rendering (u(podh/mata) for Nwhylbrs earlier in v. 21 where Th has sara/bara. The agreement in v. 94 is due to a scribal correction of the OG.
Chapter 3: summary
The relationship between the two Greek versions is different in chap. 3 than it is in chaps. 1–2 because there are many more agreements. However, the relationship is much the same in that where there are shared readings, particularly extensive agreements, they invariably exhibit formal equivalence to the MT. Apart from the passages where the OG has large omissions there are only a few verses that demonstrate little or no relationship between the two versions. However, evidence for a number of other instances where the OG has been corrupted with Th readings has also been discovered as well as additional instances where it is most likely that the OG is the victim of scribal corrections. The reading kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n in 3:2 is the only instance where the evidence supported that an OG reading has corrupted Th. However, it is essential to recognize that this variant is a double reading in Th. In other words, it is due to textual corruption of Th as opposed to Th revising the OG. Given the evidence of the corruption of the OG and the nature of the agreements, many of the shared readings in this chapter would have to be questioned; particularly since a good portion of them are based on repetitions about musical instruments, the fiery furnace, the golden image, and other lists.
Conclusion
Based on the three criteria for a revision it is clear that Th chaps. 1–2 do not qualify. In neither case could they be defined as demonstrating the most important criterion: frequent distinctive agreements between the base text and the revision that establish a clear connection and a direction of dependence from one text to the other. In fact, where the direction of dependence for distinctive agreements can be established, one normally finds that Th readings have corrupted the OG. These findings are consistent with what has been argued previously. Second, though little time was spent investigating the possibilities, there was further evidence of distinctive disagreements that establish the independence of Th’s translation.
Chapter three is distinguished from chaps. 1–2 by the frequency of the shared readings, especially of more extensive agreements. However, the only distinctive agreement that was isolated as evidence of an OG reading in Th was kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n in 3:2, but this is a double reading in Th and is not evidence that Th is revising the OG. In contrast, more evidence from distinctive agreements and other parallels that Th readings have corrupted the OG was uncovered.
It is only chap. 3 that at first glance one might be tempted to characterize as a revision of the OG based on the number of shared readings. However, shared readings, even extensive agreements, are not sufficient evidence to establish that Th is a revision in this chapter. At this point the reader may protest that one is engaging in special pleading. They may point to the shared readings as evidence for revision and argue that places where Th corruptions of the OG have been argued for are spurious because there is no manuscript evidence for the reconstructions. However, the case against Th as a revision is summarized below.
At the beginning of this article it was established that “a detailed analysis of chapters 4–6 has determined that the majority of the agreements between Th and OG in those chapters are due to secondary additions, expansions, and corrections to the OG based on Th. The Greek versions are clearly independent in these chapters.” Based on this finding, “it is reasonable to expect that the remainder of the OG version of Daniel has suffered similarly from scribal corrections based on Th.” For this reason, “it is contrary to the established evidence to assume that shared readings in the Greek versions is due to Th revising the OG in chaps. 1–3 and 7–12.” It is the nature of the shared agreements, not distinctive agreements, that is at the heart of the issue in chap. 3 and it has been established that shared agreements that correspond to the MT are most likely due to Th corruption of the OG. The certainty of what can be determined from chaps. 4–6 is the leverage for evaluating shared readings elsewhere in Daniel. So, are many or all of these agreements due to corruption of the OG or revision by Th?
Prior to discussing the types of shared readings found in chaps. 1–3, the reader is reminded that there are many passages throughout chaps. 1–3 where the two versions are clearly independent. For example, even though there were only a few verses that showed little or no relationship between the versions in chap. 3 (vv. 23, 96–97), there are other passages where the OG has minuses that also demonstrate independence (vv. 3, 7, 10, 15). These passages, including those with the omissions, have to be given a central role for deciding the nature of the OG translation for chap. 3. After all, given the fact that it is known that textual corruption is inevitable in the transmission of texts, the best place to begin for reconstructing the original text is with the readings that can be established with the highest degree of probability. In the case of the OG, this is most true of readings that depart from both the MT and Th, and, secondly, of readings that depart from Th but may be based on a similar Vorlage to the MT. Not only in chap. 3, but also in chaps. 1–2 there are numerous passages where the two Greek versions are clearly independent from one another. The passages where the versions are clearly independent have to serve as a measuring stick for those passages that exhibit shared readings.
There are six ways that the passages that have shared readings in chaps. 1–3 may be described.
1. There are readings that are clearly secondary in the OG. In 1:16 OG employed relative clauses previously in vv. 5 (kai\ tou= oi1nou ou{ pi/nei) and 8 (kai\ e)n w|{ pi/nei oi1nw|) for a Vorlage similar to Mhyt#m Nyyw. In 2:11 baru/j is a Th addition. Th’s contextual guess ei)j a)pw/leian e!sontai kai\ oi( oi]koi au)tw=n ei)j diarpagh/n for the MT in 3:96 and 2:5 is a distinctive disagreement. die/balon is a secondary addition to the OG in 3:8. The distinctive agreement sara/bara in v. 94 is due to a scribal correction of the OG.
2. There are secondary readings in the OG from Th that are discernible based on the presence of pluses in the OG. The dependence of ou{ ou)k e1sti katoikhth/rion meta\ pa/shj sarko/j upon Th in 2:11 is suggested by the plus o#qen ou)k e)nde/xetai gene/sqai kaqa/per oi1ei, which is clearly OG. The reading of qeo\j is a doublet for ku/rioj in 3:94, 96 and there is a large addition to the OG in 2:45. In 3:91 to/te Nabouxodonosor o( basileu\j e)qau/mase kai\ a)ne/sth speu/saj is a plus in the OG that agrees very closely with Th.
3. There are readings that may be determined to be secondary in the OG based on the translation technique of the OG and Th elsewhere. The agreement of the verb a)pole/sh|j in 2:24 is likely Th because it appears previously in 2:12, 18, and 24. The shared readings a# dei= gene/sqai0 and e)pi\ th=j koi/thj sou in 2:28 are characteristic of Th. Employing qeo\j as a designation for the deity is unlikely in 2:44 and 3:96, and the collocation of qeou= with a)gge/lou in 3:92 is also dubious. The remaining appearances of qeo\j in 3:14, 15, 17, 93, and 95(2) are tenuous and it has been argued that in 3:17 qeo\j is part of a doublet with ku/rioj. The verbatim agreements strathgou\j, topa/rxaj and u(pa/touj in 3:2 are secondary additions based on Th. Textual corruption is also evident in kai\ pa/ntaj tou\j kata\ th\n oi)koume/nhn in 3:2.
4. There are distinctive readings between the OG and Th for which the direction of dependence is unclear: the verb poliorke/w in 1:1; the participle a)nairou/menoj in 1:16; peri\ ti/noj in 2:15; and u(mnou/ntwn au)tw=n in 3:91 (though it is more likely Th).
5. There are readings that are OG that are found in Th: dei=pnon in 1:16 and kai\ tou\j e)p ) e)cousiw=n in 3:2.
6. There are the remaining shared readings that are characterized by formal equivalence to the MT. Many of these agreements are also insignificant with respect to the question of revision since they consist of expected equivalences and minor words.
The weight of the cumulative evidence is that Th is not a revision of the OG in chaps. 1–3. Throughout most of chaps. 1–2 and for portions of chap. 3 it is clear that the OG does not exhibit formal equivalence to the MT and contains readings that are clearly distinct from Th/MT. In those passages that contain distinctive agreements and shared readings (i.e., they depart from the OG’s normal approach and show greater affinity to Th/MT), they can often be identified as due to secondary corrections and corruptions from Th. This is consistent with what has been established in chaps. 4–6 as well as previous research. In the passages examined there were only two instances when one can provide evidence of a distinctive agreement where Th is dependent upon the OG, and one of them is clearly secondary to Th. It is only in chap. 3 that there is a high degree of agreements between the texts, so it is also unlikely that one chapter out of the first six would be a revision. Therefore, rather than speak of revision in these chapters the evidence points to the conclusion that textual corruption has occurred in the OG due to the dominance of the Th version. These conclusions are based on a careful analysis of the texts and the overwhelming practice of the OG and Th translators. Where there are agreements between the OG and Th in chaps. 1–3 that are not explainable as coincidental readings based on the same Vorlage, the probability is that the OG has been corrupted by readings from Th.
