“Daniel 5 in Aramaic and Greek and the Textual History of Daniel 4–6,” in IOSOT Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016 (VTSupp 177; eds. L.C. Jonker, C. Maier, and G. Kotzé; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 251–284. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Double Translations in the Greek Versions of Daniel
The book of Daniel is particularly valuable for Septuagint studies because we have two complete Greek translations of the Hebrew. The existence of the two Greek versions, known respectively as the Old Greek (OG) and Theodotion 1 (Th), raises a variety of questions about the nature of their relationship to one another as well as the source text or texts from which they were translated. The differences between the two versions are particularly noticeable in chapters 4-6 when compared to the rest of the book where both versions more closely reflect a Semitic text that is very similar to the MT 2 . Most scholars are agreed that the differing version of chapters 4-6 in the OG is based on a Semitic Vorlage 3 , and Wills and Albertz have made important contributions to understanding the alternative redactions of Daniel for these chapters while arguing that the OG version witnesses to a more original text for the book 4 .
This study acknowledges the pivotal role that the criterion of common basis plays for both the adherents and the critics of the theory that Th-Dan is a revision. In order to diminish the force and number of the distinctive agreements that affirm the common basis in the Greek versions of Daniel, critics often cast suspicion on their relevance by either underscoring the corrupt character of OG-Dan in comparison with readings from Th-Dan or by assessing them as questionable, with the direction of dependence unclear. At variance with such methodological strategies, this study expands the stock of significant agreements by adducing ten examples that are free of textual corruption and unequivocally represent borrowing of Th-Dan from OG-Dan.
The Original Problem: The Old Greek and the Masoretic Text of Daniel Chapter 5 (2016)
in: Raymond F. Person, Jr. and Robert Rezetko, eds. Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 25; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 271-301
This chapter explores various models of the relationship between the highly variant Old Greek (OG) and the Masoretic Text (MT) of Daniel 5, for example, that both the OG and the MT are developments of an earlier common text, or that the earlier forms of the text which are developed in the OG and the MT were already parallel renditions of a common oral tradition, and thus there never was a common base text of Dan 5.
This study aims to advance our knowledge of the character of Th-Dan within the larger framework of the Theodotionic problem. Chapter 1 ascertained the necessity of the inquiry. For decades scholars had routinely referred to Th-Dan as a revision. There had been, however, no methodical study undertaken to substantiate this claim. Noting this deficiency, the first analyses carried out to address the issue concluded that Th-Dan does reflect an independent translation. The present study represents the first comprehensive and systematic investigation to demonstrate the character of Th-Dan as a revision, seeking to fill this critical gap in the research. The case for Th-Dan as a revision is built within the methodological framework laid by previous revisional studies. Chapter 2 highlights our present knowledge regarding recensional activity in late antiquity. The study of the pre-Hexaplaric revisions led to the crystallization of principles that test the quality of a text as a revision. My working hypothesis is controlled by two criteria: the demonstration of a common basis that genetically connects the texts alleged to stand in a translation-revision relationship, and the substantiation of recensional techniques in the text alleged to reflect a revision. The contrastive analysis of both the commonalities and the dissimilarities between Th-Dan and OG-Dan affirmed both criteria. Chapter 3 investigated the commonalities and found evidence for the presence of a common basis between Th-Dan and OG-Dan. The two texts frequently share long strings of words, at times presenting whole verses almost verbatim. However, we applied a methodological stricture, theorizing that the most compelling evidence in this direction is significant agreements: hapax Greek words; rare Greek words; unique equivalents; and rare equivalents. Such lexical choices could hardly have been replicated by two translators working independently. They rather imply that Th-Dan employed OG-Dan as its base text for selecting equivalents. The characterization of the revisional process is dealt with in chapter 4. Section A demonstrates that Th-Dan reflects a systematic, literal revision. The analysis of the dissimilarities between OG-Dan and Th-Dan indicates that they emerged from systematic corrections applied to OG-Dan. To conform it quantitatively and qualitatively to the Semitic text, the reviser employed recensional norms such as stereotyping, quantitative representation, linguistic accuracy, word order, and transliteration. By means of these techniques, the reviser achieved consistency. Section B of chapter 4 points to further mechanical, recensional techniques which reflect the reviser's attitude toward the base text; he constantly referred to the base text when selecting his equivalents. This can be seen in the way he manipulated the first-found OG renditions, partly maintained and partly revised, the use of the immediate and wider OG context, the replacement of OG equivalents with synonyms, and the replacement of rare OG words with standard equivalents. Such procedures provide additional evidence for the character of Th-Dan as a revision. Section C of chapter 4 discusses inconsistencies of Th-Dan, which reflect exceptions to the reviser's recensional techniques. The influence of the OG's style on Th-Dan and the sometimes problematic nature of MT-Dan constituted the most important circumstances that caused the reviser to deviate from his agenda of consistency in translation equivalents. Chapter 5 investigates the nature of Th-Dan's underlying Semitic text. The reviser's Vorlage resembled MT-Dan but was not identical to it. This situation accounts for certain differences extant between Th-Dan and MT-Dan. Furthermore, the investigation of these differences led to the conclusion that Th-Dan's Vorlage frequently featured readings preferable to MT-Dan, especially when the latter contained harmonistic and exegetical expansions or subtractions. At times, it reflects a better-preserved text, free of haplographies. The results are summarized in chapter 6. They are followed by a tentative explanation for the replacement of OG-Dan with Th-Dan in the textual history of the Greek Bible. The historical circumstances that formed the backdrop for such a decision were apologetic in nature and regarded the high status of the book as well as its frequent use in arguments between Jews and Christians.
The Relationship of the Different Editions of Daniel: A History of Scholarship
Currents in Biblical Research, 2015
The book of Daniel has one of the more complicated textual histories of any biblical book. It is written in two languages (Hebrew and Aramaic), and the content drastically differs in the two halves of the book (stories in chs. 1-6 and visions in chs. 7-12). Perhaps the most difficult attribute to explain, however, is that it is preserved in several distinct editions, which at times vastly diverge from one another. These are the Masoretic edition in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Old Greek and Theodotionic editions in Greek. The relationship of these three editions of the book of Daniel has been disputed for more than two hundred years, and a scholarly consensus has not yet been reached. This overview surveys the history of scholarship on the different editions in hopes that future studies on the book of Daniel will give the OG edition equal status with the MT edition of the book, which it has hitherto not received.
Testing-Testing, Do We Have a Translated Text in Daniel 1 and Daniel 7?
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 2005
One of the persistent problems related to the study of the book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible is explaining the fact that the book is written in two languages, viz. [8][9][10][11][12] and . This problem is intensified by another peculiarity: over and above the two languages, two literary types can also be distinguished in the book. The first six chapters of the book of Daniel (1:1-6:29) contain narratives (court tales) and the last six chapters (7:1-12:13) contain what have been labelled as visions. Thus, the language division is dissimilar to the division based on literary type. This gave rise to the hypothesis that Daniel 1 and/or Daniel 7 might be translated texts. However, no conclusive grounds for proving such a hypothesis have been presented. On the basis of developments in modern translation studies and especially the identification of certain "universals of translation" this paper again looks at the issue of whether Daniel 1 and/or Daniel 7 could be viewed as translated texts. In this case a specific "universal of translation" is tested in relation to Daniel 1 and Daniel 7 in order to determine to what extent these texts exhibit the features pertaining to translated texts. This endeavour is aided by the fact that other translations of these texts (e.g. the Old Greek) can serve as control mechanisms for deductions in this regard.