Content provided in partnership with

Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison

Trinity Journal, Spring 1998 by Collins, C John

T. J. Meadowcroft. Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. JSOTSS 198. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. 336 pp. 37.50/$56.00.

Among the many interesting questions surrounding the book of Daniel, Meadowcroft has focused on the facts that, first, there are two Greek versions of it, the older Septuagint (LXX) and Theodotion; and second, the LXX has significant differences from the Masoretic Text (MT), especially in the Aramaic section, chaps. 2-7. Meadowcroft states his purpose on p. 2: "to explore the curious situation. . . by applying the tools of literary criticism to a comparison of the MT and the LXX of Daniel 2-7." Rahlfs's LXX is the textual basis. The literary outlook is that of people like Sternberg and BarEfrat, i.e. not the postmodern kind. As is common with such studies, questions about historicity of the material are bracketed out, but a number of indicators in the book show that Meadowcroft does not simply dismiss its possibility: he respectfully cites authors who argue for historicity and for a Persian period date for the Aramaic.

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

After an introduction that sets out the problem and surveys narrative criticism, the LXX as a translation, and textual witnesses to the LXX, he covers the chapters of Daniel in the order 4, 5, 6, 3, 2, and 7; he then has a chapter surveying differences between the Hebrew MT and LXX in chaps. 1, 8-12. In each of these chapters he explores the links between the chapters of Daniel to show their literary relations. His final chapter sums up his conclusions. The book has two appendices: one discussing the differences between Theodotion and MT in Daniel 2-7; the other containing Meadowcroft's translation of the LXX Daniel 2-7. The bibliography and the indices of biblical references and authors cited are full.

Meadowcroft begins at Daniel 4 because this chapter in the LXX has the greatest divergence from the MT. After discussing the topic of narrator's stance, he concludes that "the MT narrator of Daniel is more covert than his LXX counterpart, and this results in a more multi-faceted story. . .. [G]enerally speaking the omniscience of the MT narrator is more neutral while that of the LXX is more editorial" (p. 39). He further concludes that the narrator wants the reader to see the character Daniel as reliable. Whereas the MT depicts the punishment of Nebuchadnezzar in terms of a period of mental derangement, the LXX, which allows for this, seems to add the element of usurpation or imprisonment. Interestingly, while in MT "the storyteller does not appear to have an axe to grind against Nebuchadnezzar personally," the LXX "version's attitude towards the king is more adversarial" (p. 55).

In Daniel 5 "the MT depicts [the banquet of Belshazzar as] an official and formal occasion. In the LXX the scene of the action is more in the nature of a private party" (p. 61). In both versions Belshazzar is guilty of pride. Meadowcroft has an illuminating analysis of the portrayal of Belshazzar and his attitude toward Daniel (pp. 64-6), a portrayal which does not come through in the LXX because of the private party setting. The chapter shows many links with chap. 4, since one of the purposes of Daniel 5 is "to compare Belshazzar unfavourably with Nebuchadnezzar" (p. 81). The LXX portrayal gives us much less linkage with chap. 4, since it does not employ the devices found in MT.

Meadowcroft next moves on to Daniel 6, noting that Daniel 3 and 6 seem to form a bracket around 4-5. Again, whereas the MT narrator is "coy" when it comes to ascribing motives explicitly, the LXX narrator "habitually explicates the motives that lie behind the actions of the characters" (p. 90). Meadowcroft argues that the MT makes use of irony and suspense, while the LXX is a more straightforward moral tale. Further, the

MT centres the conflict on the two laws [dat, vv. 6, 9 (ET 5, 8)], so the climax of the story is a further ordinance, which admits the superiority of the law of God over the law of the Medes and the Persians. The LXX centres the conflict more around the arrogation of divine powers to himself by Darius. Consequently the climax of the LXX's story is a confession of submission by Darius to the God whom he had been tricked into trying to usurp. (p. 121)

Apart from the well-known Additions, the MT and LXX of Daniel 3 are much closer than the previously treated chapters. Meadowcroft argues on literary grounds that the Additions, though of high quality, nevertheless are not original to the story; and further, that the MT is a coherent narrative as it is. The lists of officials and musical instruments are summarized in the LXX, with the consequence that

The lists in the MT enhance the Babylonian setting and reinforce the ritual context of the challenge facing Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The effect of the summaries in the LXX, intentional or not, is to distance the story from its specific ritual setting in Babylon. (p. 147) The heroes in MT do not condemn the king, whereas in LXX they do, again illustrating the more overt LXX narrator.

Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison

Trinity Journal, Spring 1998 by Collins, C John

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Health

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference