Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison

Up to this point the work is engaging, with all manner of fruitful literary observations. When Meadowcroft comes to Daniel 2, however, I think his judgment fails him. Here he discusses redaction history of the chapter, concluding that "material in vv. 13-23 is not original to the prototype of the MT, and that vv. 20-23 have probably been introduced" (p. 161). Although he admits "the evidence for vv. 13-23 having been inserted into the MT is indecisive" (p. 162; too bad he did not just stop there!), he suggests that "a more compelling argument for vv. 13-23 as an insertion emerges in an examination of the balance between narrative and dialogue in the structure of the chapter" (p. 164). But of course this presupposes that the author wanted to preserve that "balance" throughout, for which we have no evidence. Indeed, excising a section because it falls short of some standard of "literary merit," which we have no assurance is emic, is problematic to say the least: it reminds one of the practice of deleting poetic lines in the OT for metric reasons. We do not know that these really are blemishes. Meadowcroft further tries to show that the vocabulary of the section, especially of the hymn in vv. 20-23, is different from that of the rest of the chapter. He never considers the possibility that we have traditional language adapted for the occasion; nor does he notice that the Aramaic of "he changes times and epochs" (v. 21, NASB) answers to the expression "until the situation [time] is changed" (v. 9), or that the hymn matches the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream quite well. (There are many other answers to the details of his argument, but these will suffice for now.) These verses are not integrated into Meadowcroft's literary treatment. He finds that the MT uses specific terms for the different kinds of revelation, a usage not reflected in LXX: hence "the difference between divine revelation and the type on offer from the Chaldeans is not as clearly drawn in the LXX, nor is the impact of Nebuchadnezzar's confession heightened to the same extent" (p. 180). Surprisingly, there is nowhere any discussion of the literary function of the shift from Hebrew to Aramaic in 2:4.

In treating Daniel 7, Meadowcroft concludes that "the bulk of the variations between the MT and LXX can be explained on technical grounds and do not entail a change of meaning between the versions" (p. 199). He discusses "the Ancient of Days," concluding it designates God. He finds the son of man to be ambiguously presented in the MT: is he human or divine? The LXX uses terms that clearly favor the divine interpretation. Meadowcroft helpfully argues the literary coherence of chap. 7. He argues that the MT's use of passive verb forms stresses God's agency, which does not clearly come out in LXX's choice of verb forms. He shows that the literary links are strongest with Daniel 2 (the four empires in the vision), with further resonances with the other chapters (although he does not show that he has found all the resonances rather than put some of them there, a common weakness of literary studies).