Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison

I found several benefits from this study. There are plenty of good literary and theological insights coming from his readings of the Aramaic, especially chaps. 3-6. Also, this kind of study should serve as a reminder of a more general principle, that any use of the LXX to support textual emendation must rest, not on an atomistic approach to the text, but on an appreciation of the literary features of the Greek (contrast BHS apparatus).

Finally, the comparison of the translation with the original sheds light as a side effect on some of the pitfalls of "dynamic equivalence" translations which may, e.g., reduce lists, re-order events, eliminate repetition, make implicit information explicit, use synonyms instead of word repetition (all of which I have seen recommended for translators). For example, as Meadowcroft observes, "by translating a Leitwort in his Vorlage with several synonyms, the translator conveys surface meaning without capturing the literary effect intended by the Aramaic repetition" (p. 263). A good example of a similar failure would be Eph 2:19 where the NIV renders (arabic text omitted) as "God's people" instead of "holy people," while in v. 21 we read of a "holy temple," thus obscuring Paul's repetition (not to mention the repetitions of cognates (arabic text omitted) throughout).

Meadowcroft's work is unlikely to appeal to any audience but the specialist, both because of its price and technicality. However, I hope that some specialists will make use of his positive contributions and mediate them through commentaries to a wider audience.

C. John Collins

Covenant Theological Seminary

Copyright Trinity International University Spring 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved