Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison

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.

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.

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).

In discussing the Hebrew sections of Daniel, Meadowcroft makes the rough generalization "that the LXX relates to the Hebrew MT in Daniel 1 and 8-12 much as it does to the Aramaic MT of Daniel 2 and 7" (p. 245). He is sympathetic with S. P. Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1988), that "there is no theological Tendenz in the Old Greek translation" (p. 260); but thinks that it is overstated, since there seem to be several places where theological interpretation explains the differences.

In his concluding chapter Meadowcroft reviews his findings, and goes on to discuss a possible redaction history for the book of Daniel. For the Aramaic chapters, he thinks that Daniel 4-6, and perhaps 3-6, were linked in the MT before chaps. 2 and 7 were added as a bracket. This confirms the argument of Lenglet (Biblica 53 [1972] 169-90), that we have a chiasm with chaps. 4-5 as the central pair, with 3 answering to 6 and 2 to 7. While I think he has made the case for the chiasm, it is not entirely clear on what reliable basis he rests the redaction history. Indeed, he says "the composition history evidence produced by a literary-critical approach is hardly decisive in one direction, but some probabilities can be adduced" (p. 274). He suggests that "the stories of Daniel were finally collected during the first half of the second century BCE in Palestine, and combined with the visions as a direct result of the national and religious crisis centred on Antiochus IV Epiphanes" (p. 275). In all of this he has no interaction with R. T. Beckwith's observations (The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [London: SPCK, 1985] 415-7, nn. 75-7) about the early recognition of Daniel, nor any reflection on the relationship of redaction history to canonicity. And he would have done well to meditate on the essays of C. S. Lewis about the fallacies involved in these imaginary composition histories. Surprisingly, he does not bring his own observations about the favorable view of Nebuchadnezzar, and that "the version that is most obviously Maccabean, and hence Palestinian in outlook, is the Greek translation" (p. 274), to bear on whether the supposed connection between Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus is valid. It is not at all clear how his arguments here are compatible with his evident religious interest in the material, and his openness to historicity.

This work would be stronger if Meadowcroft had considered comparison of discourse features between the versions, e.g. the ways in which verb forms correspond to foreground and background. Further, while the thrust of the study is literary, this should be done on the basis of sound philological work. In many of his detailed lexical discussions Meadowcroft is not sufficiently careful: e.g. in discussing the expression in 2:28 (arabic text omitted) he interprets this as speaking "with some finality of `the end of the days"' (p. 186), with no reference to the many treatments of the Hebrew equivalent and the use made of it in the NT. When treating (arabic text omitted) (which he accepts as the reading in Dan 7:13 LXX), he takes the verb as intransitive with aTc,) as indirect object, yielding "they (the bystanders) came to him" (p. 224). However, he does not consider the possibility that the Greek accurately represents the MT (arabic text omitted) "and they brought him before him," if we simply take (arabic text omitted) as transitive with an elided object: "and they brought [him] to him." In the same discussion (p. 229) he notes that the verb (arabic text omitted) is "often used in the context of bringing offerings or prayers to God": however, it is often not used that way, too, and there is no evidence presented that it is somehow a technical term, nor does Meadowcroft distinguish between the transitive and intransitive uses of the verb. At least once he has an outright mistranslation of the Greek: he interprets the phrase in 1:11 (arabic text omitted) as "to Abiesdri the keeper appointed by the chief eunuch," whereas it is actually "to Abiesdri the appointed chief eunuch" (p. 256). In discussing the LXX rendering of (arabic text omitted)"time" with (arabic text omitted) "hour" in 8:17; 9:21; 11:35, 40; 12:1, he supposes that the Greek word is more specific than the Hebrew word warrants, while he ought to prove it. He has no mention of the obvious parallel in the use of (arabic text omitted) in the Johannine literature, nor of its use outside the LXX at all (this is a common feature of his Greek lexical discussions). I could multiply examples, but have said enough to support the wish that Meadowcroft had read Silva on lexicography and Carson on exegetical fallacies. Hence when in his concluding chapter he alludes to places where the LXX modified the meaning of the MT for theological reasons, and these arguments are based on his lexical studies, my confidence in this conclusion is diminished.

No doubt the decision to eliminate questions of historicity was a tactical one, to limit the range of discussion. Still, these questions cannot be avoided forever: indeed, part of the process of reading depends on the reader's perceptions as to what kind of referential claims are being made, and whether these claims are reliable; and on this matter Meadowcroft is silent. Nevertheless, by establishing the literary workings of at least several chapters, he has prepared the way for further discussion.

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