Sie sind auf Seite 1von 33

Die Septuaginta –

Orte und Intentionen


5. Internationale Fachtagung
veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D),
Wuppertal 24.–27. Juli 2014

Herausgegeben von
Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser
und Marcus Sigismund

in Verbindung mit
Martin Karrer und Wolfgang Kraus

Mohr Siebeck

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


Siegfried Kreuzer ist Professor em. für Altes Testament an der Kirchlichen Hoch-
schule Wuppertal/Bethel.

Martin Meiser ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter an der Universität des Saarlandes.

Marcus Sigismund ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Institut für Septuaginta und


biblische Textforschung in Wuppertal.

Martin Karrer ist Professor für Neues Testament an der Kirchlichen Hochschule
Wuppertal-Bethel.

Wolfgang Kraus ist Professor für Neues Testament an der Universität des Saarlan-
des, Saarbrücken.

ISBN 978-3-16-153832-2
ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament)
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Natio­
nal­bibliographie; detaillierte bibliographische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.
de abrufbar.

© 2016 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohr.de


Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwer-
tung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des
Verlags unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Überset-
zungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen
Sys­temen.
Das Buch wurde von Gulde Druck in Tübingen auf alterungsbeständiges Werkdruck­­
papier gedruckt und von der Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier gebunden.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


Inhalt

Orte

Kontexte und Orte der Entstehung und Rezeption

Martin Karrer
Septuaginta und antike Philosophie .................................................... 3

Knut Usener
Plutarch und das Judentum –
Plutarch und die Septuaginta? ............................................................ 36

Johann Cook
The Provenance of the Septuagint: A Case Study of
LXX Proverbs, LXX Job and 4 Maccabees ........................................ 59

Michael Lattke
Die Psalmen Salomos: Orte und Intentionen....................................... 78

Marcus Sigismund
Die ägyptische Rezension des JosuaLXX
im Lichte der sahidischen Überlieferung ............................................ 96

Bonifatia Gesche
Von Nordafrika über Paris nach Stuttgart:
Wie kommt die verderbte Fassung der Übersetzung
von Esdras A’ in die Vulgata? ........................................................... 117

Siegfried Kreuzer
Zum textgeschichtlichen Ort der Dodekapropheton-Zitate
im Neuen Testament .......................................................................... 132

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


Inhalt

Reale und literarische Welten

Gert Jacobus Steyn


Heliopolis and On in the Septuagint ................................................... 155

James K. Aitken
Moses’s θίβις...................................................................................... 169

Michaël N. van der Meer


Galilee in the Septuagint.
Textual Criticism and Topography in Joshua 19:10–39 ......................... 186

Frank Ueberschaer
Die Welt des Ben Sira. Orte und Räume im Denken Ben Siras ........... 215

Martin Rösel
Die himmlische Welt der Septuaginta. Angelologische
Akzentuierungen am Beispiel des Danielbuches................................. 232

Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer
Philo and the Garden of Eden: An Exegete,
his Text and his Tools ........................................................................ 244

Martin Meiser
Der Traum in der griechisch-römischen Antike,
im antiken Judentum und im antiken Christentum .............................. 258

Textkritik und Textgeschichte

Emanuel Tov
The Shared Tradition of the Septuagint
and the Samaritan Pentateuch............................................................. 277

Innocent Himbaza
What are the consequences if 4QLXXLeva contains
earliest formulation of the Septuagint? ............................................... 294

Tuukka Kauhanen
Septuagint in the West. The Significance of the Post-Lucianic
Latin Witnesses for the Textual History of Kings ............................... 309

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


Inhalt

Adrian Schenker
Archetype and Late Literary Developments
in 2 Kings 1:17–18 and 8:16.
Recensions in the Masoretic Text and in the Old Greek...................... 326

Felix Albrecht
Die alexandrinische Überlieferung und die Rezension des
Hesych von Alexandrien in den Prophetenbüchern der Septuaginta .... 337

Claudine Cavallier
Esther 1, 13–20: problèmes textuels ................................................... 363

Robert J.V. Hiebert


A New Critical Edition of Greek IV Maccabees ................................. 389

Michael Segal
The Old Greek Version and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 ..................... 404

Wolfgang Schütte
Die Exegese der griechischen Textgraphik und der Kodex Venetus .... 429

Stefan Mulder
‘A conquering of animals’: Symmachus’ depoliticising
translation re-examined ...................................................................... 437

Intentionen

Philologie

Theo A.W. van der Louw


Did the Septuagint Translators Really Intend
the Greek Text as it is? ....................................................................... 449

Takamitsu Muraoka
Septuagint Greek: A Syntactical Perspective ...................................... 467

Marieke Dhont
Double Translations in Old Greek Job ................................................ 475

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


Inhalt

Eberhard Bons
Ἀκακία and ἄκακος. Considerations on a Septuagint term
for “innocence” .................................................................................. 491

Christoph Kugelmeier
Zu einer besonderen Bedeutung der aus ἀρε-
abgeleiteten Wortgruppe .................................................................... 502

Jong-Hoon Kim
Zur Relevanz der Wiedergabe von ‫ צדקה‬mit ἔλεος/ἐλεηµοσύνη .......... 510

Theologie

Martina Kepper
Kontextualisierende Übersetzungspraxis
in der Genesis-Septuaginta? ............................................................... 523

William Loader
Attitudes towards Sexuality in the LXX Translations
of Contentious Texts .......................................................................... 537

Larry Perkins
Israel’s Military Characterization in Greek Exodus ............................ 550

Ralph Brucker
Zum ‚Sitz im Leben‘ des Septuaginta-Psalters ................................... 564

Annette Weissenrieder
Body Discourse in Job: Translation of Skin and Flesh
from ‫ וֹר‬-‫ ָבּ ָשׂ ר‬into δέρµα, βύρσα or σάρξ ............................................ 580

Heinz-Josef Fabry
Sühnevorstellungen bei Jesus Sirach .................................................. 597

Burkard M. Zapff
Schriftgelehrte Rezeptionen im hebräischen,
griechischen und syrischen Sirach ...................................................... 614

Cécile Dogniez
Volonté et motif: les intentions du traducteur
des Douze Petits Prophètes ................................................................ 629

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


Inhalt

Daniela Scialabba
The LXX translation of Jonah 1:6.
Text-critical and exegetical considerations ......................................... 645

Arie van der Kooij


“Do you understand what you are reading” (Acts 8:30).
On Septuagint Hermeneutics and the Book of Isaiah .......................... 655

Jelle Verburg
Harmonisation in Isaiah 35................................................................. 669

Johanna Erzberger
Nebuchadnezzar, Lord of the Wild Animals.
Understanding a Difference Between Jer LXX and Jer MT
in Light of Dan................................................................................... 678

Jan Joosten
The Origin of the Septuagint Canon ................................................... 688

Rezeption

Barbara Schmitz
“… using different names, as Zeus and Dis” (Arist 16).
Concepts of “God” in the Letter of Aristeas ....................................... 703

Mogens Müller
Motive der Septuaginta bei Aristobul und ihre Intention .................... 717

Wolfgang Kraus
Zur Frage der Ursprünglichkeit und Rezeption von Bar 3,38 .............. 731

Jonathan Draper
The Old Testament in the Didache
and in Subsequent Church Orders ...................................................... 743

Silke Diederich
Leiden und Loben. Zur Psalmenrezeption
in Dracontius’ De laudibus Dei .......................................................... 764

Stefan Freund
Die Psalmen als übersetzte Dichtung in der Wahrnehmung
des Hilarius von Poitiers .................................................................... 782

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


Inhalt

Meike Rühl
Pia festa litterarum. Eine Fallstudie zur christlichen
Transformation römischer Conviviallyrik........................................... 798

Christoph Schubert
Poetische Transformationen: Commodian und der Psalter .................. 814

Egert Pöhlmann
Der Trinitarische Hymnus (POXY 1786) und sein Umfeld ................. 835

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


Michael Segal

The Old Greek Version and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6

In recent decades, scholars have recognized the contribution of the evi-


dence of biblical textual witnesses for understanding the literary develop-
ment of scriptural compositions. Large-scale differences between the ver-
sions, when they exist, allow us to untangle the various threads from which
biblical literature was woven, at least the final stages of its composition.
Different editions of the same passage or book can sometimes be found in
the MT, LXX, and Qumran, and these examples offer us a rare glimpse
into the practices of biblical scribes in Antiquity.1 Among these various
compositions, Daniel chapters 4–6 presents one of the most pronounced
examples of extensive differences between textual witnesses, and therefore
serves as an important example of the intersection of textual and literary
criticisms.2 The current study focuses on Daniel 6, the story of Daniel in

*
I would like to thank Daniel Olariu for his helpful comments on this article.
1
For a summary and discussion of a number of examples of alternate literary editions
of biblical texts, see EMANUEL T OV, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed. rev.
and exp.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 283–326.
2
Many scholars have noted the special character of these chapters, including, e.g.
RAINER ALBERTZ, Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4-6 in der Septua-
gintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches (SBS
131; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988); LAWRENCE M. W ILLS, The Jew in the
Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends (HDR 26; Minneapolis: For-
tress, 1990), 144–152 and passim; E UGENE ULRICH, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Ori-
gins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999), 40–44,49; 70–72 (the chapters from which these pages are quoted were
originally published as “Double Literary Editions of Biblical Narratives and Reflections
on Determining the Form to be Translated,” in Perspectives on the Hebrew Bible: Essays
in Honor of Walter J. Harrelson [ed. James L. Crenshaw; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press, 1988], 101–116; “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Later Stages in
the Composition of the Bible,” in Sha`arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible Qumran and the
Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon [eds. Michael Fishbane and Emanu-
el Tov; Wininona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992], 267–291); J OHN J. COLLINS, Daniel (Her-
meneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 5–7, 37 and passim; O LIVIER MUNNICH, “Texte
massorétique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew
Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septua-
gint Reconsidered (SBLSCS 52; ed. Adrian Schenker; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Litera-
ture, 2003), 93–120; R. T IMOTHY MCLAY, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel iv–vi
and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” VT 55 (2005): 304–23; EMANUEL T OV, “Three

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 405

the lion’s den, in order to determine the relationship of the Greek and Ar-
amaic witnesses.3 While Dan 6 presents fewer large-scale differences be-
tween MT and OG than in chapters 4 or 5,4 there is still significant varia-
tion between them, which necessitates their careful comparison.
The following general methodological remarks about the Old Greek
(OG) version of Daniel are pertinent for the analysis of the textual evi-
dence from chapter 6:
(1) OG throughout the book of Daniel reflects a free translation of its
Hebrew-Aramaic Vorlage, often characterized by Greek syntax.5 This free
approach is reflected in phenomena such as different word order and sen-
tence structure, lack of one-to-one correspondence between the words in
the source and target languages, interchanges of active and passive verbal
forms, and more. This stands in contrast to Theodotion which is much
more literal, and often reflects the syntax of its underlying Semitic [He-
brew or Aramaic] source. These different translation styles appear consist-
ently throughout the book, and therefore almost certainly reflect the work
of each of these Greek translators.
However, the general translational differences between the two Greek
versions pale in comparison to the variation between textual witnesses in
chapters 4–6, in which OG is significantly different from both MT and
Theod. The analysis of OG in these chapters of Daniel is therefore funda-
mentally different from the rest of the book, and must also include an as-
sessment of their literary development and contribution and place in the
textual history of Daniel. In the current study, I will ignore the translation-

Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewrit-
ten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte,
Lebenswelten (eds. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus; WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2008), 369–93.
3
From among the three chapters, the story in Daniel 6 has received the least scholarly
attention regarding the relationship between OG and MT. In addition to the critical com-
mentaries and monographs on Daniel, cf. also P IERRE GRELOT, “Daniel VI dans la Sep-
tante,” in Κατά τούς οʹ “Selon les Septante”. Trente études sur la Bible grecque des Sep-
tante. En hommage à Marguerite Harl (eds. Gilles Dorival and Olivier Munnich; Paris:
Cerf, 1995), 103–18.
4
See ROBERT HENRY CHARLES, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book
of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), lvii; COLLINS, Daniel, 262–63.
5
For an analysis of the translation technique of OG and Theod, see S HARON P ACE
JEANSONNE, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12 (CBQMS 19; Washington D.C.:
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988); T IM MCLAY, The OG and Th Versions
of Daniel (SCS 43; Atlanta, Scholars, 1996); CHUKWUDI J. OBIAJUNWA, Semitic Interfer-
ence in Theodotion-Daniel (Ph.D. diss. Washington, The Catholic University of America,
1999); DALIA AMARA, The Old Greek Version of the Book of Daniel: The Translation,
the Vorlage and the Redaction (Ph.D. diss., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2006)
(Heb.); DANIEL O LARIU, The Quest for the Common Basis in the Greek Versions of Dan-
iel (M.A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2015).

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


406 Michael Segal

al variants that can be described as characteristic of OG in general. Instead,


this study focuses on those differences that can be attributed with a high
level of probability to a literary stage other than the Greek translation,
namely an Aramaic author or scribe responsible for the chapter in an alter-
nate form. The discussion here will therefore focus on content differences,
including additions and omissions, since it is uncharacteristic of this trans-
lator elsewhere in Daniel to add or omit material that affects matters of
substance.6
(2) Scholars (including myself) have elsewhere performed similar anal-
yses on Daniel 4 and 5, and arrived at certain conclusions regarding their
textual and literary histories.7 However, I will attempt to assess Daniel 6
without recourse to or influence from the analysis of other passages. Each
of these three chapters reflects an independent story, and they did not all
necessarily follow the same textual and translational trajectories. Although
there is value in assessing chapters 4–6 as a unit, this should be done only
after each of them is investigated individually.
(3) In a similar vein, within each chapter itself, one should not a priori
posit a unidirectional solution to all of the differences in this chapter –
from one textual witness to the other. The quality and quantity of the dif-
ferences between the different versions do not allow for one-dimensional
solutions, and therefore attempts to explain all the details as the result of
one version as the source for another(s) have invariably led to special
pleading with respect to at least some of the details. This insight implies a
more complex process by which the different versions were created.8
(4) The differences between OG and the other witnesses are perhaps the
cumulative result of different stages in the process of textual development,
including: different textual Vorlagen reflecting alternate literary editions;
relatively free or tendentious translation of a similar Vorlage; and revision
and even rewriting in the process of transmission of the Greek text. These
are all possible causes of differences between MT and OG, and this poten-

6
While it is theoretically possible that OG Dan 4–6 is the work of a different transla-
tor than the other chapters (as argued e.g. by Albertz and McLay), AMARA, Old Greek
Version, 37–153, offers extensive evidence for the same translation technique throughout
OG Daniel, including chapters 4–6.
7
See my discussion in Dreams, Riddles, and Visions: Textual, Intertextual and Exe-
getical Studies of the Book of Daniel (BZAW; Berlin: De Gruyter, in press), chapters 3
and 4. In addition, I have offered some insights into the relationship of MT and OG Dan-
iel 5 in my article, “Rereading the Writing on the Wall (Daniel 5),” ZAW 125 (2013):
161–176.
8
This has been cogently argued regarding Dan 4 by M ATTHIAS HENZE, The Madness
of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Inter-
pretation of Daniel 4 (JSJSupp 61; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 38–49.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 407

tial complexity also needs to be considered when assessing the differences


between these two textual witnesses.
Scholars who have assessed the relationship between the MT and OG in
Dan 6 have each suggested one of the three logical options in order to ex-
plain the large-scale differences between them: (1) the Vorlage of the OG
version reflects an earlier edition from which MT later developed;9 (2) MT
reflects the earlier edition from which OG developed;10 or (3) parallel in-
dependent literary development of the two versions, from a hypothesized
third version, which forms the kernel of the chapter.11 As will become ap-
parent in the analysis below, I tend towards this third option, since it is
possible to identify secondary elements in both editions.

Comparing the Two Textual Witnesses

In order to assess the relationship between MT and OG, I will present the
elements that in my estimation are demonstrably secondary in each of
these witnesses. By peeling away each of these supplementary compo-
nents, I suggest that we can begin to identify the original core of the story.
The following examples are not exhaustive, but are rather intended to
demonstrate the complex process by which the different textual versions
developed.

9
NATHANIEL SCHMIDT, “Daniel and Androcles,” JAOS 46 (1926): 1–7; W ILLS, The
Jew in the Court, 137–138; ALBERTZ, Der Gott, 147–156.
10
AUGUST B LUDAU, Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr
Verhältnis zum massorethischen Text (Freiburg: Herder, 1897), §20; J AMES A. MONT-
GOMERY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1927), 268–281 (esp. 280–281); GRELOT, “Daniel VI,” 111, refers to OG
as “une véritable recomposition.”
11
This position has been expounded more explicitly by scholars regarding Dan 4 and
5, e.g. the studies of Ulrich and Tov (n. 2 above); see also C OLLINS, Daniel, 262–264.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


408 Michael Segal

A. Secondary Elements in OG Daniel 6

1. Historical Harmonization – Dan 6:112


MT: ‫כוּתא ְכּ ַב ר ְשׁ נִ ין ִשׁ ִתּין וְ ַת ְר ֵתּין‬
ָ ְ‫ =( וְ ָד ְר ָיוֶ שׁ מדיא ] ָמ ָד ָאה[ ַק ֵבּל ַמל‬Theod, Pesh, Vulg)
And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
OG (5:31–6:1): καὶ Ξέρξης13 ὁ τῶν Μήδων βασιλεὺς παρέλαβε τὴν βασιλείαν. Καὶ ∆αρεῖος
πλήρης ἡµερῶν καὶ ἔνδοξος ἐν γήρει (κατέστησε σατράπας ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ πάσης
τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ…) And Xerxes, who was king of the Medes, received the kingdom.
And when Darius was full of days and esteemed in old age, (he set one hundred twenty-
seven satraps over his whole kingdom…)

The first four chapters of Daniel relate to stories that took place during the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar, while chapter 5 describes the last day of Bel-
shazzar’s rule. Following these Babylonian monarchs, Daniel 6 shifts to a
story that took place under Darius the Mede, who according to MT took
over at the age of 62. Numerous scholars have noted that historically there
was no Median king by this name, and moreover, that the Medians did not
take over for the Babylonians, but rather the Persians did.14 OG adds an-
other stage to this transition between monarchs by including Xerxes, also
king of the Medes, between Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. This is al-
most certainly the result of harmonization with another passage in Daniel
which is dated to the reign of Darius the Mede (9:1): ‫ִבּ ְשׁנַ ת ַא ַח ת לְ ָד ְר ָיוֶ שׁ‬
‫ ל ַמ לְ כוּת ַכּ ְשׂ ִדּים‬3ַ 4 ַ‫ן־א ַח ְשׁ וֵ רוֹשׁ ִמזֶּ ַר ע ָמ ָד י ֲא ֶשׁ ר ָה ְמ ל‬
ֲ ‫“ ֶבּ‬In the first year of Dari-
us son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the
kingdom of the Chaldeans” (≈ OG: Ἔτους πρώτου ἐπὶ ∆αρείου τοῦ Ξέρξου
ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς Μηδικῆς, οἳ ἐβασίλευσαν ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν
Χαλδαίων), which offers a fictitious lineage for Darius the Mede, as the
offspring of Ahasuerus/Xerxes.15 This seemingly innocuous attribution was

12
All translations of MT throughout this article follows NJPS, and those of OG and
Theodotion follow NETS, unless otherwise noted. Quotations from OG and Theod Daniel
throughout the article are based upon O LIVIER MUNNICH (ed.), Susanna, Daniel, Bel et
Draco (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1999); rev. 2nd ed. of J OSEPH ZIEGLER (ed.), Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco
(Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XVI/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1954).
13
This is the reading according to pap. 967; both MS 88 and Syh read Ἀρταξέρξης.
However, in 9:1 there is agreement among the witnesses of OG to read ∆αρείου τοῦ
Ξέρξου, confirming the reading of 967 here.
14
See the literature quoted in M ICHAEL SEGAL, “The Chronological Conception of the
Persian Period in Daniel 9,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 2 (2011): 283–303, at 287.
15
The connection between 6:1 and 9:1 is even more pronounced in pap. 967, since the
two chapters are adjacent to one another in that witness. However, that juxtaposition is
most probably secondary in the transmission history of OG, and the process of harmoni-
zation could just have easily taken place at a distance of three chapters.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 409

then applied to the description of the transition from the Babylonian to the
Median kingdoms in chapters 5–6, leading to the addition in OG 5:31 of
the reign of Xerxes immediately before Darius the Mede.
The secondary nature of this reading is further bolstered by the odd
formulation of OG, according to which Xerxes “received the kingdom,”
while there is no similar note regarding Darius, as would be expected in
the narrative frame introducing the story that focuses on his reign. This is
further emphasized when compared to OG 6:28, at the conclusion of the
story:
καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ∆αρεῖος προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ, καὶ Κῦρος ὁ Πέρσης παρέλαβε
τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ.
And King Darius was added to his fathers,16 and Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom.

In contrast MT 6:29 reads:


[‫יא ] ָפּ ְר ָס ָא ה‬
ָ ‫כּוֹר שׁ ָפּ ְר ָס‬ ְ ‫וְ ָד נִ ֵיּ אל ְדּ נָ ה ַה ְצ לַ ח ְבּ ַמ לְ כוּת ָדּ ְר ָיוֶ שׁ‬
ֶ ‫וּב ַמלְ כוּת‬
Thus Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and during the reign of Cyrus the Per-
sian. (= Theod, Pesh, Vulg)

While MT 6:29 refers to Daniel’s success during the reigns of Darius and
Cyrus, although no details of Cyrus’ reign are provided, OG v. 28 (or its
Vorlage) reformulated this statement so that it accords with the succession
formula found at the opening of the chapter, recording the transition from
monarch to monarch. In light of this extension to include the transition to
Cyrus at the end of chapter 6, the absence of a succession formula for Da-
rius in OG 6:1 is even more surprising, and almost certainly was the result
of the secondary expansion of the more original formulation attested in all
of the other textual witnesses to include Xerxes as well.

2. Daniel’s rise to power


The next example relates to Daniel’s rise to power, which was the ultimate
cause of his rivals’ jealousy. In MT, Daniel is described as one of the three
top ministers, who were in charge of 120 satraps.17 He surpassed all of
them due to his “extraordinary spirit,” and the king therefore planned to
promote him, to their deep consternation.

16
This reading (preserved in 967 and in a marginal reading of Syh) translates the for-
mula ‫( אסף אל אבותיו‬niph.) in Judg 2:10; 2 Kgs 22:20 (|| 2 Chr 34:28). The reading of 88-
Syh προσετέθη πρὸς τὸ γένος αὐτοῦ translates the more common formula ‫אסף אל עמיו‬
(niph.) in Gen 25:17; 35:29 (see also Gen 25:8; 49:29, 33; Num 27:13; 31:2; Deut 32:50).
Both expressions refer to the death of the individual.
17
The difference in number of satraps in OG, 127 instead of MT 120, is most likely
due to the secondary influence of Esth 1:1; 8:9; 9:30; cf. also 1Esd 3:2.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


410 Michael Segal

MT (3–)4a:
ִ ‫ לָּ א ִמ נְּ הוֹן ָס ְר ִכין ְתּלָ ָתה ִדּ י ָד נִ יֵּ אל ַח‬3ֵ ְ‫ ו‬3
‫ ָמ א‬3ְ ‫ד־מ נְּ הוֹן ִדּ י־לֶ ֱהו ֺן ֲא ַח ְשׁ ַדּ ְר ְפּ נַ ָיּ א ִאלֵּ ין ָי ֲה ִבין לְ הוֹן ַט‬
‫ל־ק ֵבל‬ ָ 3ַ ‫ ֱא ַד ִי ן ָדּ נִ יֵּ אל ְדּ נָ ה ֲה וָ א ִמ ְת נַ ַצּ ח‬4 :‫וּמ לְ ָכּ א לָ א־לֶ ֱה וֵ א נָ זִ ק‬
ֳ ‫ל־ס ְר ַכיָּ א וַ ֲא ַח ְשׁ ַדּ ְר ְפּ נַ יָּ א ָכּ‬ ַ
...‫ ַי ִתּ ָיר א ֵבּ הּ‬I‫רוּ‬ ַ ‫ִדּ י‬
6:3 over them were three ministers, one of them Daniel, to whom these satraps reported,
in order that the king not be troubled. 6:4 This man Daniel surpassed the other ministers
and satraps by virtue of his extraordinary spirit…

The description of Daniel’s stature and success is greatly expanded in the


OG version, including a more detailed description of the character and
symbol of Daniel’s authority, his personal traits, and his success in admin-
istration.
OG (2-)3: 6:2 καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῶν ἄνδρας τρεῖς ἡγουµένους αὐτῶν, καὶ ∆ανιηλ εἷς ἦν τῶν τριῶν
ἀνδρῶν 6:3 ὑπὲρ πάντας ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ. καὶ ∆ανιηλ ἦν ἐνδεδυµένος πορφύραν
καὶ µέγας καὶ ἔνδοξος ἔναντι ∆αρείου τοῦ βασιλέως, καθότι ἦν ἐπιστήµων καὶ συνετός, καὶ
πνεῦµα ἅγιον ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ εὐοδούµενος ἐν ταῖς πραγµατείαις τοῦ βασιλέως, αἷς ἔπρασσε.
6:2
and over them three men their leaders, and Daniel was one of the three men, 6:3a (he)
having authority18 over everyone in the kingdom. And Daniel was clothed in purple and
was great and esteemed before King Darius, as he was knowledgeable and intelligent and
a holy spirit was in him, and he prospered in the affairs of the king that he performed…

The description is constructed from a number of expressions, some general


aspects of praise (καὶ µέγας καὶ ἔνδοξος ἔναντι ∆αρείου), while others can
be attributed to the same process of inner-Danielic harmonization de-
scribed above:19
(a) This is clearest in reference to Daniel being clothed in purple: τότε
Βαλτασαρ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐνέδυσε τὸν ∆ανιηλ πορφύραν, a motif found three
times in chapter 5; cf. e.g. 5:29 ‫אד ִי ן ֲא ַמ ר ֵבּלְ ַשׁ אצַּ ר וְ ַה לְ ִבּ שׁוּ לְ ָדנִ יֵּ אל ַא ְרגְּ וָ נָ א‬ ַ ‫ֵבּ‬
“Then, at Belshazzar’s command, they clothed Daniel in purple” (cf. also
5:7,16 [OG 13]).20
(b) καθότι ἦν ἐπιστήµων καὶ συνετός, καὶ πνεῦµα ἅγιον ἐν αὐτῷ “as he
was knowledgeable and intelligent and a holy spirit was in him”: This ex-
pression is based upon 5:11–12: ‫ישׁין ֵבּ הּ‬ ִ ‫ ֱאלָ ִהין ַק ִדּ‬I‫רוּ‬
ַ ‫ ִדּ י‬4‫כוּת‬ ָ ְ‫יתי גְּ ַבר ְבּ ַמ ל‬ ַ ‫ִא‬
‫וּמנְ ַדּע‬ַ ‫ ַי ִתּ ָירה‬I‫רוּ‬
ַ ... ‫ת־א לָ ִהין ִה ְשׁ ְתּ ַכ ַחת ֵבּ הּ‬
ֱ ‫ נַ ִהירוּ וְ ָשׂ ְכלְ ָת נוּ וְ ָח ְכ ָמה כְּ ָח ְכ ַמ‬...
‫“ וְ ָשׂכְ לְ ָת נוּ‬There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy
gods in him; … illumination, understanding, and wisdom like that of the
gods were to be found in him, … extraordinary spirit, knowledge, and un-
derstanding…” In fact, the formulation in OG 6:3 is closest to OG 5:11–
12: καὶ εἶπε τῷ βασιλεῖ Ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος ἐπιστήµων ἦν καὶ σοφὸς καὶ

18
NETS translates “since he had authority.”
19
Some of the harmonizations have already been noted by C OLLINS, Daniel, 263;
GRELOT, “Daniel VI,” 111–112.
20
This theme echoes Gen 41:42 in which Joseph was “dressed in robes of fine linen
(‫ ”)בגדי שש‬by Pharaoh.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 411

ὑπερέχων πάντας τοὺς σοφοὺς Βαβυλῶνος, καὶ πνεῦµα ἅγιον ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστι…
And she said to the king, “That person was prudent and wise and surpassed
all the sages of Babylon, and a holy spirit is in him...”.21 In particular, note
the use of πνεῦµα ἅγιον “holy spirit” in both these passages, in parallel to
the Hebrew ‫ה‬/‫ ַי ִתּ ָירא‬I‫רוּ‬ ַ “extraoridnary spirit.”22
(c) The expression καὶ εὐοδούµενος ἐν ταῖς πραγµατείαις τοῦ βασιλέως,
αἷς ἔπρασσε “and he prospered in the affairs of the king that he performed”
is not the result of harmonization, but rather reorganization of the chapter.
MT 6:29 serves as a summary of Daniel’s successful service during the
reigns of Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian (about whom there is no
story in the Daniel 1–6): ‫כּוֹר שׁ‬ ֶ ‫וּב ַמ לְ כוּת‬
ְ ‫וְ ָד נִ ֵיּ אל ְדּ נָ ה ַה צְ לַ ח ְבּ ַמ לְ כוּת ָדּ ְר ָי וֶ שׁ‬
[‫יא ] ָפּ ְר ָס ָאה‬
ָ ‫“ ָפּ ְר ָס‬Thus Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and
during the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” In contrast, according to OG Dan
6:3, Daniel’s success in Darius’ court was the reason for the king’s desire
to promote him above the other courtiers. Thus the reference to Daniel’s
success was transferred prior to this promotion in OG v. 3. Note that in the
OG formulation of v. 28(29), there is no longer any reference to this suc-
cess: καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ∆αρεῖος προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ καὶ Κῦρος
ὁ Πέρσης παρέλαβε τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ, since it was already mentioned
earlier in the story.23
(d) The final “harmonization” with chapter 5 leads to a more complex
picture of the relationship between OG Daniel 6 and its adjacent chapters.
OG Dan 6:2b–3a reads: καὶ ∆ανιηλ εἷς ἦν τῶν τριῶν ἀνδρῶν ὑπὲρ πάντας

21
Note also 1:4 which describes the wisdom qualities necessary for the children
brought to the foreign court, which also includes συνετός.
22
The origin of this translation might be the conflation of the expression ‫ ֱא ָל ִהין‬I‫רוּ‬ ַ
‫ישׁ ין‬
ִ ‫“ ַק ִדּ‬the spirit of the holy gods” in 5:11, with the parallel ‫ ַי ִתּ ָירה‬I‫רוּ‬
ַ in 5:12. This was
then, perhaps, adopted as the translation of the latter in 6:4(3). Note, however, that the
expression ‫ישׁ ין‬ ִ ‫ ֱא ָל ִהין ַק ִדּ‬I‫רוּ‬
ַ is absent in OG (as part of a longer passage) in the other
instances in which it appears in MT (4:5,6,15), and has presumably been added
secondarily as part of an attempt to eqaute the story in chapter 4 with those in chapters 2
and 5 (see e.g., CHARLES, Daniel, 81–82); see the brief discussion in D AVID S ATRAN,
Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the Book of Daniel
(Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1985), 70–71.
23
See the discussion of this verse above. Note that in 88-Syh, v. 28(29) includes the
sentence καὶ ∆ανιηλ κατεστάθη ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας ∆αρείου “and Daniel was appointed over
the whole kingdom of Darius.” In pap. 967, this sentence appears at the end of v. 24(25),
which is its natural location in the story, after he was saved from the lions and his com-
petitors were consumed. In 88-Syh, the sentence was moved to v. 28(29), in order to
correct the Old Greek text towards MT ‫( ְו ָד ִנ ֵיּ אל ְדּ ָנ ה ַה ְצ ַלח ְבּ ַמ ְלכוּת ָדּ ְר ָי ֶו שׁ‬note the
Hexaplaric obelus as discussed by M UNNICH [ed.], Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, 40,
332), even though this Greek sentence is not a precise reflection of MT in this verse (in
particular, the verb καθίστηµι “appoint, ordain, establish” is the standard equivalent of
verbs such as e.g., ‫ י‬-‫ נ‬-‫[ מ‬Dan 2:24,49; 3:12], ‫ ם‬-‫ו‬-‫[ ק‬Dan 2:21; 6:2,4] or ‫ ט‬-‫ ל‬-‫[ ש‬Dan 2:48];
in contrast ‫ ח‬-‫ ל‬-‫ צ‬is never translated elsewhere in LXX by καθίστηµι).

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


412 Michael Segal

ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ “and Daniel was one of the three men, (he)
having authority over everyone in the kingdom.” The motif of the three
ministers, of which Daniel was one, is found explicitly in all textual wit-
nesses.24 MT Dan 6:3 thus reads: ‫ד־מ נְּ הוֹן‬
ִ ‫ לָּ א ִמ נְּ הוֹן ָ ֽס ְרכִ ין ְתּלָ ָת ה ִדּ י ָ ֽד נִ יֵּ אל ַח‬3ֵ ְ‫ו‬
“over them were three ministers, one of them Daniel.” Beyond this motif,
the formulation of OG empahsizes that Daniel (as one of the three) had
authority over everyone in the kingdom. The full formulation in OG
appears to go back to an expression that recurs in MT Dan 5, as part of the
reward Daniel (or the wise men) would receive if he was able to
successfully read the writing on the wall and explain its meaning:
MT 5:7 ‫כוּתא ִי ְשׁ לַ ט‬
ָ ְ‫וְ ַתלְ ִתּי ְב ַמל‬
he will rule as a ‫ תלתי‬in the kingdom
OG: καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ ἐξουσία τοῦ τρίτου µέρους τῆς βασιλείας
and authority over a third of the kingdom will be given to him.
Theod: καὶ τρίτος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ µου ἄρξει
and will rank third in my kingdom

MT 5:16 ‫כוּתא ִתּ ְשׁ לַ ט‬
ָ ְ‫וְ ַתלְ ָתּא ְב ַמל‬
you will rule as ‫ תלתא‬in the kingdom
OG: καὶ ἕξεις ἐξουσίαν τοῦ τρίτου µέρους τῆς βασιλείας µου
and you will have authority over a third part of my kingdom
Theod: καὶ τρίτος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ µου ἄρξεις
and you will rank third in my kingdom

MT 5:29 ‫כוּתא‬ָ ְ‫לוֹהי( לֶ ֱה וֵ א ַשׁ לִּ יט ַתּלְ ָתּא ְבּ ַמ ל‬


ִ 3ֲ ‫)וְ ַה ְכ ִר זוּ‬
(and proclaimed that he) should he rule as ‫ תלתא‬in the kingdom
OG: (καὶ ἔδωκεν) ἐξουσίαν (αὐτῷ) τοῦ τρίτου µέρους τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ
(and he gave him) authority over a third part of his kingdom.
Theod: εἶναι αὐτὸν ἄρχοντα τρίτον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ
that he was third ruler in the kingdom

24
COLLINS, Daniel, 265, notes that there is no historical evidence for this administra-
tive layer above the satraps within the Persian governing structure (he identifies Darius in
this story with Darius I of Persia [p. 264]), and posits that “the idea that there were three
may have arisen from Daniel’s promotion to the rank of triumvir at the end of chap. 5.”
According to this suggestion, Dan 6 would thus have been composed subsequent to Dan
5 (or less likely that there was a more “historical” earlier version of the story which was
then revised for literary reasons). Collins alternatively suggests that there is “a predilec-
tion for the number three in stories of this sort,” presumably in reference to the court tale
genre (he adduces Dan 3 and 1Esd 3[–4]). I find Collins’ second option more likely to
explain the origins of the motif in chapter 6, but his first option serves as a modern ex-
ample of the secondary harmonistic tendency to read Daniel 5–6 as one unit.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 413

The sentence in OG 6:2–3: εἷς ἦν τῶν τριῶν ἀνδρῶν ὑπὲρ πάντας ἔχων
ἐξουσίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ appears to be a combination of MT 6:3 “over them
were three ministers, one of them Daniel,” and the recurring expression
from chapter 5, with respect to “having authority over everyone in the
kingdom.” Note the use of ἐξουσία to translate ‫ שליט‬in each of the three
relevant verses in Dan 5.25 Interpreters have analyzed the meaning of the
term ‫א‬/‫תלתי‬, or the more common Hebrew term ‫שליש‬, which in all its
usages denotes some kind of leadership position.26 By combining 6:3 with
the expression from 5:7,16,29, OG Daniel 6 is essentially equating
Daniel’s status as one of three leaders, with the reward that he received for
reading the writing on the wall, authority over everyone in the kingdom. If
this is the case, though, then an interesting tension emerges between
chapters 5 and 6 in the Old Greek. According to OG Daniel 5, the meaning
of Daniel being a ‫ שליש‬in the kingdom, was that he was to rule over 1/3 of
the kingdom. This etymological interpretation takes the word ‫י‬/‫ תלתא‬in
reference to the extent of the jursidiction of their rule, as a third of the
kingdom.27 In contrast, the formulation in OG Dan 6:2–3: καὶ ∆ανιηλ εἷς ἦν
τῶν τριῶν ἀνδρῶν 3ὑπὲρ πάντας ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ “and Daniel
was one of the three men, (he) having authority over everyone in the king-
dom,” offers a different explanation of the same phrase ‫ַשׁ לִּ יט ַתּלְ ָתּא‬
‫כוּתא‬
ָ ְ‫בּ ַמל‬,
ְ namely that Daniel, as one of the three senior ministers, had
authority over all of the people in the kingdom. According to this analysis,
OG chapters 5 and 6 differ as to their understanding of the same expres-
sion. Is this perhaps an indication of two different translators, each who
took the expression in a different direction? At the same time, as noted
above, OG Dan 6 clearly reflects a harmonization of a number of details
found in chapter 5. These circumstances (harmonization between the chap-
ters, but with a different understanding of the same Aramaic phrase) sug-
gest that the OG translator of Daniel 6 was not responsible for the harmo-
nistic connection between chapters 5 and 6, since one of the harmoniza-
tions reflects a different interpretation of the Aramaic text. If one accepts
the suggestion that the alternate interpretation of the same phrase suggests

25
The noun ἐξουσία and the verbal form ἐξουσιάζω are the equivalents of Hebrew/ Ar-
amaic words from the root ‫ של"ט‬in Dan 4:14, 28; 5:7,16,29; 7:12,14(2x),26,27; Ezra 7:24
(cf. also 1Esd 8:22); Neh 5:15; Eccl 2:19; 5:18; 6:2; 7:19; 8:4,8(2x),9; 10:5.
26
For various interpretive options and their linguistic and political-military back-
ground, see BRIAN A. MASTIN, “Was the šālîš the Third Man in the Chariot?,” VTSupp
30 (1979): 124–154; NADAV NA`AMAN, “The List of David’s Officers (šālîšîm),” VT 38
(1988): 71–79.
27
For a similar interpretation, cf. the commentaries of Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and
Gersonides ad Dan 5:7. Josephus, Ant. 10.11.4 (§249), describes that the three satraps
were in charge of 360 satrapies, implying that each was in charge of 120 (as in MT), one-
third of the kingdom.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


414 Michael Segal

the hand of more than one translator, then the most plausible explanation
for the presence of other harmonistic elements is that they originated not
with the Greek translator of Dan 6, but rather in his Aramaic Vorlage. Evi-
dence of similar harmonizations can be found in MT Dan 4–5, and this
case would be an additional example of this process in Aramaic Daniel
(not MT, but the hypothetical Vorlage of Dan 6). Following this process of
harmonization of the Aramaic text, the text of Dan 6 was translated into
Greek, but from a different interpretive standpoint than OG Dan 5.

3. Hatching the Plan


Upon being threatened by Daniel’s rise in the royal court, his competitors
decide that they must find a way to entrap Daniel and cause his downfall.
However, after searching, they learned that he was a loyal and trustworthy
servant of the king and therefore could not be convicted of any political or
criminal act:
MT 6:5-6:
‫ לָּ ה‬3‫ל־‬
ִ ‫כוּתא וְ ָכ‬ָ ְ‫לָּ ה לְ ַה ְשׁ ָכּ ָחה לְ ָד נִ יֵּ אל ִמ ַצּ ד ַמל‬3ִ ‫ ִי ן‬3ַ ‫ ֱא ַד ִי ן ָס ְר ַכ ָיּ א וַ ֲא ַח ְשׁ ַדּ ְר ְפּ נַ יָּ א ֲה ווֹ ָב‬5]
[:‫לוֹהי‬
ִ 3ֲ ‫ית ה לָ א ִה ְשׁ ְתּ ַכ ַח ת‬ ָ ‫וּשׁ ִח‬ ְ ‫ל־שׁלוּ‬
ָ ‫ימ ן הוּא וְ ָכ‬ ַ ‫י־מ ֵה‬
ְ ‫ל־ק ֵבל ִדּ‬ ֳ ‫ית ה לָ א־ ָי ְכלִ ין לְ ַה ְשׁ ָכּ ָחה ָכּ‬ ָ ‫וּשׁ ִח‬
ְ
‫לוֹהי ְבּ ָד ת‬ ִ ‫ ָא ְמ ִר ין ִדּ י לָ א נְ ַה ְשׁ ַכּ ח לְ ָד נִ יֵּ אל ְדּנָ ה ָכּ‬4 ֵ‫ ֱא ַד ִי ן גֻּ ְב ַר יָּ א ִאלּ‬6
ִ 3ֲ ‫לָּ א לָ ֵה ן ַה ְשׁ ַכּ ְח נָ א‬3‫ל־‬
:‫ֱאלָ ֵה הּ‬
5
[ The ministers and satraps looked for some fault in Daniel’s conduct in matters of state,
but they could find neither fault nor corruption, inasmuch as he was trustworthy, and no
6
negligence or corruption was to be found in him.] Those men then said, “We are not
going to find any fault with this Daniel, unless we find something against him in connec-
tion with the laws of his God.”

MT is somewhat repetitive here, since v. 5 has a doublet of a clause de-


scribing how they were unable to discover any negligence or corruption in
Daniel’s actions (both OG and Theod have only one such clause), and then
again in v. 6, where they declare that they since they were unable to un-
cover any betrayal or incompetence on the part of Daniel towards the
crown, they will therefore only be able to convict him based upon his reli-
gious practice.
OG to these verses is simultaneously more concise and expansive than
MT – on the one hand it mentions only once that they were unable to find
any crimes of which to accuse Daniel. At the same time, the words of Dan-
iel’s rivals are much more developed and include the full description of
their plan to ensnare him based upon his thrice-daily prayers:
4
OG: 6:4–5: [ ὅτε δὲ ἐβουλεύσατο ὁ βασιλεὺς καταστῆσαι τὸν ∆ανιηλ ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς
βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, τότε βουλὴν καὶ γνώµην ἐβουλεύσαντο ἐν ἑαυτοῖς οἱ δύο νεανίσκοι πρὸς
ἀλλήλους λέγοντες, ἐπεὶ οὐδεµίαν ἁµαρτίαν οὐδὲ ἄγνοιαν ηὕρισκον κατὰ τοῦ ∆ανιηλ περὶ ἧς
5
κατηγορήσουσιν αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα,] καὶ εἶπαν ∆εῦτε στήσωµεν ὁρισµὸν καθ’ ἑαυτῶν
ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἀξιώσει ἀξίωµα καὶ οὐ µὴ εὔξηται εὐχὴν ἀπὸ παντὸς θεοῦ ἕως ἡµερῶν

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 415

τριάκοντα, ἀλλ’ ἢ παρὰ ∆αρείου τοῦ βασιλέως, εἰ δὲ µή, ἀποθανεῖται, ἵνα ἡττήσωσι τὸν
∆ανιηλ ἐναντίον τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ ῥιφῇ εἰς τὸν λάκκον τῶν λεόντων. ᾔδεισαν γὰρ ὅτι
∆ανιηλ προσεύχεται καὶ δεῖται κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ τρὶς τῆς ἡµέρας.
4
[ Now, when the king decided to appoint Daniel over all his kingdom, then the two
young men, speaking to each other, agreed to a plan and resolve among themselves, since
they found neither sin nor ignorance against Daniel for which they could accuse him to
5
the king.] And they said, “Come, let us establish an interdict by ourselves that no one
will present a petition and never pray a prayer to any god for thirty days, except from
King Darius, otherwise he will die,” so that they might vanquish Daniel before the king
and he might be cast into the lions’ pit. For they knew that Daniel prayed to and entreated
the Lord, his God, three times a day.

What is the source of this longer text in OG vis-à-vis MT? When read in
isolation, OG v. 5(6) appears to be an expansion of MT to the same verse,
explicating the contents of their discussion. However, an examination of
the broader context of the chapter demonstrates the exegetical-interpretive
background of this longer text. The formulation of the interdiction against
petitioning or praying for 30 days appears two more times in the chapter
(also in MT) – vv. 7(8) and 12(13) – in the former all of the ministers (and
satraps?) inform the king that they consulted and decided to establish the
interdict against petitioning another authority for thirty days, and in the
latter when they reminded the king of his promise after they had already
caught Daniel violating this prohibition. The formulation of MT v. 8 is as
follows:
‫וּפ ֲח וָ ָתא לְ ַק יָּ ָמ ה ְק ָים ַמלְ ָכּ א‬ַ ‫כוּתא ִסגְ נַ יָּ א וַ ֲא ַח ְשׁ ַדּ ְר ְפּ נַ ָיּ א ַה ָדּ ְב ַר יָּ א‬
ָ ְ‫ טוּ כּ ֹל ָס ְר ֵכי ַמל‬3ַ ‫ִא ְת ָי‬
‫ ַמלְ ָכּא ִי ְת ְר ֵמ א‬4 ָ‫ד־יוֹמין ְתּלָ ִתין לָ ֵה ן ִמ נּ‬
ִ 3ַ ‫ל־אלָ הּ וֶ ֱא נָ שׁ‬ ֱ ‫ן־כּ‬ ָ ‫א ָבעוּ ִמ‬3ֵ ‫ל־דּ י־ י ְִב‬ ִ ‫וּלְ ַת ָקּ ָפ ה ֱא ָס ר ִדּ י ָכ‬
:‫לְ גֹב ַא ְר ָי וָ ָתא‬
All the ministers of the kingdom, the prefects, satraps, companions, and governors took
counsel with each other that a royal ban should be issued under sanction of an oath that
whoever shall address a petition to any god or man, besides you, O king, during the next
thirty days shall be thrown into a lions’ den.

Until this point in the narrative, the reader knows that Daniel’s foes intend
to bring about his downfall through his religious practice, but the details of
the plan are left unstated. On a literary level, this is completely acceptable,
and when the officers say ‫ טוּ‬3ַ ‫ ִא ְת ָי‬that they “have taken counsel,” we as
readers understand that it refers to a point in the narative past, perhaps at
the time of v. 6 when they verbalized that they can only cause Daniel’s
downfall based upon his religious devotion. However, an early exegete
perhaps raised just this question – if the ministers and satraps declared that
they previously had arrived at this legislative proposal, then the natural
question is where this in fact is recorded. In order to solve the problem, the
scribe responsible for OG (or its Vorlage) copied the text of their statement
to the king from v. 8 and pasted it into v. 6, when it was presumed to have

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


416 Michael Segal

been decided. Phenomenologically, this is very similar to what we find in


the (pre-)Samaritan version of the Torah.28 We find many examples in
which MT of the Pentateuch presents a quotation attributed to an earlier
time, yet there is no “source” for these quotations (cf. especially in Moses’
speech in Deuteronomy 1–11). In order to fix this perceived imbalance, the
scribe responsible for the pre-Samaritan Pentateuch simply added the
“source” for the quotation, by essentially copying the latter into an earlier
stage of the Pentateuchal narrative. The case here in Daniel is somewhat
unique since the source provided for the quotation is found two verses ear-
lier, yet it is identical the SP-like secondary additions in its exegetical
function.29 While there is no doubt here that OG is secondary, it is difficult
to know whether it is the work of the translator, or was it already found in
his Vorlage (as in the previous example).

B. Secondary Elements in MT Daniel 6

The above examples were representative of those instances in which MT


Dan 6 reflects the more original version of the story, and OG can be char-
acterized as secondary. The following elements can seemingly be demon-
strated as secondary in MT:

1. Introducing Daniel
After Daniel is caught praying to God in violation of the prohibition
against petitioning anyone other than the king, his enemies run to the king
to report his violation. According to MT, they refer to him as:
MT 6:14 – ‫לוּתא ִדּ י ְי הוּד‬
ָ ָ‫ן־בּ נֵ י ג‬
ְ ‫ָד נִ ֵיּ אל ִדּ י ִמ‬
Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah

In this context, where Daniel is one of the leading ministers in the country,
it is striking that they refer to him as an exile of Judah. Of course, one can

28
For a description of the character of the (pre)-Samaritan Pentateuch, see EMANUEL
TOV, “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts,” JSOT 31
(1985): 3–29; M ICHAEL SEGAL, “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” Materia Giudaica 12 (2007): 5–20, at 10–17.
29
A similar example is perhaps found in SP Gen 30:36a, based upon the language of
Gen 31:11–13 (see also 4Q364, frag. 4b–e, col. ii, lines 21–26). M OLLY ZAHN (“The
Samaritan Pentateuch and the Scribal Culture of Second Temple Judaism,” JSJ 46
[2015]: 285–313) has recently noted that the pre-Samaritan type changes are found across
a broader spectrum of textual witnesses to the Pentateuch than is generally thought. This
example demonstrates that the same exegetical impetus can be identified in non-
Pentateuchal textual witnesses as well.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 417

offer an exegetical explanation for the MT description – Daniel’s oppo-


nents wished to emphasize his foreignness as a possible reason for his lack
of loyalty to the king.30 However, the Old Greek’s reading appears to fit
the context better:
OG 6:13: Ἰδοὺ εὕροµεν ∆ανιηλ τὸν φίλον σου Lo, we have found Daniel, your friend…

The reference to Daniel as the king’s friend exemplifies their jealousy over
his rise to power, and explains the king’s immense sorrow at the prospect
of Daniel dying due to his decree.31 Furthermore, it perhaps reflects an
official title in the royal court from the Hellenistic period.32 At the same
time, we can offer a plausible explanation as to the formulation of MT here
– in order to harmonize this verse with the same expression that is used to
introduce Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar in 2:25 and to Belshazzar in 5:13. Out
of all 3 instances in MT, the most natural and understandable usage of the
expression is in chapter 2, since in that chapter, Daniel is first brought to
the court of the foreign king in order to reveal and interpret the Babylonian
monarch’s dream, similar to the story of Joseph.33 It also makes sense in
Daniel 5 when he is brought before Belshazzar for a similar task, since he
was unknown to the king until that point in the narrative. However, as not-
ed above, this is not the case in Daniel 6, where Darius already expressed
his desire to promote Daniel. I suggest that we have here an instance (one
of many) of an attempt to integrate together the different stories in Daniel
1–6, which do not necessarily share the same origins.
Further evidence for the reading of OG 6:13 is perhaps found in the
opening verses of Bel and the Dragon (in both Greek versions), where
Daniel is referred to as συµβιωτὴς τοῦ βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος “a companion
of the king of Babylon” (according to OG v. 2) and even more fully
συµβιωτὴς τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἔνδοξος ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς φίλους αὐτοῦ “a
companion of the king, and honored beyond all his friends” (in Theod to
the same verse). While the precise relationship between Daniel 6 and Bel
is beyond the scope of the discussion here, there exists a demonstrable lit-
erary relationship between the two (most prominently the theme of the li-
on’s den), and in my opinion Daniel 6 is a source for the author of Bel.34
The motif of Daniel as the friend of the king, which is common to both

30
SHMUEL HACOHEN and YEHUDAH K IL, Sefer Daniel (Daat Mikra; Jerusalem: Mos-
sad Harav Kook, 1994) 144* (Heb.); T. J. MEADOWCROFT, Aramaic Daniel and Greek
Daniel: A Literary Comparison (JSOTSupp 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995), 111.
31
MEADOWCROFT, Aramaic Daniel, 111–112.
32
GRELOT, “Daniel VI,” 112–113, citing 1Macc 2:18; 3:38; 6:10, 14, 28; 7:6,8 et al.
33
COLLINS, Daniel, 263.
34
W ILLS, The Jew in the Court, 129–142, posits the opposite direction of develop-
ment.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


418 Michael Segal

stories, might also be evidence of their shared origins. However, it is inter-


esting that OG Bel uses the term συµβιωτὴς and not φίλος as found in OG
Daniel. Thus, if we assume that Bel is borrowing from Daniel 6, then it is
most likely borrowing from the Aramaic Vorlage of OG Dan 6:13, since if
it is based on the Old Greek itself of Daniel 6, we would expect to encoun-
ter the use of the term φίλος.35

2. The Language of the King’s Decree


The language of the king’s decree is slightly different in MT and OG. Ac-
cording to MT, anyone who makes a request of a god or man, except for
the king himself, over a period of 30 days, would be thrown into the lion’s
den:
MT 6:8: ‫ל־אלָ הּ וֶ ֱא נָ שׁ‬
ֱ ‫ן־כּ‬
ָ ‫ א ָבעוּ ִמ‬3ֵ ‫ל־דּ י־ ִי ְב‬
ִ ‫ לְ ַק יָּ ָמ ה ְק ָים ַמלְ ָכּ א וּלְ ַת ָקּ ָפ ה ֱא ָסר ִדּ י ָכ‬...
:‫ ַמ לְ ָכּ א ִי ְת ְר ֵמ א לְ גֹב ַא ְר ָיוָ ָתא‬4 ָ‫ד־יוֹמין ְתּלָ ִתין לָ ֵה ן ִמ נּ‬
ִ 3ַ
… that a royal ban should be issued under sanction of an oath that whoever shall address
a petition to any god or man, besides you, O king, during the next thirty days shall be
thrown into a lions’ den. (cf. also MT 6:13).

According to OG 6:7:
πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν εὔξηται εὐχὴν ἢ ἀξιώσῃ ἀξίωµά τι παρὰ παντὸς θεοῦ ἕως ἡµερῶν
τριάκοντα ἀλλ’ ἢ παρὰ ∆αρείου τοῦ βασιλέως, ῥιφήσεται εἰς τὸν λάκκον τῶν λεόντων
any person who prays a prayer or requests some request from any god, for thirty days,
except from King Darius, will be cast into the lions’ pit. (cf. also vv. 5, 12).

Here too, the internal logic of OG appears more consistent. After they fail
to discover any misconduct against the king and decide to look for a reli-
gious subtext with which to find him guilty, there is no advantage to pro-
hibit making a request from another human since Daniel is loyal to the
king to a fault. They therefore choose an action that they know in advance
will lead to Daniel’s punishment – his prayers to his god. However, the
language of the Old Greek, “any person who prays a prayer or requests
some request from any god, for thirty days, except from King Darius,”
could potentially be construed to mean that the king was included among
these divine beings.36 Although it seems unlikely to me that this was the
original intention of the text, I suggest that MT here perhaps reflects a the-

35
While no Semitic Vorlage has been preserved for Bel, scholars have marshalled ev-
idence for its existence. For a summary of the arguments see, e.g., CAREY A. MOORE,
Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions. A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 44; Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 119–120; COLLINS, Daniel, 410–
411. It seems that this detail might further support this claim.
36
Cf. CHARLES, Daniel, 155: “The text of LXX thus flatters Darius by implicitly
ranking him with the gods”; Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel, 105–107.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 419

ological correction, in order to prevent any potential perception of King


Darius as divine, and in particular, on par with the God of Israel. The hy-
pothetical theological issue raised by the original formulation of Dan 6 led
an overly zealous scribe to add ‫“ ואנש‬or man” in MT 6:8,13, so that there
was a clear demarcation between gods and men, and Darius certainly be-
longed to the latter category.

3. Assimilation and Theology – God or His Angel?


According to Dan 3, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego refused to pros-
trate themselves before a statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar, in violation of
the king’s decree, and were therefore thrown into the fiery furnace. MT
3:24 contains the king’s amazed reaction at what he observes in the fur-
nace itself:
3:24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and, rising in haste, addressed his com-
panions, saying, “Did we not throw three men, bound, into the fire?” They spoke in re-
ply, “Surely, O king.”

At this stage in the narrative, most readers will already have predicted the
miraculous end, according to which the three companions were saved from
the fire. They will thus instinctively interpret the king’s astonishment as
resulting only from their emerging unscathed from the inferno. The author
employs this technique to then surprise the reader in the following verse:
3:25 He answered, “But I see four men walking about unbound and unharmed in the fire
and the fourth looks like a divine being.”

While the miracle of survival in the fire is still foremost in the context of
the tale, the king’s statement in v. 25 illuminates v. 24 in a new way – the
contrast to the previous verse is not only that they were expected to perish
yet survived, but also that there were originally three people, yet the king
now sees four. In this way, the author succeeds in emphasizing the pres-
ence of a divine being who has appeared in the furnace to help save the
three Jewish courtiers. After they emerge from the furnace, Nebuchadnez-
zar blesses “the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who sent His
angel (‫מלאכ הּ‬
ֵ ) to save his servants…” (v. 28).
A similar story appears in Daniel 6, but in that version, it is not the
three Judeans who are persecuted for their religious convictions, but Dan-
iel alone. Scholars have noted many of the similarities between this story
and the tale described above from Daniel 3, and in particular with MT Dan
6:37

37
For discussion of the parallels between these two stories, see A. LENGLET, “La
Structure littéraire de Daniel 2–7,” Biblica 53 (1972): 169–190, at 182–185; LOUIS F.
HARTMAN and ALEXANDER A. D I LELLA, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


420 Michael Segal

– Both begin with a royal decree.


– They formulation of the punishment in each story is presented employ-
ing similar language:
3:6 – ‫יתרמא לגוא אתון נורא יקדתא‬, “(he) shall be thrown into a burning
fiery furnace”
6:8 – ‫יתרמא לגב אריותא‬, “(he) shall be thrown into a lion’s den”
– Babylonian officials slander the Jewish protagonists in each story (note
the unique expression ‫ אכל קרצין‬in 3:8; 6:25).38
– The formulation of the accusation in both cases is identical in MT:
3:12 – ‫)גֻ בריא אלך( לא שׂמוּ עליך מלכא טעם‬
(these men) pay no heed to you, O king
6:14 – ‫( לא שׂם עליך מלכא טעם‬...‫)דניאל‬39
(Daniel…) pays no heed to you, O king
– The Judean exiles refuse to fulfill the kings’ decrees and therefore re-
ceive their respective punishments.
– In both stories, the kings appeal to the protagonists’ God to save them
using the same language, in one instance sincerely (6:17 – ‫אלהך די אנתה‬
‫“ פלח להּ בתד ירא הוא ישיזבנך‬May your God, whom you faithfully serve,
deliver you!”) and in the other sarcastically (3:15 – ‫ומן הוא אלה די‬
‫“ ישיזבנכון מן ידי‬and who is the god that will deliver you out of my
hands?”).
– They are saved by angels (3:25; 6:23).
– They are rescued without any bodily harm or injury (3:25; 6:23).
– Those who wished to harm the protagonists receive the very same pun-
ishment (3:22; 6:25). (In 3:22, it is those who carried up Shadrach, Me-
shach, and Abed-nego who are killed, and not those who plotted against
them.)
– At the conclusion of the story, the gentile king praises the Israelite God.
Based upon these shared motifs, it appears that these two stories share a
literary relationship, although its precise nature needs further clarifica-
tion.40

Introduction and Commentary (AB 23; New York, 1978), 159, 196–197; C OLLINS, Dan-
iel, 192, 272; HACOHEN and KIL, Sefer Daniel, 155*–157*; J ONATHAN GROSSMAN, “The
Fiery Furnace and the Lions’ Den (Daniel 3–6),” Megadim 41 (2005): 51–64 (Heb.).
38
For the meaning and linguistic background of the expression ‫אכל קרצין‬, cf.
HALOT, p. 1974a, s.v. ‫ ; ְק ַר ץ‬BDB, p. 1111b, s.v. ‫ ְק ַר ץ‬.
39
This expression is lacking in OG 6:14, and the MT reading most probably reflects
assimilation with the story in chapter 3, as suggested below for the appearance of the
angelic being. A similar situation obtains in reference to the parallel mentioned below
regarding rescue without any bodily harm, in which OG 6:23 presents a very different
formulation.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 421

As just noted, one of the similarities is the sending of an angel to rescue


the protagonists in MT of both Daniel 3 and 6. In Daniel’s explanation to
the king as to how he survived in the lion’s den, he states that “my God
sent His angel, who shut the mouths of the lions so that they did not injure
me…” (6:23 MT). Note the similar formulation to 3:28: “the God… who
sent His angel (‫מלאכהּ‬
ֵ ) to save His servants….” Interestingly, OG Dan 6
preserves a different version of events. Instead of attributing the salvation
to an angel sent by God, God Himself saves Daniel:
6:18b τότε ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ∆ανιηλ πρόνοιαν ποιούµενος αὐτοῦ ἀπέκλεισε τὰ στόµατα τῶν
λεόντων, καὶ οὐ παρηνώχλησαν τῷ ∆ανιηλ.
Then the God of Daniel took providential care of him and shut the mouths of the lions,
and they did not trouble Daniel.

Similarly, when Daniel reports to the king how he survived the ordeal with
the lions, he credits God’s assistance, without any mention of angelic in-
tercession:
(21–22 LXX) Then Daniel heard the loud voice and said, “O king, I am still alive and
God/the Lord has saved me from the lions…

How should we explain the difference in attribution of the salvation be-


tween the two major textual witnesses to the story? Collins suggests that
“the miraculous intervention is toned down in the OG, which informs us
immediately after Daniel’s incarceration that ‘the God of Daniel took prov-
idential care of him.’”41 Collins assumes that sending an angel to rescue
Daniel is more miraculous than God saving him Himself, and therefore (2)
that the MT here reflects the more original of the two readings. The first
supposition is highly subjective – is it really less miraculous if God per-
formed this act instead of an angel? In light of the many parallels between
chapters 3 and 6, I would suggest that the interchange of God and his angel
more likely reflects the opposite direction of development; in a more origi-
nal version of the story, God himself saved Daniel as in OG, and this was
then changed by the addition of an angel, who rescued Daniel from the
mouths of the lions. This change could be the result of either of two differ-
ent possible processes: (a) The story in Dan 6 was adjusted so as to harmo-
nize it with that in Dan 3. This would be a classic example of the process
of “assimilation” between biblical narratives, according to which stories
with parallel themes or motifs are further connected by the addition or al-
teration of details in the transmission of the story. This phenomenon takes
place on all levels of the development and transmission of biblical litera-

40
The nature of this relationship is beyond the scope of this article.
41
COLLINS, Daniel, 271.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


422 Michael Segal

ture, including in the various textual witnesses.42 In this instance, the simi-
larities between the story of the fiery furnace and the lion’s den led to the
adjustment of chapter 6 to bring it further in line with chapter 3. (b) Alter-
natively, the angel was added not for a literary reason, but for a theological
one. If God is the one who rescues the protagonist, then He is presented as
an imminent deity, one who intervenes in human, earthly affairs. By send-
ing an angel in His place, the scribe responsible for this change has trans-
formed God into a transcendent deity, who remains outside of direct con-
tact with the earthly domain.43
The choice of OG as more original in this detail also creates a more
consistent story. After the king was forced to decree that Daniel be thrown
into the lion’s den, he consoles Daniel and wishes for him that “Your God
whom you serve constantly, he will save you” (6:17 MT; 16 OG). Later,
when Darius went to check to see if Daniel had indeed survived his night
with the lions, he asks “Daniel, servant of the living God, was your God,
whom you serve constantly, able to save you from the lions?” (MT v. 21 ≈
OG v. 20). Finally, in the letter that Darius sends to all of the nations, he
praises God: “For he is the living God, and one who endures forever… He
saves and rescues and does signs and wonders in the heavens and on earth.
He has saved Daniel from the power of the lions” (MT 6:27–28).44 If OG
reflects the more original reading regarding God’s direct intervention, and
the presence of an interceding angel is secondary to the story, then Dan 6
refers to God’s direct salvation throughout the entire episode.45
These two examples demonstrate that OG Dan 6 at times reflects a more
original version of the story, while the text of MT is the result of second-
ary developments.

42
For the phenomenon of assimilation between biblical narratives, see Y AIR ZA-
KOVITCH, “Assimilation in Biblical Narratives,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criti-
cism (ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia, 1985), 175–196. A
similar phenomenon was noted above (n. 39) regarding the formulation of 6:14.
43
The substitution of an angel for God Himself is a much broader phenomenon, both
by ancient translators and exegetes, and is beyond the scope of the current article.
44
OG v. 27 reads “for the idols made by hand are not able to save as the God of Dan-
iel redeemed Daniel,” but this does not change the overall thrust of the argument here.
45
One could use these verses to suggest that OG 6:18, 21–22 are in fact the secondary
reading, corrected in order to match the idea expressed in statements throughout the
chapter concerning God’s saving of Daniel. However, the additional theological argu-
ment for the addition of the angel makes it more likely that OG here is the more original
version.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 423

C. Both OG and MT as Secondary Witnesses

The final section of this article discusses a more complex example in


which OG and MT present differences with respect to a prominent theme
in the tale in Dan 6. In this example, I suggest that neither of the two wit-
nesses presents the earliest version of the story, but at the same time, the
differences between them perhaps allow us to trace the literary and textual
development of this motif, and thus to reconstruct both the original literary
kernel of the story and its subsequent iterations.
OG and MT in Daniel 6 appear to differ from one another regarding the
extent of the opposition to Daniel amongst the government ministers.46 At
first glance, there appear to be two distinct, binary options, each reflected
in one of the textual witnesses. According to MT 6:5–8, the ministers and
the satraps (all together 122 people) attempted as a group to frame Daniel:
MT 6:5 The ministers and satraps looked for some fault in Daniel’s conduct … 6:6 Those
men then said… 6:7 Then these ministers and satraps came thronging in to the king …
6:8 All the ministers of the kingdom, the prefects, satraps, companions, and governors
are in agreement …

Since these were the perpetrators of the slander against Daniel, they are
presumably the ones punished at the end of the story by being thrown into
the lion’s den:
MT 6:25 Then, by order of the king, those men who had slandered Daniel were brought
and, together with their children and wives, were thrown into the lions’ den. They had
hardly reached the bottom of the den when the lions overpowered them and crushed all
their bones.

In contrast, according to the OG, it seems that it was only the other two
more senior ministers who were party to this plot:
OG 6:4 Now, when the king decided to appoint Daniel over all his kingdom, then the two
young men (οἱ δύο νεανίσκοι),47 speaking to each other, agreed to a plan and resolve

46
This issue is discussed extensively by M EADOWCROFT, Aramaic Daniel, 94–97,
who notes the complexity of this theme in OG, but focuses more on the literary aspects of
the differences between OG and MT.
47
Daniel’s two primary competitors are referred to here as νεανίσκοι “youths/young
men,” which appears elsewhere in OG Dan in 1:4,13,15,17 (translating Hebrew ‫)ילדים‬. In
light of the date assigned to Dan 6, during the reign of Darius the Mede, there is no doubt
that Daniel is no longer a young man, and presumably the other two ministers were not
children either. However, this might be the result of literary exegesis by the OG transla-
tor of Dan 6, who wished to depict a lifelong rivalry between Daniel and his Babylonian
counterparts, which began in chapter 1 when they were actually “young men,” continued
in chapters 2, 4[MT], 5, and reached a crescendo late in their careers in the days of Dari-
us (cf. GRELOT, “Daniel VI,” 111–112). J AMES A. MONTGOMERY, “The ‘two youths’ in
the LXX to Dan. 6,” JAOS 41 (1921): 316–317; idem, Daniel, 281, suggested that this

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


424 Michael Segal

6:5 6:6
among themselves … And they said, … Then those men went and said before the
7 8
king, “We have established an interdict and stipulation … And they requested the
king so that he would establish and not change the interdict …

The end of the story in OG is consistent with the beginning, those punished
“measure for measure” were the two competing ministers, along with their
families.
OG 6:24 Then these two men who testified falsely against Daniel (οἱ δύο ἄνθρωποι ἐκεῖνοι
οἱ καταµαρτυρήσαντες τοῦ ∆ανιηλ) – they and their wives and their children were cast to
the lions. And the lions killed them and shattered their bones, and Daniel was appointed
over the whole kingdom of Darius.

A logical argument from the story itself can be made for the originality of
OG regarding this motif, since those two ministers were the only ones who
were directly affected detrimentally by the king’s decisions. The satraps’
standing should not have been threatened by Daniel’s promotion, since in
any event, he was already more senior than them.48 Perhaps a further ar-
gument for the originality of the OG version can be adduced from another
detail in the story. At the end of the story, those who plotted Daniel’s un-
doing received their just punishments, “together with their children and
wives.” As noted by Wills, if more than 120 families, including women and
children were thrown into the den, then it is more likely that they would
have died due to asphyxiation than from being devoured by lions.49 In-
stead, on the narrative level, it makes more sense that Daniel’s two direct
competitors were the ones who plotted against him, and they and their
families were executed, leaving Daniel as the sole minister in charge. 50
However, the evidence of OG is actually more complex, and other
verses in this version suggest that the 127 satraps were also in on this plot
against Daniel:
OG 6:14 … Then the king grieved exceedingly for Daniel, and he kept assisting to deliv-
er him until sunset from the hands of the satraps (ἀπὸ τῶν χειρῶν τῶν σατραπῶν).

term might have been used secondarily under the influence of 1Esd 3:4, regarding the
rivalry of Zerubabbel and the other two youths (note also the reference to 127 satraps in
OG Dan 6:1 and 1Esd 3:2 [cf. n. 17, above]).
48
CHARLES, Daniel, 155; COLLINS, Daniel, 262.
49
W ILLS, The Jew in the Court, 138, n. 122.
50
SCHMIDT, “Daniel,” 2, notes a general tendency in MT Daniel 6 of “additions and
embellishments to exaggerate the wickedness and folly of the plot, emphasize the judg-
ment, enhance the miracle, and adorn the tale,” including this detail. While it is theoreti-
cally possible that MT reflects an earlier story with intentionally exaggerated details
which were “corrected” in OG to improve the literary logic of the tale (Montgomery,
“‘Two youths’; idem, Daniel, 280–281; NORMAN W. P ORTEOUS, Daniel; A Commentary
[transl. from German Göttingen, 1962; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 89; C OL-
LINS, Daniel, 262–263 allows for this option), this seems less likely.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 425

The emphasis in this verse in OG on rescuing him from the satraps is par-
ticularly pronounced when it is compared to the parallel verse in MT and
Theodotion, where there is no identification of those who persecuted him:
MT 6:15 (= Theod): ‫לוּתהּ‬
ֵ ָ‫ לֵ י ִשׁ ְמ ָשׁ א ֲה וָ א ִמ ְשׁ ַתּ ַדּ ר לְ ַה צּ‬3ָ ‫ד ֶמ‬3ַ ְ‫ו‬...
and until the sun set made every effort to rescue him.

Similarly in OG 6:19:
And King Darius rose early in the morning and took the satraps with him (καὶ παρέλαβε
µεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ τοὺς σατράπας). And he went and stood at the opening of the lions’ pit.

Although this verse does not make it explicit that the satraps were the an-
tagonists in this case, it seems clear that on the literary level they represent
the opposition to Daniel and the king. They are taken together to the lion’s
lair in order to witness the results of their efforts. Here too, there is no
mention of their presence at this point in the story in either MT or Theod:
MT 6:20 (≈ Theod): ‫וּב ִה ְת ְבּ ָה לָ ה לְ גֻ ָבּ א‬
ְ ‫אד ִי ן ַמ לְ כָּ א ִבּ ְשׁ ַפּ ְר ָפּ ָר א ְיקוּם ְבּ נָ גְ ָה א‬
ַ ‫ֵבּ‬
‫י־א ְר ָיוָ ָתא ֲאזַ ל‬
ַ ‫ִד‬
Then, at the first light of dawn, the king arose and rushed to the lions’ den.

These two verses in OG portray the satraps as participants in the provoca-


tion against Daniel, in contrast to the other verses cited above that describe
the tension as strictly between Daniel and the other two more senior minis-
ters.
How can we explain this tension within OG itself? First, it should be
noted, that these competing descriptions make it difficult to posit that the
OG in its current form is the original form of the story with regard to this
motif. Rather, it seems to be a hybrid of both narrative traditions – combin-
ing the narrow conflict with the other two ministers attested elsewhere in
OG, and the broader conflict with all of the ministers and satraps attested
in MT and Theod. Even if one accepts the argument above that the tradi-
tion of the narrow conflict as reflected in OG vv. 4, 24 is the original form
of the story, it only explains some of the details in OG Dan 6.
How did this complex situation in OG come about? Of course, there are
a number of hypothetical models by which to explain this internal tension.
I suggest that one more passage in OG Dan 6 is relevant to this discussion,
and perhaps suggests the process by which the traditions were merged in
OG. The following chart presents OG, MT and Theodotion of vv. 3(4) –
4(5) synoptically:

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


426 Michael Segal

OG 6:3(4) Theod 6:3(4) MT 6:4


… … ...
[τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ‫וּמ ְל ָ ֣כּ א‬
ַ
ἐβουλεύσατο ‫ ִ֔שׁ ית‬3ֲ
καταστῆσαι τὸν ∆ανιηλ κατέστησεν αὐτὸν ‫מוּת הּ‬
֖ ֵ ‫ַל ֲה ָ ֽ ק‬
ἐπὶ ἐφ’ ‫ ל־‬3ַ
πάσης ὅλης ‫ָכּל־‬
τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ. ‫כוּת א׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ַמ ְל‬
καὶ τοὺς δύο ἄνδρας, οὓς κατέστησε µετ’ αὐτοῦ,
καὶ σατράπας ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ἑπτά.]

MT: … and the king considered setting him over the whole kingdom.
Theod: … and the king appointed him over his whole kingdom.
OG: … [Then the king decided to set Daniel over all his kingdom, and the two men
whom he had appointed with him and the one hundred twenty-seven satraps.]

OG 6:4(5) Theod 6:4(5) MT 6:5


{ὅτε δὲ ἐβουλεύσατο ὁ βασιλεὺς καταστῆσαι τὸν
∆ανιηλ ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ,}
Τότε καὶ ‫ֱא ַ ֨ד ִין‬
βουλὴν καὶ γνώµην ἐβουλεύσαντο ἐν ἑαυτοῖς
οἱ δύο νεανίσκοι οἱ τακτικοὶ ‫ָ ֽס ְר ַכ ָ֜יּ א‬
πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες
καὶ οἱ σατράπαι ‫ַ ֽו ֲא ַח ְשׁ ַדּ ְר ְפּ ַנ ָ֗יּ א‬
… … ...

MT: Then the ministers and satraps…


Theod: And the tacticians and the satraps…
OG: {Now, when the king decided to appoint Daniel over all his kingdom, then the two
young men, speaking to each other,…}

These verses are the point in the narrative when Daniel is promoted, or
about to be promoted, which led to the decision of his competitors to en-
trap him. The text of OG in these adjacent verses, which both refer to the
king’s decision to promote Daniel, is blatantly repetitive.51 This repetition

51
This repetition was noted and discussed briefly by M ONTGOMERY, “‘Two youths,’”
317, although he offered a different explanation for its background. W ILLS, The Jew in

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


The Old Greek and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6 427

led to two conflicting conclusions by the editors of the Göttingen editions


of Greek Daniel. In Ziegler’s 1954 edition, he placed the beginning of v.
4(5) in brackets, indicating that he believed that clause to be a textual dou-
blet.52 In contrast, in Munnich’s 1999 edition, he marked off the entire end
of v. 3(4) with square brackets indicating that he thought that the earlier
clause was the textual doublet and not part of the original OG.53 I want to
suggest that while their intuition about the presence of a secondary inser-
tion into the text was correct, neither of their conflicting explanations is in
fact completely satisfactory. When examining the verses synoptically, one
notices immediately that the final two clauses in v. 3(4) – καὶ τοὺς δύο
ἄνδρας, οὓς κατέστησε µετ’ αὐτοῦ, καὶ σατράπας ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ἑπτά – have
no parallel in the other witnesses. These two phrases also stand out in their
context in this verse, since they are syntactically awkward: both objects
(ἄνδρας and σατράπας) are in the accusative case, but by the context, they
are the counterparts of the expression ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, which
is composed of the preposition ἐπὶ plus a noun in the genitive case. While
this combination is not impossible,54 when coupled with the lack of paral-
lels to this expression in the other textual witness, it suggests that the men-
tion of the two ministers and the 127 satraps were added secondarily to OG
in this verse. This insight also explains the origins of the problematic dou-
blet in these two verses, since it can now be easily explained as an instance
of resumptive repetition in order to facilitate the addition of these clauses
at the end of v. 3(4). Thus if one wants to mark off the addition to the orig-
inal version of OG, it begins with καὶ τοὺς δύο ἄνδρας and extends through
the beginning of v. 4(5) ending in the words ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς βασιλείας
αὐτοῦ.55 According to this explanation, a (Greek) scribe added that Daniel
was promoted over both the other two ministers and the 127 satraps. While
the former are appropriate in the context of the original OG, the latter
make sense only if it led to the satraps being jealous of Daniel, as in MT.
This analysis suggests that the current form of OG vv. 3–4(4–5) is there-

the Court, 137, notes the “awkward reference to the 127 satraps,” and suggests that “a
seam can be detected in Dan 6 OG between the middle of vs 4 and the beginning of
vs 5.”
52
ZIEGLER, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, 157. In the table above, I have enclosed
the clause within braces (curly brackets).
53
MUNNICH, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, 322. In the table above, I have enclosed
the clause within regular square brackets.
54
A parallel syntactical structure is seemingly present in Gen 39:5, although there the
preposition ἐπὶ is repeated before the switch in case from genitive to accusative.
55
COLLINS, Daniel, 257, similarly suggests that these phrases were a scribal addition
to OG, which also led to the repetition in the following verse. However, he suggests that
it “merely repeats the information given in vv 1 and 2,” and “probably… was originally
meant to exalt Daniel over the others.”

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags


428 Michael Segal

fore the result of an attempt to correct OG according to the contours of the


story in MT (and Theod). However, as in many similar cases, the corrector
has inadvertently left behind traces of his intervention, allowing us to un-
ravel this process. If this argument is correct in vv. 3–4(4–5), then it per-
haps can be applied to explain the complexity in OG noted above. In both
vv. 14(15) and 19(20), the phrases in which the satraps are present (under-
lined above) are not attested in the parallel textual witnesses, and can be
removed from OG without any residual impact on the verse (although they
do not present a telltale sign of addition such as found in the resumptive
repetition of vv. 3–4). I therefore tentatively suggest that vv. 14(15) and
19(20) underwent a similar process of “correction” in line with the tradi-
tion attested in MT and Theod, according to which all of the satraps op-
posed Daniel.
This analysis thus suggests that Daniel 6 developed in a multi-stage
process, including literary development and harmonization, in which nei-
ther of the two primary witnesses in their current form reflects the original
version of this theme in the story.

Conclusion

Daniel (4–)6 presents a unique opportunity for assessing the contribution


of textual witnesses towards identifying the complex compositional and
transmissional processes at play in the development of biblical literature.
The large-scale differences between these versions offer evidence for the
types of changes inserted by scribes, and in particular the exegetical im-
pulses which led to the reformulation and reshaping of their Vorlagen.
The complete details of the process by which each version of the story
developed are not fully clear (and may never be), and we have attempted to
show the complexity of the overall picture by means of the analysis of spe-
cific examples. In the first section of this article, it was demonstrated that
regarding certain details, one version can be confidently identified as orig-
inal. This is true for both MT and OG, since both primary textual witnesses
of Dan 6 preserve both original and secondary readings. Neither version in
its entirety can be described as the “original” form of Daniel 6. The analy-
sis in the final example showed that the textual situation in this chapter is
even more complex, and there are instances where neither witness reflects
the earliest form of the story, although in that specific case we were able to
use the textual evidence in order to suggest a reconstruction of the original
version.

Digitaler Sonderdruck des Autors mit Genehmigung des Verlags