The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 4-6

THE OLD GREEK TRANSLATION OF DANIEL IV-VI AND THE FORMATION OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL

by

R. TIMOTHY McLAY St. Stephen, NB, Canada

The Old Greek (OG) translation of Daniel chapters iv-vi presents the Septuagintalist with a host of interesting textual problems. While the Theodotion (Th1) version reads like a translation based on formal equivalence of a text that is very similar to our existing Semitic texts of Daniel,2 the OG exhibits little textual similarity to either Th or the MT.3 The vast differences between the versions of the chapters represented respectively by the OG and T h / M T are particularly striking when compared to the rest of the book where the Greek versions are both based on Vorlagen that are very similar to the MT.4 Scholars are

1 The term Theodotion is employed for convenience. The Theodotion version of Daniel was known to the New Testament writers, so it could not have been written by a putative second century person known by that name.

2 Daniel is unusual in that ii 4a-vii 28 are written in Aramaic in our known witnesses to the Hebrew Bible. The pre-eminent witness to our Semitic texts is the Masoretic Text (MT), but there are ancient manuscripts of Daniel that have been found at Qumran. Though the DSS exhibit some textual variants to the complete witness to Daniel in the MT, they are relatively minor. The main fragments from Daniel are from cave four, the contents of which are most easily accessed in the official publication by E. Ulrich et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4: XI Psalms to Chronicles (Oxford, 2000), pp. 239-289. For a convenient list of all the fragments along with their contents and textual variants to the MT, see E. Ulrich, "The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls", in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (VTSup 83; Leiden, 2002), Vol. 2, pp. 573-585.

3 There are a few OG readings that are supported by the scrolls, but only one occurs in chapters iv-vi (v 7 in 4QDana). See a convenient list in O. Munnich, "Texte Massorétique et Septante dans le Livre de Daniel", in A. Schenker (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SCS 52; Adanta, GA, 2003), p. 98.

4 R. T. McLay, Vie OG and TH Versions of Daniel (SCS 43; Adanta, GA), p. 242; J . J . Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis, MN, 1993), p. 5. Jeansonne's statement that "the Vorlage available to the OG translator was not necessarily equal to the present day Masoretic text" should not be pushed too far. Her wish is to emphasize the fidelity of the translator's approach to the source text, not to argue for a huge

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Vetus Testamentum LV,3 Also available online - www.brill.nl

http://www.brill.nl

THE OLD GREEK TRANSLATION OF DANIEL IV-VI 3 0 5

agreed that the differing version of chapters iv-vi in the OG is based on a Semitic Vorlage,5 and Wills and Albertz have offered important contributions for understanding the differing literary redactions of Daniel for these chapters while both also argued for the priority of the OG version.6 Indeed, the essential link between textual and literary criticism that is increasingly acknowledged in biblical studies owes a debt of gratitude to the discovery of the ancient manuscripts in a cave in the Judean desert in 1947.7 For Daniel there are two Greek versions that can be compared to one another as well as to the Semitic version. Th is generally quite close to the MT throughout the book; therefore, the texts of the Greek versions for chapters iv-vi differ considerably.

In general, the basic story in Daniel iv-vi is the same in the versions transmitted respectively by the OG and MT/Th, but there are numerous differences in details. For example, chapter iv still narrates the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, but his confession and the publication of his decree occurs in a much expanded form at the end of the chapter in w . 34(37)-34c rather than the beginning, and there are other pluses to w . 14(17), 19(22), 23-25(26-28), 28(31), 30(33). There are also significant minuses that involve w . 20-22(23-25) when one compares the OG to MT/Th and there is no equivalent for iv 3-6(6-9). Chapter five recounts the mysterious writing on the wall, but the OG version includes an abbreviated version of the story as a preface and omits significant portions of w . 3, 10-13 and has no equivalent for w . 14-15, 18-22 and 24-25. Chapter six, in which Daniel is thrown into the lion's den, is much closer in length in the different versions, but there are large pluses in the OG w . 3(4), 5(6), 12a, 14(15), 17-18(18-19), 22(23) and minuses in 15(16), 23(24). Even where there are no pluses or minuses in these chapters the Greek versions share little relationship with regard to style, grammar, and, more importantly, vocabulary.

distinction between the Vorlage for the OG and the MT. S. Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12 (GBQMS 19; Washington, DC, 1988), p. 131.

5 Collins (n. 4), pp. 6-7; J. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh, 1927), p. 37.

6 See L. M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King (Minneapolis, 1990); R. Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchungen zu Daniel 4-6 in der Septuagintqfassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramäischen Danielbuches (SBS 131; Stuttgart, 1988).

7 E. Ulrich has had several of his contributions on the subject of double literary editions and the growth of the biblical text published in a collection, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999). Two other recent publications include K. De Troyer, Rewriting the Sacred Text· What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us About the Literary Growth of the Bible (Atlanta, GA, 2003); Schenker (n. 3).

306 R. TIMOTHY McLAY

Though he has not given evidence to support his view, Ulrich has

suggested that the OG translation for chapters i-xii "is of one piece".8

This view presupposes that the alternative translation of chapters iv-

vi stems from a Semitic Vorlage that was complete for chapters i-xii.

Given the fact that the content of chapters iv-vi (the madness of

Nebuchadnezzar, the writing on the wall, Daniel and the lion's den)

exhibits significant literary differences as a stand alone corpus com

pared to the rest of the book it is doubtful that one can make a deci

sive argument in this matter. However, a case can be made that the

chapters do not originate with the same translator as the rest of the

book. Albertz has argued that the differences between OG and MT/Th

in iv-vi are due to the fact that the translator of chapters i-iii, vii-xii

adopted the earlier "popular" translation of iv-vi into his translation

because it exhibits a theological emphasis on monotheism, which is

also detectable in iii 17.9 One of the problems with this argument is

that the OG does not exhibit a concern for monotheism elsewhere,10

but the fact that there is a distinct emphasis on monotheism expressed

in iv 34c! [37], which is echoed by repeated statements that their God

is "the living God" who reigns "in heaven" (see iv 23 [26], 28[31],

34[37]; ν 23), remains an argument that these chapters stem from a

different hand. Furthermore, there are instances where the translation

of vocabulary in chapters iv-vi was more different than elsewhere in

the book.11 An analysis of the translation of the vocabulary in these

chapters provides additional evidence that supports a different trans

lator (ζ^Κ,12 ΠΠΚ,13 ^ Π , 1 4 r t a , 1 5 ptf16). These examples are all based

8 Ulrich (η. 7), p. 71. 9 Albertz (n. 6), p. 164.

10 McLay (n. 4), p. 145. 11 Ibid., pp. 109, 145. There are other words that are translated both within and

outside of chapters iv-vi, but they cannot be used as evidence for either position. These include three types of words: 1) those that appear within chapters iv-vi, but may only be attested once outside these chapters, or vice versa; 2) words that have several equivalents (e.g. Dip, 3Ί, 0*710), so that one cannot isolate any particular pattern; 3) vocabulary that is so common that their translation equivalents cannot be used as evidence for a common translator (ΙΠΚ, ]ïïh, 3ΓΠ, ΏΊ, yaû).

12 Translated normally by άνθρωπος 7x in chs. ii-vi; ουδείς in ii 10; δς in ν 7; but ανθρώπινη 3x in vii 4(2x), 8. άνθρωπος does appear once in vii 13.

13 Aorist forms of φέρω in ν 2, 3, 23; vi 17(18); but forms of έρχομαι in iii 2; vii 13, 22 and αγω in iii 13(2x).

14 ζητέω in ii 13; vii 16; άξιόω in ii 16, 23, 49; παραγγέλλω in ii 18; εύχομαι in vi 7(8), 12(13). The last verb is only found in OG Dan. vi. See also vi 5, 8, 11, 13.

15 Has a variety of equivalents outside of chs. iv-vi: πράγμα in ii 8, 10, 15; λόγος in ii 9, 11; vii 1, 11, 16, 28; ρήμα in vii 25, 28; α έώρακεν in ii 10; έκαστα in ii 17;

THE OLD GREEK TRANSLATION OF DANIEL IV-VI 307

on different Greek translation equivalents for Semitic vocabulary occur-

ing both inside and outside of Daniel iv-vi; therefore, they are weighty

indicators of different translation hands at work. Another type of evi

dence would be to note the instances where certain Greek vocabulary

is restricted to chapters iv-vi, regardless of the Semitic Vorlage}1 However,

despite the fact that the evidence favors a separate translation for these

three chapters, it might be imprudent to claim that the evidence alone

is compelling. Though the combined evidence of the examples does

exhibit distinct patterns of translation, the judgments for the first types

of examples are based on the assumption that one can reconstruct the

Vorlage for the vocabulary for OG based on the content and compa

rable material existing in the MT. Since the content of the stories is

similar in OG and Th/MT, despite the clear differences, this assump

tion seems reasonable in most cases, whether the Vorlage for OG was

Aramaic or the translation is based on cognate Hebrew words.18

Though one may not claim that an overwhelming case for the dis

tinct nature of the translation for OG chapters iv-vi has been made

previously, it has not seemed to this writer that there are serious rival

explanations.19 However, the publication of recent theories about the

origins of Daniel are indicators that a more complete examination of

the available evidence is in order. In particular, there have been sev

eral scholars who have argued for an earlier Vorlage for Daniel and

that it had an alternative order for the chapters based on the evidence

of the best witness to the OG text, papyrus 967. In 967 chapters vii

and viii intervene between iv and v.20 The result is a somewhat smoother

προς ταΰτα in ii 23; πρόσταγμα in iii 22; προσταγή in iii 95(28); but it is always rendered only by λόγος in iv 28(31); vi 12(13). This is not as strong an example because λόγος does appear elsewhere, especially in eh. vii.

16 καιρός in ii 8, 9, 21; vii 12, 25(3x); δταν in iii 5; αμα in iii 15; but ετη in iv 13, 29.

17 See the select examples that are offered in n. 44. 18 P. Grelot has argued for a Hebrew Vorlage for chapter iv in "La Septante de

Daniel IV et son substrat sémitique", RB 81 (1974), pp. 19-21, and for chapter vi in "Daniel VI dans la Septante", in G. Dorival and O. Munnich (eds.), Κατά τους ó: Selon les septante (Paris, 1995), pp. 103-118.

19 In addition to this article the reader may refer to the argument in my forthcoming article, "The Greek Translations of Daniel iv-vi". See my article, "The Relationship Between the Greek Translations of Daniel 1-3", BIOSCS 37 (2004), for similar arguments regarding chapters i-iii.

20 P.-M. Bogaert has also drawn attention to the fact that Quodvultdeus, a fifth century bishop, also seems to have known the alternative order of 967 in "Le témoignage de la Vêtus Latina dans l'étude de la Septante. Ezéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967", Bib 59 (1978), pp. 384-395.


chronology because the result has the narrative of chapters i-iv situ

ated in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, vii-viii and ν in the time of

Belshazzar, vi and ix in the period of Darius, and x-xii are dated in

the first year of Cyrus. The alternative order of the material in papyrus

967 raises additional questions about the literary development of Daniel

and its relationship to what became the MT. How is the content of

the OG and the different alignment of chapters iv-vi (in papyrus 967)

in relationship to the MT and the Th version to be explained? A nec

essary consequence of arguing for the alternative order for chapters

iv-vi has also meant that these scholars have challenged the view that

OG chapters iv-vi represent a distinct and separate translation.

In what follows two different proposals that advocate that 967 pre

serves a more original version of the content and Vorlage for Daniel

will be examined. More space will be devoted to the most recent pro

posal by Munnich, because he argues that 967 witnesses to an alter

native literary edition that was complete for the book of Daniel and

that one can demonstrate linear development from its Vorlage to the

MT in some cases.21 Significant criticisms are raised against both

attempts to posit a Semitic edition of Daniel with an alternative order

of the chapters as in 967, and of Munnich's argument for a direct lit

erary development from the Vorlage of the OG to the MT. Following

the examination of the proposals by Lust and Munnich a hypothesis

for the outlines of the growth and stages of the book of Daniel that

includes the Greek versions will be outlined.

967 witnesses to an early collection of Daniel stories from (i)ii-viii

Whether chapters iv-vi were part of an integrated literary whole

encompassing at least chapters i-xii (Ulrich does attempt to provide

an explanation for the relationship of the deutero-canonical additions

to the known Hebrew version) is fundamental for understanding the

stages of growth and composition of Daniel. Typically, it is suggested

that papyrus 967 has rearranged the order of the chapters in order

to fix the chronology,22 but Lust has argued for the priority of papyrus

967.23 One of the strengths of Lust's argument is that it builds on the

21 Munnich (n. 3), pp. 93-120. 22 CoUins (n. 4), p. 6. 2 3 "The Septuagint Version of Daniel 4-5", in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book

of Daniel (BETL 106; Leuven, 1993), pp. 41-53.


observation that originally the tales of Daniel in chapters ii-vi circu

lated as independent compositions. They seemed to have been part of

an existing tradition of Daniel stories, which is supported by the addi

tions that are known to us only in their Greek versions,24 as well as

by the Daniel fragments and the Prayer of Nabonidus discovered at

Qumran.2 5 One can readily agree with Lust that the OG, including

967, witnesses to an earlier Semitic collection of Danielle tales; how

ever, his views regarding the priority of the order of the chapters in

967 are problematic.

Lust suggests that the pre-Maccabean collection of Daniel stories

included a form of chapter vii and the tales were redacted together

according to different patterns: one of which is witnessed to by 967.

Chapter viii, like the rest of the Hebrew sections, was added later.26

There are two main issues, however, that Lust does not explain. First,

there is no reason provided for the hypothetical ordering of the chap

ters according to OG. Lust correctly notes that the order of chapters

ii-vii reflects conscious and deliberate editorial activity,27 but this does

not in any way demonstrate dependence on the order witnessed by

967. Second, how does Lust account for chapter viii? According to

David, who expanded on Lust's views in his doctoral thesis, chapter

viii was appended to chapter vii in this pre-Maccabean collection of

Aramaic tales along with i-ii 4a, and this was later followed by x-xii

and chapter ix.28 But, how likely is it that a chapter written in Hebrew

was sandwiched between chapters written in Aramaic, particularly if

this editor was already attaching an introduction in Hebrew? Chapter

eight causes an even more significant problem for the Greek. David

suggests that the original Aramaic collection of ii, iii, iv, vii, ν, vi, Bel

24 Presently, there is a fairly broad scholarly consensus among Daniel scholars that the stories in (ii)iii-vi were independent compositions that were adopted and redacted later in the Maccabean period. For the additions to Daniel, see C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions (AB 44; New York, NY, 1977).

2 5 P. W. Flint, "The Daniel Tradition at Qumran", in J. J . Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (VTSup 83; Leiden, 2002), Vol. 1, pp. 329-367.

26 Lust's proposal is worked out in greater detail in the doctoral thesis by P. S. David, "The Composition and Structure of the Book of Daniel: A Synchronic and Diachronie Reading", Ph.D. Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 1991, pp. 92-96. According to Lust and David, the original Aramaic collection presupposed by 967, which is equivalent to the OG, went chs. ii, iii, iv, vii, ν, vi, Bel and the Dragon.

27 Lust (n. 23), pp. 50-51. For the literary framework of ii-vii, see A. Lenglet, "La structure littéraire de Daniel 2-7", Bib 53 (1972), pp. 169-190.

28 Lust (n. 23), only refers to the addition of chapter viii, p. 52. For the more detailed proposal of David (n. 26), see p. 96.


and the Dragon was translated into Greek and that the translation for

these chapters was retained and used by the later translator for chap

ters i, viii, and ix-xii. How did the Greek translator know to put chap

ter viii after vii if these were separate editions? According to David,

the Greek translator would have had to have knowledge of three sep

arate collections: ii-vii plus Bel and the Dragon; i-viii plus Bel; i-xii

(plus additions). This is possible, but is it likely, especially when there

could not have been a great deal of time between the production of

the chapters that would have been added to the original core? This

scenario offers no explanation for the setting in which the OG was

translated and how the OG managed to preserve an alternative Semitic

order of the chapters.

967 witnesses to an earlier literary edition than the MT

Recently, a new proposal has been advanced by Munnich, which,

similar to Lust, advocates the priority of the order of papyrus 967 as

a witness to the original order of Daniel. In addition, in agreement

with the views of Ulrich, Munnich believes that the OG witnesses to

an alternative literary edition.29 Munnich is concerned to demonstrate

literary development from the OG to MT, and to this end he does

note several ways that chapters iv and ν in the MT exhibit that it is

a later redaction than the OG, particularly in its development of the

role and character of Daniel. For example, Daniel is not mentioned

in OG chapter iv until v. 15(18) compared to the MT in which he is

described as "endowed with the a spirit of the holy gods" and "no

mystery is too difficult" for him in iv 8-9(5-6). The intelligence and

wisdom of Daniel are also emphasized in the MT in ν 11-16.30 Munnich

is also no doubt correct when he identifies later additions to MT iv

3-6 and ν 3.31

It is interesting to examine Munnich's argument more closely, because

it is an excellent example of the relationship between literary and tex

tual criticism. In particular, most cases of different literary editions

2 9 However, it should be noted that while Ulrich has advocated that the Greek of the OG is "of one piece", I am not aware that he has argued for the realignment of the chapters according to 967. It may be inferred that he does not hold this position because he suggests that the OG and MT are both secondary redactions of an earlier Vorlage. See Ulrich (η. 7), p. 71.

30 Munnich (n. 3), pp. 101-102, 107-108. 31 Ibid., pp. 102-107, 114-115.

THE OLD GREEK TRANSLATION OF DANIEL IV-VI 31 1

witnessed to by the MT and LXX exhibit a linear connection, i.e.

one developed from the other. Munnich's examples from chapter iv

3-6 and ν 3 are part of his argument that seeks to demonstrate the

redactional process from the Semitic Vorlage of the OG to the MT.

Moreover, it is essential to note that Munnich is arguing for the pri

ority of the order of the chapters according to 967 in this hypotheti

cal original Vorlage as well. In what follows it is argued that Munnich

is mistaken on both counts. Though the MT reflects later and more exten

sive redaction in chapters iv-vi than does the OG and the OG witnesses

to an earlier Vorlage, Munnich has neither offered sufficient evidence to

demonstrate a linear connection between the Vorlage of the OG and

the MT nor a satisfactory argument for the priority of the order of

the chapters according to 967. His views will be examined in two

parts. First, the omission in OG iv 3-6, which Munnich offers as evi

dence for redactional development from the OG to the MT will be

discussed. Second, the notion that the order of the chapters in 967 is

a witness to an earlier Semitic edition of Daniel will be scrutinized in

detail. Some of the same criticisms that can be brought against Munnich's

position would apply equally to Lust,32 especially when it comes to

their common view of the originality of the order of the chapters in

papyrus 967.

In his most recent study Munnich argues not only that iv 3-6 are

evidence of later redaction in the MT, but that one can also recon

struct the editorial link between the MT and the OG 967. The OG

and M T are presented in parallel alignment below. Lines 1-5 are

v. 2 and 6-8 represent the beginning of v. 7.

OG 3 3 iv 2(5), 7(10) MT 4, 2(5), 7(10)

1. ένύπνιον ειδον ΓΡΠ7 D^Jl

2. καίεύλαβήθην ^ Π Τ Ι

3. rai φόβος μοι έπέπεσεν "pimm

32 The majority of Lust's article emphasizes how the loose composition of the tales would allow for the insertion of the visions of vii and viii to form a collection. He argues against Albertz' desire to establish that chapters iv-vi circulated together, but gives few grounds for connecting chapter iv with chapters vii-viii. See Lust (n. 23), pp. 40-45.

33 The OG is according to Munnich's reconstruction in Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco, Septuagmta. Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoriate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (Vol.

16.2; 2nd ed.; Göttingen, 1999), pp. 290-292.


4. έπι της κοίτης μου ^DtìD'bV 5. "zbr¡y 'öftn n?m 6. ^ΟΚΊ nrm 7. ΈΌϋΩ^ΰ

8. έκάθευδον και ιδού Í?W\ ΓΠΠ ΓΤΪΠ

Munnich begins by noting that line 2 is not quite equivalent in the

OG to the MT and offers a possible Vorlage presumed by lines 3-4

("QDÖQ"^ Π 3̂3 ΓΊΤΤΠ), which are quite different. He also notes that

lines 3-4 are absent from the Peshitta, so the combined evidence of

the OG and Peshitta leads one to suspect the originality of these

words.34 Next, Munnich observes that the beginning of v. 7 is almost

identical to the ending of v. 2 in the MT. Hence, he surmises, cor

rectly, that the repetition in v. 7 is a redactional element that was

inserted to pick up from v. 2, because w . 3-6 are a secondary inser

tion.35 Finally, he examines 4QDand and suggests that if one were to

reconstruct the ending of v. 6 to be Ίΰ[Κ,36 then it is possible that

v. 7 began [ΓΓΠ ΠΓΠ ODÖQ bä] in 4QDand, i.e. minus Ο̂ΚΊ "»ΙΠΠ (line

6 above). Based on this analysis, the original Semitic Vorlage can be

reconstructed from the OG with some support from 4QDand and with

out the secondary interpolation in w . 3-6 in the MT. Munnich sug

gests:

ITTI πτπ "»asefa bv (?^) n^s] rrnm ^ r m rrm G^n37

This reconstruction is all rather neat, but it also has two serious

shortcomings and both are related to the reality that Munnich has

limited textual support for his view. First, the aim of the reconstruc

tion of 4QDand is to remove *ϋ$!Ί ΉΪΓΠ in order to support the omis

sion of this syntagm from the OG Vorlage at the beginning of v. 7,

but this reconstruction of 4QDand is completely hypothetical for these

verses since there are only portions of a few words that are visible for

all of w . 6-7 (9-10)! Thus, Munnich would seek to offer evidence based

on text that does not exist. Furthermore, this reconstruction still assumes

3 4 Munnich (n. 3), p. 103. For the Peshitta of Daniel, see the critical text of the Peshitta Institute, Dodekapropheton—Daniel-Bel-Draco, Part 3.4, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version (Leiden, 1980).

35 Munnich (n. 3), p. 104. 36 He admits that Ulrich's reconstruction would not allow for this possibility. See

Ulrich (n. 2), pp. 282-283. 37 Munnich (n. 3), p. 105.


that 4QDand contains the secondary insertion of w . 3-6. Second, it is

interesting that at no point in his discussion does Munnich note the

evidence for his own reading of the OG. The fact of the matter is

that έπι της κοίτης μου should be seriously questioned. The phrase is

contained in 967, but in 88 it is clearly indicated by an asterisk that

it is an addition to the text and it agrees with Th. It is for these rea

sons that the phrase is relegated to the apparatus in the critical edi

tion by Ziegler, who also had the reading of 967 for this passage.38

Particularly in chapters iv-v where there is almost no relationship

between a presumed Vorlage for OG and the MT, which is also confirmed

by the almost complete lack of agreement between the OG and Th

for these chapters, the most reasonable presupposition for textual crit

icism is that any textual agreements between the OG and Th here

are likely to be secondary. The OG reads perfectly well without έπι

της κοίτης μου, though the inclusion of the phrase does allow for one

to posit a linear development from the Vorlage of the OG to the MT.

The case of the plus in the MT iv 3-6 is an interesting example of

the way in which text-critical decisions and the understanding of the

literary development of a book are intertwined when comparing the

OG versions with the MT. Though Munnich is generally correct in

his analysis of the insertion in MT iv 3-6(6-9) and that 967 witnesses

to an older Vorlage, the divergent nature of the texts of chapters iv-vi

make any attempts to draw narrow literary connections between the

Vorlage of the OG and the MT extremely dubious. This point is rein

forced by the rest of Munnich's article in which he seeks to argue for

the literary development of the MT from the Vorlage witnessed to by

the OG, and by 967 in particular.

Munnich argues that a Maccabean reviser is responsible for the

redaction of MT, and this is evident in the changes introduced in the

Hebrew. For this view, Munnich also refers to an article in which

he made the case that the interpolation in ii 13-23 was written in

Hebrew.39 According to him, the aim of the editor was to centralize

the collection around the figure of Daniel. Thus, this individual wrote

the preface for the collection (i-ii 4a) and is responsible for the overall

3 8 J. Ziegler, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum graecum auctonate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (Vol. 16.2; Göttingen, 1954), p. 137.

39 It is widely accepted that ii 13-23 represents an interpolation in the text. See Wills (n. 6), p. 83; L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Leila, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City, NY, 1977), p. 139.


redaction of the book.40 With respect to the alignment of the original order of the chapters, witnessed to by 967, he states, "La différence des séquences s'explique plutôt par le fait qu'on a affaire à l'adjonction—sans doute assez tardive dans le texte prémasoretique—d'un épisode assez vaguement lié à Daniel et situé sous Baltazar" (emphasis his). The loose connection of chapter ν and vi to the rest of the tales is also noticeable because of the lack of the dating at the beginning of these chapters, which contrasts with the more precise dating in vii 1 and viii 1. Munnich compares these chapters to the other additions, and even refers to them as "additions de l'intérieur".41 The rationale for this explanation is puzzling. Why would the later redactor of the MT have moved the chapters if the original version was successful? What is accomplished by interrupting the better chronology that is reflected in the arrangement in 967?

Munnich does not clearly state, but he seems to imply that since MT chapters vii and viii were associated with Belshazzar and were dated to the first (eh. vii) and third (ch. viii) years of his reign that they were originally put prior to Belshazzar's death in chapter v. But, why was it necessary for this Maccabean editor to date these chapters to Belshazzar's reign? Clearly, and Munnich would agree,42 at least chapter viii and the final form of chapter vii is a Maccabean composition that focuses on Antiochus. To this writer's knowledge, there are no current scholars, apart from some who are more conservative, who would date the composition of chapter viii as early as the tales in chapters ii-vi(vii). Therefore, chapters vii and viii could have been dated to any reign. Under what conditions and for what reason would this later redactor order the material as Munnich supposes? The answer that Munnich appears to offer to this question is the linguistic connections that he draws between the OG in chapters iv and vii-viii that seem to focus on the person of Antiochus.43 There are several difficulties with this proposal. First, since chapter iv is concerned with the fall of a king(dom) would one not expect to discover some linguistic similarities between chapters vii and viii, whether in Hebrew or Greek?

40 O. Munnich, "Les versions grecques de Daniel et leurs substrats sémitiques", in L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the IOSCS (Adanta, 1995), esp. pp. 295-302. This position is restated in Munnich (η. 3), p. 102.

41 Munnich (n. 3), pp. 116-117. 42 Munnich (n. 40), p. 302. 4 3 Munnich (n. 3), pp. 118-119.


Second, the linguistic connections are based on the OG translation. If

there were a pre-existing Greek version of chapter iv, editorial revi

sions due to the Maccabean crisis of that chapter would be expected

and would presumably result in linguistic connections with chapters

vii-viii. Therefore, even if the linguistic connections were compelling,

why would that require that the chapters run consecutively? Third,

the specific terminological links that Munnich offers to anchor chap

ter iv to vii and viii are not very strong and certainly do not sufficiently

outweigh linguistic links that exist between other chapters, particularly

if one was intentionally making a connection.44 The specific linguistic

connections he makes are: iv 19 ύψώθη σου ή καρδία // viii 25 ή καρδία

αύτοΰ ύψωθήσεται; iv 19 έξηρήμωσας τον οϊκον του θεοΰ του ζώντος //

viii 11 και το αγιον έρημωθήσεται; iv 21 και ό ύψιστος και οι άγγελοι

αύτου έπι σε κατατρέχουσιν // vii 25 και ρήματα εις τον ΰψιστον λαλήσει

και τους αγίους τοΰ ύψιστου κατατρίψει; iv 34 αυτός . . . άλλοιοί καιρούς

καί χρόνους // vii 25 και προσδέξεται άλλοιώσαι καιρούς και νόμον.45

These examples are not particularly striking. If there were that close

a connection between these chapters, would one not expect to find at

least one of these phrases to be identical? For example, it would seem

that ν 2 άνυψώθη ή καρδία αυτού is just as close a parallel to iv 19(22)

ύψώθη σου ή καρδία (see also the compound verb earlier in the verse)

as the example in viii 25 and why does iv 21(24) not have οι άγιοι

instead of οι άγγελοι like vii 25? Given the composition of Daniel's

visions in chapter viii (and the final form of chapter vii) during the

Maccabean period it is hard to conceive of a scenario in which a

scribe would place those visions between the tales of iv and v, espe-

4 4 See the earlier part of this paper for arguments about the translation of chapters iv-vi; Albertz (n. 6), pp. 91-92. Please note that the earlier examples were restricted to vocabulary that is translated differently in iv-vi when compared to the remainder of the book. Many examples of Greek vocabulary that show inner coherence in chapters ii-vi, and even more particularly between chapters iv-vi(vii) could be provided. The following select examples provide all the occurrences for these terms in the OG and in some cases the terms do not appear in Th: αίνέω eh. ii-lx, eh. iv-4x, eh. v-2x; άχρειόω only in OG! ch. iv 11(14), vi 20(21); βουλεύω only in OG! eh. vi-3x, ch. vii-lx; γλώσσα eh. iii-4x, ch. iv-2x, ch. vi-lx, ch. vii-lx; δέομαι only in OG! ch. iv-3x, ch. vi-4x; δουλεύω ch. iv-2x, ch. vi-lx; εϊδωλον only in OG! (though it does occur 2x in Th Bel) ch. iii-2x, ch. v-2x, ch. vi-lx; θαυμάζω ch. iii-lx, ch. iv-2x, ch. vi-lx; σημείον ch. iv-2x, ch. v-lx.

4 5 Munnich makes other connections with Maccabean motifs, but they are not specifically relevant to the connection between chapter iv and vii-viii. The connection he makes between iv 8, which refers to the "sun and moon" and viii 10, which refers to the "stars" is rather weak.


cially when chapter viii was written in Hebrew. There remains the possibility that chapters vii and viri could have been composed with the link to chapter iv in mind (which would be in keeping with Munnich's proposal), but even this theory fails. It would require that one ignore the obvious formal links that vii and viii have with chapters ix-xii and the evidence for those specific links is wanting. Without any other recourse to explain the order of 967, it seems that the only reason to accept the alternative order is the dating in vii 1 and viri 1. Of course, if the only reason for the order is chronological, then an alternative Semitic Vorlage as suggested by Munnich and Lust is unnecessary.

Even if it is supposed that the order of 967 reflected a Semitic Vorlage, Munnich's argument would fail because it cannot offer an explanation for the existing OG translation. Though he has not outlined a detailed description of his understanding of the growth of the book and how this related to the OG translation, Munnich has argued that 967 witnesses to an alternative Semitic literary edition that was basically complete for chapters i-xii plus the additions. As previously noted, he connects chapter iv with a Maccabean reviser of vii-viii as well as with chapters xi-xii and 1 Maccabees.46 He also connects the interpolation of ii 13-24 with the initial stages of the linking of the tales in ii-vi to the visions in vii-xii, the writing of an introductory chapter i-ii 4a, and the overall aim of this reviser, which was to centralize the collection around the figure of Daniel.47 Munnich is not clear on this point, but when would it have been possible for the Greek translation of his hypothetical Semitic Vorlage to have been accomplished? According to Munnich this hypothetical collection had the chapters arranged and presumably the different content for iv-vi (or iv, vii, viii) according to 967 and this original Semitic edition underwent further editing, which produced proto-MT. But, since the reordering of the chapters and other editorial revisions of the chapters in question must have occurred around the same time, how would the Greek translator have had access to the earlier arrangement and non-edited version? Finally, an earlier observation bears repeating. If this original edition had been compiled as is supposed, why would chapters vii and viri have been moved to a different place? The answer to this question would have to be that it was due to the fact that chap-

Munnich (n. 3), pp. 117-119. Munnich (n. 40), pp. 301-302.

THE OLD GREEK TRANSLATION OF DANIEL IV-VI 317

ters vii-viii were placed with the rest of the visions because that is where they would have been seen to belong as part of the newer material. But, would they not have belonged with that material in the first place?

The alternative order of 967 presents several variables for any theory that seeks to advocate that it witnesses to an alternative Semitic Vorlage for the book of Daniel. One must give an account for both the alternative order of the chapters as well as the different content in OG iv-vi, while explaining how the visions in vii-viii, one of which was written in a different language!, could have been part of an alternative literary edition; and that this collection managed to be translated into Greek. Under what conceivable circumstances could these events have happened in light of the evidence? The final form of Daniel had to be around 164 BCE, the OG version is generally dated around the beginning of the first century BCE in Alexandria,48 and the Qumran manuscripts, which date from the same period, are proto-MT. The only real evidence to support the alternative order presented by 967 is 967 itself. Though there are some links between chapters iv and vii-viii, they are not particularly strong given the content of the chapters. Most importandy, the identification of the visions in vii 1 and viri 1 with Belshazzar has to become a reason for their location in the Vorlage to which 967 supposedly witnesses. But, if chronology is in any way an issue, then this becomes another blow to any theory advocating the originality of the order in 967. It is at least as likely that 967 changed the order to fix the chronology as it is that an editor has attributed these visions to the time of Belshazzar and created a collection such as we have in 967, particularly when 967 also has chapter xxxvii after xxxix in Ezekiel. Would it not be much simpler to argue that the specific dating in vii 1 and viri 1 was inserted by the Maccabean editor in order to date these later visions prior to the events of chapter v?49 Both the explanations by Lust and Munnich are based solely on the alternative order of one manuscript. They are unable to account for the significant evidence that unifies the translation

48 Montgomery (n. 5), p. 38; L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Leila (n. 39), p. 78. 49 See the thesis by G. Wooden who argues that the dating helps explain how it

was that Daniel could interpret the writing on the wall without the aid of divine assistance. According to the visions he had already seen the fall of Belshazzar. R. Glenn Wooden, "The Book of Daniel and Manticism: A Critical Assessment of the View that the Book of Daniel Derives from a Mantic Tradition", Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Andrews, 2000, pp. 266-268.


of OG chapters iv-vi, the Qumran evidence that witnesses to the MT, and they have not offered a plausible scenario to support their hypotheses.

The OG witnesses to an earlier collection of the tales

The explanatory value of a hypothesis is determined by how well it explains the known data. Based on the extant evidence, it is unlikely that there is any hypothesis that attempts to posit an alternative Semitic edition based on the order of the chapters in 967 that can offer an adequate account for the rest of the data. In what follows a hypothesis is offered that outlines the growth and stages of the book of Daniel that includes the Greek versions. It would be inappropriate to identify it as a new proposal because it relies in most instances on what is current scholarly consensus.50 For the sake of simplicity it is presented in a series of steps.

1. In the beginning. As Lust and David argued, and in agreement with virtually all critical scholarship, the court tales in Daniel ii-vi owe their origins to a number of independent compositions that circulated in the Mesopotamian region prior to and during the Hellenistic period.51

The existence of the so-called additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Snake) and the manuscript fragments of other Daniel stories at Qumran52 argues that this is the case.

2. The first collection. There was an original collection of the tales involving chapters (iii 31) iv-vi. Albertz and Wills conducted independent form-, source-, and redaction-critical investigations of chapters iv-vi in the MT and the OG and concluded that the OG reflects an older, Aramaic Vorlage. Wills convincingly demonstrates that the shared redactional characteristics in these chapters show these tales circulated as an independent collection.53 Albertz provided linguistic links between chapters iv-vi in the OG as evidence that these chapters reflect a

50 For example, I consulted Collins' commentary on Daniel and my outline does not vary in significant ways from what he has for the evolution of the Semitic form of the book. Collins (n. 3), p. 38.

51 W. L. Humphreys, "A Lifestyle for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel", JBL 92 (1973), pp. 211-223; J. J. CoUins, "The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic", JBL 94 (1975), pp. 218-234; Moore (n. 24), p. 29.

52 See Flint (n. 25), pp. 329-367. 53 Wills (n. 6), pp. 144-152.

THE OLD GREEK TRANSLATION OF DANIEL TV-VI 3 1 9

different translator from the rest of the book, which I have confirmed in previous publications as well as in the present article.54 Thus, the best witness for the Vorlage of the original collection of tales is the OG.

3. The addition of chapters ii-iii. In all likelihood the next stage of the collection was the addition of a form of chapters ii-iii. Chapter ii did not include ii 13-23(24), 29-30, (40)41-43, 47, 4955 at this stage and chapter iii did not have the additions.

4. A Maccabean collection of chapters (i)ii-vi(vii). The most disagreement about the early formation of Daniel would revolve around this stage. C. C. Torrey was one of the first to conceive and argue for an Aramaic collection of ii-vi and propose that chapter vir was intentionally written in Aramaic in order to connect the visions with the tales.56 Thus, a couple of stages in the chronological development may be combined here, but most scholars who have analyzed these chapters would agree that at least the core of chapter vii (without the references to the horns and their interpretations) was added to ii-vi before any of the other visions. An early version of chapter i may have been created in this period as an introduction to the collection, but the final version derives from the final redaction of the book.57

Whether it was just before or soon after the persecution by Antiochus, the addition of the core of chapter vii with the vision of four kingdoms was accompanied by the redaction of chapter ii to include the reference to the fourth kingdom, but without any references to "the toes" (w. 41, 42).58

5. An Egyptian collection of chapters (i)ii-vi(vii). Given the fact it seems most likely that chapters viii-xii and the final introduction were added to the core collection within a fairly short period of

54 See above discussion, n. 12-17, and n. 44. 55 For detailed source critical studies on the development of Daniel, see David

(n. 26), pp. 103-139; R. G. Kratz, Translation impeni: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Daniekrzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991), esp. pp. 48-70 for ch. ii.

56 C. C. Torrey, "Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel", in Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 15 (1909), p. 250.

57 This is similar to the basic position of Munnich (n. 3), pp. 301-302; Collins (n. 4), p. 38. Reading the first chapter of Daniel it is difficult to ignore the sense that some expressions would have worked better in Aramaic.

58 Kratz (η. 55), p. 71; David (n. 26), p. 132; see the pioneering work on the four kingdoms of Daniel in H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (New York, NY, 1948), pp. 5-20.


perhaps three years, the best way to account for the separate literary

editions of Daniel is to assume a fairly major intervention that caused

a separate development. The Maccabean crisis provides such an inter

vention and it fits the broad scholarly consensus about the develop

ment of the book. Prior to or during the Maccabean crisis a version

of Daniel (i)ii-vi(vii) ended up in Alexandria. (If any part of chapter

vir was not part of this original collection it would not significantly

affect the overall argument.) Since the collection of chapters iv-vi had

circulated independently for many decades it had already been trans

lated into Greek. There may have been a preliminary translation of

ii and iii as well, but given the process of revision and the effects of

textual corruption it is difficult to determine an answer to this ques

tion. Though I discuss the nature of the OG translation and its rela

tionship to the Theodotion version in chapters iv-vi and the rest of

the book in other articles,59 for the time being it only needs to be

noted that a translation of the rest of the core collection was made in

Egypt sometime after 167 BCE so that there was a Greek version of

chapters (i)ii-vi(vii).

6. The final redaction of proto-MT. The original Semitic version

underwent extensive redaction after the desecration of the temple by

Antiochus. Following the addition of chapter viri to the core collec

tion, chapters x-xii were added along with interpolations in chapter ii

("the toes") and vii (the "horns") with their accompanying interpreta

tions.60 Chapter ix was probably the last of the visions to be written.

An introduction was either written at this point or the initial one was

translated into Hebrew and revised to emphasize the role of the mas-

kilim who were the final redactors (compare i 4, 17 with xi 33; xii 3).

The maskilim are also responsible for additions to chapter ii 13-23, 27-

29, 47, 49 and throughout chapters iv-vi where Daniel's role as an

inspired interpreter are pronounced.61

7. Redaction of the Egyptian collection of chapters (i)ii-vi(vii).

Separated from the extensive redaction going on to the proto-MT, the

core collection underwent some redaction in Egypt. The main initia

tive was that The Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three

5 9 See n. 19. 6 0 Kratz (η. 55), pp. 72-73; Ginsberg (n. 58), pp. 5-20; David (n. 26), pp. 105-139. 61 Wooden (n. 49), pp. 197-199; 204-221; 248-251; esp. pp. 268-270.

THE OLD GREEK TRANSLATION OF DANIEL TV-VI 3 2 1

Young Men was inserted into chapter iii.62 There would have been

some other development within the version as well, but it is difficult

to isolate. A corollary to the insertion of the addition to chapter iii

may have been that Nebuchadnezzar's lengthy confession and epistle

were probably moved to the conclusion of chapter iv in order to sep

arate it from the hymns. It was most likely in this setting that Susanna,

and Bel and the Snake became attached more or less permanently to

the Greek version of the book, but there must have been a long asso

ciation with the core collection because the versions of these Daniel

stories are quite different in Theodotion.

8. The Egyptian (OG) version gets reacquainted with the proto-

MT. At some later point the OG version added a translation of viii-

xii to the core translation of (i)ii-vi(vii) and engaged in some revision

of chapters i, ii, and vii, which had undergone changes in the Semitic

version. For example, 967 has no references to the "toes" in ii 40-42.

The OG of the core collection had already established itself as an

independent version, which explains why chapters iv-vi remained sub

stantially different. The so-called additions remained as an integral part

of this tradition. Thus, Ulrich's view that the OG and MT are two

literary editions of Daniel that have undergone separate redaction from

a common Vorlage is sound, but not that the OG was a uniform trans

lation. It should also be pointed out that the earlier argument against

Munnich's reconstruction of OG iv 2-7 does not have to have any

bearing on the reconstruction offered here. Obviously, the Vorlage of

what became the OG could have been as Munnich argues where the

Maccabean editor redacted the proto-MT. However, Munnich's argu

ment for a direct development literary from the Vorlage of the OG to

the MT in this passage cannot be grounded in the texts.

6 2 I have already demonstrated (McLay [n. 4], pp. 100-103; 146-147) that there is clear evidence that a later redactor inserted these hymns into chapter three. The main reasons are two. First, a comparison of the difficult texts in ii 5 and iii 29(96), which are almost identical in the MT, reveals that the OG translator was completely guessing in ii 5. However, in iii 96(29) the translator knew one part of the text and translated it correctly with διαμερισθήσεται (reading with 967!) he will be cut up\, while he seems to have used the translation of the second part of the verse in ii 5 as a guide for his rendition "and his possessions confiscated". Though both translations could be guesses it would have to be quite a coincidence. Second, in addition to the dependence of iii 96(29) upon ii 5, I have isolated six other redactive elements in iii 20-97(30) where the hymns were inserted.


9. The so-called Theodotion version. Given the fact that the proto-MT had undergone extensive and separate redaction in Palestine apart from the Vorlage preserved in the OG, eventually a separate translation enterprise was undertaken in the same region. As Di Leila notes, this translation must have been prior to the common era.63 However, the forces that eventually created the MT could not have been too much at work, at least in the case of Daniel, because the Greek additions were retained in this new version. Susanna and Bel and the Snake must have had strong roots with the Daniel collection because they were part of the translation enterprise. The Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Young Men is almost verbatim when one compares the two Greek translations, so it would seem that the new translator adopted that version from the OG.

10. The transmission process. During the course of the transmission process there was some scribal editing of all the versions and textual corruption of the Greek versions because they were now both accessible. The OG suffered the most from this process due to the dominance of the MT and the fact that the Theodotion version was based on a similar Vorlage. In the end, 967 is the sole surviving pre-hexaplaric witness to the OG, but along the way chapters vii-viii were inserted after chapter iv by a well-meaning scribe to fix the chronology. The issue of the relationship between the two Greek versions can only be mentioned here, but I have made the case that the Theodotion version is basically an independent translation.64 The issue is complicated because OG and Th do not reflect the same relationship consistently throughout the book. But, as a summary of what is available in other publications the relationship between the OG and Th is described below.

The Greek versions of chapters iv-vi are quite distinct compared to the remainder of the book and it is unlikely that any scholar would contest that view. Furthermore, a comparison of chapters i-iii in the

63 A. A. Di Leila, "The Textual History of Greek Daniel", in J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (VTSup 83; Leiden, 2002), Vol. 2, p. 596; McLay (n. 4), p. 240.

64 McLay (n. 4). See also "It's a Question of Influence: The Theodotion and Old Greek Texts of Daniel", in A. Salvesen (ed.), Orìgen's Hexapla and Fragments: Papers presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, 25th July-3rd August 1994 (TSAJ 58; Tübingen, 1998), pp. 231-254. For chs. i-vi, see my most recent articles mentioned in n. 19.


Greek versions reveals that the vast majority of these chapters exhibit relatively minor points of agreement. It is only in chapters vii-xii that one generally finds the common agreements between the two Greek versions to run around 50% and portions, particularly in viri 5-x 21 and other isolated verses, where the agreement is considerably stronger. Some of the places where there is agreement are due to textual corruption, which can be demonstrated. As I have previously noted, "where OG exhibits a marked agreement with Th and formal equivalence to MT . . . we have every reason to suspect that Th readings have corrupted the OG".65 These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that has been given in this paper to explain the origins of Daniel and the OG version. Generally, there is very little relationship between the two Greek versions in chapters i-vi(vii), because their origins are chronologically and geographically distinct and their core translations were based on different Vorlagen. In chapters iv-vi, in particular, I have clearly demonstrated that the reason for common readings between the OG and Th is the pervasive corruption of the OG with Th readings. Chapters (vii)viii-xii are based on very similar Vorlagen and were translated much closer in time. Thus, for portions of chapters vii-xii the common agreements between the two Greek versions are what would be expected from two independent translators working on the same text when one allows for the textual corruption that occurred during the transmission process. However, there are also portions of the Greek versions in these chapters where the verbal agreements between the texts are so strong that based on the available textual evidence it would appear that one is a revision of the other.

Abstract

The content of the Old Greek translation of Daniel iv-vi is significantly different compared to the so-called Theodotion version and the Masoretic Text. In addition, the best witness to the Old Greek version (papyrus 967) has an alternative order for the chapters: chapters vii and viii intervene between iv and v. The proposals by J. Lust and O. Munnich that 967 preserves a more original version of the content and order of the chapters for the Vorlage of Daniel are critiqued. Additional linguistic evidence that supports the theory that the Old Greek translation of chapters iv-vi circulated together independently is also provided. Finally, a hypothesis for the growth and stages of the book of Daniel that includes an explanation for the origins of the Greek versions is outlined.

McLay (n. 4), p. 217.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Documents

The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 4-6