Septuagint question

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Post Reply
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Septuagint question

Post by lsayre »

Does the Book of Daniel appear in the earliest known copies of the Septuagint?
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Septuagint question

Post by DCHindley »

lsayre wrote:Does the Book of Daniel appear in the earliest known copies of the Septuagint?
Yes,

There are two, maybe three, Greek translations of Daniel floating around. If one goes online or in their Bible Study program (like BibleWorks or Logos) they will be distinguished. Those who created the great critical editions of the Greek translations of Judean scriptures know of one they call old Greek (200 BCE?), another one they believe was translated by Theodotion (this is the version found in most Christian codices of the entire OT & NT together, although Theodotion is not believed to have been a Christian). The others are just fragments. The old Greek is generally considered more idiomatic (flows better) than Theodotion, which is more "literal" (tried to follow the Hebrew/Aramaic word for word, sometimes sacrificing readability because Greek isn't a Semitic language), probably because Christians found it easier to manipulate into prophecies of Christ.

Here is the first verse of Daniel 1 in both the Old Greek and the version of Theodotion:

LXT Daniel 1:1 ἐπὶ βασιλέως Ιωακιμ τῆς Ιουδαίας ἔτους τρίτου παραγενόμενος Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος εἰς Ιερουσαλημ ἐπολιόρκει αὐτήν
--- Daniel (TH) 1:1 ἐν ἔτει τρίτῳ τῆς βασιλείας Ιωακιμ βασιλέως Ιουδα ἦλθεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος εἰς Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἐπολιόρκει αὐτήν

I know that is so much gobbledygook to those who cannot read Greek letters, but you'll see the two versions ofter used the same words but placed them in different orders and used different inflections and verbal forms, etc.

Get into something like Daniel 9, and the differences are striking.

BGT Daniel 9:24 ἑβδομήκοντα ἑβδομάδες ἐκρίθησαν ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν σου καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν Σιων συντελεσθῆναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὰς ἀδικίας σπανίσαι καὶ ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀδικίας καὶ διανοηθῆναι τὸ ὅραμα καὶ δοθῆναι δικαιοσύνην αἰώνιον καὶ συντελεσθῆναι τὸ ὅραμα καὶ εὐφρᾶναι ἅγιον ἁγίων
--- Daniel (TH) 9:24 ἑβδομήκοντα ἑβδομάδες συνετμήθησαν ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν σου καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν σου τοῦ συντελεσθῆναι ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τοῦ σφραγίσαι ἁμαρτίας καὶ ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀνομίας καὶ τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι ἀδικίας καὶ τοῦ ἀγαγεῖν δικαιοσύνην αἰώνιον καὶ τοῦ σφραγίσαι ὅρασιν καὶ προφήτην καὶ τοῦ χρῖσαι ἅγιον ἁγίων
WTT Daniel 9:24
שׁבעים שׁבעים נחתך על־עמך ועל־עיר קדשׁך לכלא הפשׁע )ולחתם] (ולהתם) [חטאות] (חטאת[ ולכפר עון ולהביא צדק עלמים ולחתם חזון ונביא ולמשׁח קדשׁ קדשׁים׃

I don't read Hebrew myself, but it is there for comparison in case you can do so.

DCH
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Septuagint question

Post by lsayre »

Would this confirm an earlier date of composition than 167 BC for the Book of Daniel?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Septuagint question

Post by andrewcriddle »

lsayre wrote:Would this confirm an earlier date of composition than 167 BC for the Book of Daniel?
No.

The Septuagint of the Pentateuch dates from the 3rd century BCE but the translation of the other books into Greek is later maybe much later.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Septuagint question

Post by DCHindley »

andrewcriddle wrote:
lsayre wrote:Would this confirm an earlier date of composition than 167 BC for the Book of Daniel?
No.

The Septuagint of the Pentateuch dates from the 3rd century BCE but the translation of the other books into Greek is later maybe much later.
Andrew is right, as usual. However, 2nd century BCE = 101-200 BCE. I think that the earliest might be 164 BCE, at least for Daniel 9:24ff.

Among the DSS there were fragments of Daniel-like books, including one that resembled Daniel 4:15ff with the exception that it got the protagonist correct, unlike Daniel. Off the top of my head I believe they have been paleographically dated in the 1st century BCE (1-100 BCE).

Critics have been long stumped for an explanation how Daniel said that it was Nebuchadnezzar whose "dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field." However, historically, it was king Nabonidus, son of Nebuchadnezzar, who retired from public life for several years with a malady much like described in Daniel 4. During the period of his disability, Belshazzar acted as his regent.

We have parts of regular Daniel (as we know it), which gets the story wrong, along with fragments of a similar, but more historically accurate, story about a Babylonian king who has "health" problems. The inaccurate story gets in the bible.

I suppose that if God said it then we should believe it and that would settle it, unless you are me, who doesn't believe the biblical story much less that God him/herself said it. And yes, the key parts of ch 9 are very fragmented, so of course we can believe that those parts of Daniel copied among the DSS folks got the story right (that is, attributed the story to Nabonidus, while the book as it has been preserved somehow became corrupted, because we can still believe the autograph was inerrant ... :scratch:

[/babble off]

Here are the DSS fragments of Daniel and some notes I made a number of years ago:

Name
Contents
Date Copied
1QDana (1Q71) Dan 1:10-17; 2:2-4, 4-6. Language shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic, and omits the phrase ‘in Aramaic’ at 2:4. 50–68 A.D.
1QDanb (1Q72) Dan 3:22-30. Aramaic. Four fragments on vellum. The “Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Men,” between vss 23 and 91 in Lxx or 33 & 34 in RSV, is not present in this fragment, but would fall after it. 50–68 A.D. or earlier
4QDana (4Q112) Dan 1:16–2:33; 4:29-30; 5:5-7; 7:25-30; 8:1-5; 10:16-20; 11:13-16. Note that portions of these verses are incomplete. Language shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic at 2:4. Language shifts from Aramaic back to Hebrew at 8:1. The manuscript has a blank line between the end the Aramaic section and beginning of the Hebrew. 50 B.C.
4QDanb (4Q113) Dan 5:10–12, 14–16, 19–22; 6:8–22, 27–29; 7:1–6, 26–28; 8:1–8, 13–16. Confirms the shift of language from Aramaic to Hebrew. 50–68 A.D.
4QDanc (4Q114) Dan 10:5–9, 11–16, 21; 11:1–2, 13–17, 25–29. Hebrew. The oldest known text of Daniel. Late 2nd century B.C.
4QDand (4Q115) Dan 3:23–25; 4:5?–9; 4:12–14. Aramaic. Fragments, the largest of which contains five partial lines in severe decay.
4QDane (4Q116) Dan. 9:12–14?, 15–16?, 17? … Hebrew. Five tiny fragments from chapter nine.
6QDana aka 6QpapDan (6Q7) Dan 8:16, 17, 20, 21; 10:8–16, 11:33–36, 38. Hebrew. This cave contained papyrus manuscripts rather than leather parchment. 50–68 A.D.

MT Dan 3:31-4:24 (RSV 4:1-4:27): Nothing is known of Nebuchadnezzar being waylaid for 7 years in any manner. However, this -was- the case with Nabonidus for a period of 10 years. In the DSS, there is a fragment usually entitled “The Prayer of Nabonidus” (4Q242) that may have served as the base for the story told in Daniel ...
"The words of the prayer of Nabunai king of the l[and of Ba]bylon, [the great] king, [when he was afflicted] with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the [Most High God]. “I was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years ... and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from [among the children of the exile of Judah, and he said], ‘Recount this in writing to [glorify and exalt] the name of the [Most High God.’ And I wrote this]: ‘I was afflicted with an [evil] ulcer in Teiman [by decree of the Most High God]. For seven years prayed to the gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron], wood and stone and clay, because that they were gods...' "


The translation of the DSS fragment, I think, is that of Florentino Garcia Martinez.

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Septuagint question

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote:In the DSS, there is a fragment usually entitled “The Prayer of Nabonidus” (4Q242) that may have served as the base for the story told in Daniel ...
"The words of the prayer of Nabunai king of the l[and of Ba]bylon, [the great] king, [when he was afflicted] with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the [Most High God]. “I was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years ... and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from [among the children of the exile of Judah, and he said], ‘Recount this in writing to [glorify and exalt] the name of the [Most High God.’ And I wrote this]: ‘I was afflicted with an [evil] ulcer in Teiman [by decree of the Most High God]. For seven years prayed to the gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron], wood and stone and clay, because that they were gods...' "


The translation of the DSS fragment, I think, is that of Florentino Garcia Martinez.


Hmmm. This is what Martínez has for 4Q242 in his Study Edition:


1 Words of the pr[ay]er which Nabonidus, king of [the] la[nd of Baby]lon, the [great] king, prayed [when he was afflicted] 2 by a malignant inflammation, by decree of the G[od Most Hi]gh, in Teiman. [I, Nabonidus,] was afflicted [by a malignant inflammation] 3 for seven years, and was banished far [from men, until I prayed to the God Most High] 4 and an exorcist forgave my sin. He was a Je[w] fr[om the exiles, who said to me:] 5 «Make a proclamation in writing, so that glory, exal[tation and hono]ur be given to the name of [the] G[od Most High». And I wrote as follows: «When] 6 I was afflicted by a ma[lignant] inflammation […] in Teiman, [by decree of the God Most High,] 7 prayed for seven years [to all] the gods of silver and gold, [of bronze and iron,] 8 of wood, of stone and of clay, because ht that t[hey were] gods [...]

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Septuagint question

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
DCHindley wrote:The translation of the DSS fragment, I think, is that of Florentino Garcia Martinez.
Hmmm. This is what Martínez has for 4Q242 in his Study Edition:

1 Words of the pr[ay]er which Nabonidus, king of [the] la[nd of Baby]lon, the [great] king, prayed [when he was afflicted] 2 by a malignant inflammation, by decree of the G[od Most Hi]gh, in Teiman. [I, Nabonidus,] was afflicted [by a malignant inflammation] 3 for seven years, and was banished far [from men, until I prayed to the God Most High] 4 and an exorcist forgave my sin. He was a Je[w] fr[om the exiles, who said to me:] 5 «Make a proclamation in writing, so that glory, exal[tation and hono]ur be given to the name of [the] G[od Most High». And I wrote as follows: «When] 6 I was afflicted by a ma[lignant] inflammation […] in Teiman, [by decree of the God Most High,] 7 prayed for seven years [to all] the gods of silver and gold, [of bronze and iron,] 8 of wood, of stone and of clay, because ht that t[hey were] gods [...]



Ahh, it was apparently Geza Vermes, /The Complete DSS in English/. The revised edition came out in 2004, but that peculiar translation may go back to the 1st edition in the mid 1990s (I can't locate my copy to see which edition I used).

DCH
Kris
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Re: Septuagint question

Post by Kris »

A few years back, I had questions about Daniel. I contacted John Collins from Yale, who is considered one of the experts on the topic. I asked about the oldest DSS that contain Daniel and when they were estimated to have been written. This was his response:

Kristine,

I can assure you that there is no manuscript of Daniel earlier than 125. All the dates should be taken with a grain of salt -- they are based on the hand-writing -- but 4QDan c is relatively early. Eugene Ulrich is the ultimate authority on this particular question.

John



On 5/14/14 6:00 PM, Maxwell, Kristine wrote:
Hello Mr. Collins,

I am really hoping you could help me with a quick question. I am trying to research the proper dates of the manuscripts of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have been looking all over the internet, and have come up with very conflicting information. I noticed that you have been identified as being one of the foremost experts regarding the Book Daniel, so I thought I would ask you, as I am sure you have researched this thoroughly. From what I can tell, the oldest manuscripts appear to be 4QDanc, dating around 125 bc. I have also read that 4QDane was dated in the first half of the second century (200-150bc) but then again, this same source also said that this was likely to be a misprint and this manuscript should actually be dated to the late second half of the second century (also around 125bc?) Are there any older manuscripts.

I ask this because I am firm in the belief that many of the prophecies in Daniel are referring to The Maccabean times. It is certainly possible that Daniel was a book prior 165bc and redactions and additions occurred at around this time to make it appear as if the text was talking to those Jews living during this time frame. I suspect that this is what happened. However, things get cloudy for me when I read things on the web stating that the DSS scrolls date too early for this to be a possibility, or some who assert that Daniel was part of the Septuagint so it had to be completed before 150bc. I think Daniel was a later addition to the Septuagint, however, and that argument is incorrect. I suspect is was added sometime around 100bc. or so.

Am I on track with all of this? I tried to take a look at your books online to see if they addressed any of this information, and would be happy to buy one if you could share which one would have information on the questions I have posed above. I would like to just clear up some of my confusion, and the web is a very dangerous place to do this due to the plethora of misinformation.

Thanks so much for your time!

Kristine Maxwell

I had also contacted Eugene Ulrich, also an expert on Daniel and early writings who answered a few questions for me as well. (Professor Collins recommended I email him). Here is what he had to say:

Good morning, Ms. Maxwell,

Thanks for you interest in the Daniel scrolls. The official, definitive edition and info are in DISCOVERIES IN THE JUDAEAN DESERT (DJD), vol. 16 (Oxford U. Press, 2000). A reliable popular resource is THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS BIBLE by M. Abegg, P. Flint, and E. Ulrich (HarperSanFrancisco, 1999). I am the one who wrote the editions of the Daniel manuscripts in DJD 16.

The intro to the 4QDan-c edition in DJD 16, p. 270 states: "inscribed in an early semicursive script BCE, no more than about a half century younger than the autograph, c.168-165 BCE of that book...."

The intro to the 4QDan-e edition, p.287 says: "a large semi-cursive script dated to the early Hasmonaean period, i.e., not far from the beginning of the first century BCE."

Thus, I think you are correct in your understanding; most scholars think:

There was an early collection of the Daniel cycle (chapters 2-6) already in the Hellenistic (and may be Persian) period.
To these chapters were added in 166-165 chapters 1 and 7-12 as a result of Antiochus IV's desecration of the temple in 167 (chapters 13-14 in the Greek texts were combined later).
The book does not seem to know, however, about the Maccabean victory and cleansing of the temple in 165, so was completed before 165.

Thus, 4QDan-c is the oldest manuscript, ca. 125 BCE, copied about a half century after the full book of chapters 1-12 was completed.

4QDan-e is almost as old, ca. 100. (But this manuscript contains only text from the prayer in chapter 9 and is probably a short personal text with ONLY that prayer, which may have circulated as an separate prayer before its incorporation into the book of Daniel, or may be simply an excerpt taken from the book of Daniel; it's impossible to tell.)

Whoever said "4QDane was dated in the first half of the second century (200-150bc)" is simply mistaken.

Regarding the Septuagint, the Pentateuch was probably translated around 280-250 BCE, but other books were translated later, but we have no specific information about the dates of the other books. The date of the Septuagint of Daniel is simply unknown. but I agree with you that it would have been roughly around 100.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,

Eugene Ulrich


________________________________________
From: Maxwell, Kristine [kmaxwell@sjgov.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:41 PM
To: Eugene Ulrich
Subject: Dating the DSS of Daniel

Hello Mr. Ulrich,

I am really hoping you could help me with a quick question. I am trying to research the proper dates of the manuscripts of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have been looking all over the internet, and have come up with very conflicting information. I noticed that you have been identified as being one of the foremost experts regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, so I thought I would ask you, as I am sure you have researched this thoroughly. >From what I can tell, the oldest manuscripts appear to be 4QDanc, dating around 125 bc. I have also read that 4QDane was dated in the first half of the second century (200-150bc) but then again, this same source also said that this was likely to be a misprint and this manuscript should actually be dated to the late second half of the second century (also around 125bc?) Are there any older manuscripts?

I ask this because I am firm in the belief that many of the prophecies in Daniel are referring to The Maccabean times. It is certainly possible that Daniel was a book prior 165bc and redactions and additions occurred at around this time to make it appear as if the text was talking to those Jews living during this time frame. I suspect that this is what happened. However, things get cloudy for me when I read things on the web stating that the DSS scrolls date too early for this to be a possibility, or some who assert that Daniel was part of the Septuagint so it had to be completed before 150bc. I think Daniel was a later addition to the Septuagint, however, and that argument is incorrect. I suspect is was added sometime around 100bc. or so.

Am I on track with all of this? I would appreciate any information dating you would be willing to provide.


Thanks so much for your time!

Kristine Maxwell

Both agree with D. H. and Andrew. Even thought Daniel may have been one of the books of the OT, is was a "new" book at that time, yet a highly popular one because it spoke of the end times. It is not inconceivable that a number of copies were made between 176-125bce when we have our earliest writing. It is also reasonable to assume that the Essenes valued this book highly and that is why they had several copies. But it does not mean that the prophetic parts were written before 176 bc as some would like to believe.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Septuagint question

Post by austendw »

Kris wrote:Even thought Daniel may have been one of the books of the OT, is was a "new" book at that time.
While the book of Daniel appears undifferentiated in the Christian Old Testament, nestled in amongst the other prophetic books, in the Hebrew Tanach it is not one of the books of the second tier (Nevi'im - "prophets") but in the third tier (Ketuvim - "writings"). This may reflect a consciousness of its relative "modernity".
Call me Ishmael...
Post Reply