CHAPTER 15 Enhanced and Revised: The Old Greek Edition of the Book of Daniel* Martin Rösel 1 What is Truth? The churches of our Lord and Saviour do not read the Prophet Daniel according to the Seventy interpreters (interpretes), using instead the edi- tion of Theodotion, and I don’t know why this happened. For whether because the language is Chaldean and differs in certain properties from our speech, or the Seventy interpreters were not willing to keep the same lines in the translation, or the book was edited under their name by some unknown other who did not sufficiently know the Chaldean language, or not knowing anything else which was the cause, I can affirm this one thing that it often differs from the truth (veritas) and with proper judg- ment is rejected.1 Scholars often refer to this testimony from Jerome’s preface to his Latin translation of the Book of Daniel when they are discussing the relationship between the OG of Daniel and the version of Pseudo-Theodotion. Obviously, Theodotion has replaced its predecessor nearly entirely, because it is much closer to the Hebrew and Aramaic version of the Masoretic book of Daniel as we have it today. Therefore, the notion that the OG differs from the “veritas” has often been understood as “veritas hebraica” in contrast to Theodotion. However, the situation is more complicated. The version of Theodotion also differs considerably from the Hebrew and Aramaic text, because like the OG * The title of this paper alludes to another piece on the OG of Daniel, which has been pre- sented in Stellenbosch in 2011 on the invitation of Johann Cook (cf. n. 17). It seems appropri- ate to dedicate Johann a kind of enhancement of the topic I have chosen at that time. 1 This translation is adapted from Kevin P. Edgecomb (2006): http://www.tertullian.org/ fathers/jerome_preface_daniel.htm; 30.10.2015; cf. the similar statement in Jerome’s com- mentary on Dan 4:6, cited in the latest commentary on Daniel by Carol A. Newsom (with Brennan W. Breed), Daniel: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 4; here only one reason for the rejection of the book is given: it is not in agreement with the Hebrew as Theodotion is. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/97890043�5��7_0�6 280 Rösel it has the expansions of the book in ch. 3 and chs. 13–14 according to the tra- ditional counting (the “Prayer of Azariah,” the “Song of the Three Jews” and the story of “Susanna” (ch. 13 or prior to ch. 1) and the narrations about “Bel and the Dragon”2); a fact, Jerome knew and commented upon in the follow- ing passage of his preface. Thus, “differing from the truth” must mean more than merely having a different Vorlage. This leads to the crucial question of my paper: What can be said about the overall impression which the Greek book of Daniel has made on its readers? How did its meaning differ from the Hebrew and Aramaic, so that a new translation, Theodotion, became necessary? I should add that at the current state of research it is not possible to attri- bute the differences between the Hebrew and Aramaic text and the Greek ver- sions and those among the Greek version either to a deviating Vorlage or to the hermeneutical activity of the translators. Obviously, both explanations have their merits in different passages of the book. For the purpose of this paper, it is therefore appropriate to discuss the perspective of the history of reception: How was the book read and understood? Only in a second step one can guess when and why the meaning has been changed. I understand this approach as part of a larger project of describing aspects of a “Theology of the Septuagint.”3 Elements of a specific theology or ideol- ogy of the Greek translations can be detected in the differences between the presumed Vorlage of a translation and the result of the translation itself.4 In the case of Daniel, the situation is different from other books, because here we have not only those differences I just mentioned, but also those between the OG and Theodotion, which can hint at theological re-adjustments. Therefore, my 2 As a recent introduction into these problems, cf. R. Timothy McLay, “Daniel (Old Greek and Theodotion),” in The T & T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. James K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury Companions, 2013), 544–54, and Lawrence Lahey, “The Additions to Daniel,” in The T & T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. James K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury Companions, 2013), 555–67. There is no explanation why in a handbook on the LXX there are separate articles on Daniel and the additions; this distinction only makes sense in the perspective of the Hebrew Bible. Cf. also O. Munnich, “Texte Massorétique et Septante dans le Livre de Daniel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible (ed. Adrian Schenker; SBLSCS 52; Atlanta: SBL, 2003,) 93–120. 3 For a broader methodological discussion I have to refer interested readers to Martin Rösel, “Towards a ‘Theology of the Septuagint,’ ” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 239–52. 4 Johann Cook, “Towards the Formulation of a Theology of the Septuagint,” in Congress Volume: Ljubljana 2007 (ed. André Lemaire; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 621–40, here 622..