The book of Daniel, chapters I-IV : text, versions and the problems of exegesis

Abstract

The current study deals basically with the stories of Daniel and with two chapters in the history of Jewish interpretation, the Septuagint, and selected medieval exegesis. Before considering the Old Greek version and the rabbis' work it seemed necessary to investigate and review certain basic problems in the Massoretic Text of Daniel (Section I). Section I was broken down into three chapters concerning philological (I), literary (II), and theological problems in the first part of Daniel (III). Little new ground was broken in the investigation of many of these areas such as the date of the Aramaic, the use of the verbal tenses, the unity and bilinguality of the work, but a review of the options taken in the past has been helpful to an overview of the Massoretic Text of Daniel I-VI. See the preface for further details. New ground was broken in certain smaller areas such as the use of the Kethibh and Qere in the Aramaic portion of the book, the uses of the preposition 1, and the construct state and its circumlocution. The third chapter of Section I concerns the general theological affirmations of Daniel as a book as well as specific ones of the first six chapters. The fourth chapter concerns the Septuagint. The procedure has been to investigate the three witnesses to the. LXX text (967, 88, Syh) and to give a critical apparatus to these three including all the parts of 967 published to date. In chapters IV-VI of the Greek a minute comparison is made with the Massoretic Text. The final chapter, quite simply, concerns the exegesis of selected passages in Daniel I-VI by three medieval rabbis. The three are Rashi and Ibn Ezra, perhaps the two most famous medieval rabbinic exegetes, and Ibn Yachya, an Italian rabbi of the sixteenth century. The Hebrew comments of these scholars are translated into English and commented on by the present author. While this study makes few new departures in major critical issues it is hoped that the historical survey of problems is helpful, and that in certain areas a small contribution to Daniel studies has been provided.