Why Daniel Requires Careful Textual Comparison

The book of Daniel presents an unusual problem in the history of the Greek Old Testament. An early Greek translation of Daniel existed, but the form commonly copied in Christian biblical manuscripts was the Greek version associated with Theodotion. The two forms are related to the same biblical book, yet they cannot be treated as interchangeable copies of one translation. The earlier form, generally called the Old Greek, sometimes renders or arranges material differently from the Hebrew and Aramaic text preserved in the Masoretic tradition. Theodotion’s form follows that Semitic text more closely in many passages. Origen’s Hexapla placed both Greek forms beside a Hebrew text, allowing readers to see differences that an isolated Greek manuscript could conceal. That comparison made the Hexapla important for studying Daniel’s transmission. Its value must nevertheless be defined precisely: a Greek rendering can clarify how a passage was translated or revised, but it does not automatically establish that the Hebrew or Aramaic wording should be changed. Daniel’s textual restoration therefore requires separate judgments about the Semitic text, the Old Greek translation, and the later Greek form.

The distinction matters because Daniel itself uses two Semitic languages. Daniel 1:1–2:4a is in Hebrew, Daniel 2:4b–7:28 is in Aramaic, and Daniel 8:1–12:13 returns to Hebrew. The change occurs where the Chaldeans address Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:4, so a comparison of Greek Daniel with its base text must account for the language underlying each passage. A Greek expression in Daniel 6, for example, is evidence about how an Aramaic expression was rendered; a Greek expression in Daniel 9 must be assessed against Hebrew. The Masoretic Text, represented in standard editions such as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, supplies the starting text for both portions. Its medieval manuscripts are later than the original composition, but their date alone does not make a different Greek reading superior. Translation choices, revisions, and copying changes can all produce Greek wording that departs from the received Semitic text. The proper question at each point is whether that departure indicates a different Hebrew or Aramaic exemplar, an interpretation by a translator, or a later alteration of the Greek. Without that distinction, an editor could mistake a change in translation for a change in Scripture.

The Six Columns and Their Purpose

Origen prepared the Hexapla in the third century CE as a large comparison of biblical texts arranged in parallel columns. Its usual six-column arrangement began with Hebrew written in Hebrew characters, followed by a rendering of Hebrew sounds in Greek characters. The next columns contained the Greek versions of Aquila and Symmachus, then the Greek text Origen was comparing with the Hebrew, and finally the version associated with Theodotion. The second column was a transliteration, not an additional Greek translation of the passage’s meaning. Aquila’s version was notably close to the form of the Hebrew words, while Symmachus generally expressed their sense in more idiomatic Greek. The fifth column gave Origen a place to display the received Greek text and mark its differences from the Hebrew before him. Theodotion’s column supplied another Greek rendering that could be inspected alongside both. A reader examining Daniel could consequently compare a Greek phrase with its Semitic counterpart and ask whether two Greek versions differed because of their methods of translation. The arrangement exposed evidence for study; it did not make agreement between columns proof that every column preserved the same stage of the text.

Origen also used critical signs in the Greek text he edited for comparison. An asterisk marked material supplied where the Greek text lacked wording corresponding to the Hebrew column, commonly with help from another Greek version. An obelus marked Greek material for which the Hebrew column offered no counterpart. These signs told the reader that a word’s presence in the edited Greek line required explanation. Suppose an Old Greek passage was shorter than the Hebrew passage beside it and Origen supplied a corresponding Greek clause under an asterisk. A later copyist might reproduce the clause but omit the sign, leaving a reader unable to see that it had been supplied during comparison. Conversely, wording marked with an obelus might remain in a Greek copy even though Origen had identified its absence from the Hebrew before him. This possibility is especially significant in Daniel, where the dominant Christian Greek form already stood comparatively close to the Semitic text. A Greek reading’s close agreement with the Masoretic Text may reflect an early translation, a revision toward Hebrew or Aramaic, or a marked addition subsequently copied without its sign. The textual scholar must determine which explanation fits the particular passage and witnesses.

The Old Greek and the Theodotionic Form

The Old Greek Daniel is the earlier recoverable Greek translation of the book. It deserves attention because it records how a Jewish translator rendered Daniel before the version associated with Theodotion became dominant in Christian copying. Its Greek can be freer than Theodotion’s, particularly where difficult narrative or visionary language required decisions about sense and expression. Freedom of expression does not itself show that the translator possessed a different Semitic text. A translator may clarify an implied subject, choose a familiar Greek construction, or express an Aramaic idiom without reproducing its word order. At other points, a substantial difference may raise a genuine question about the wording of the translator’s exemplar. Daniel 7:13–14 illustrates why care is necessary: its vision of one like a son of man coming before the Ancient of Days contains relationships among figures and actions that must first be established from the Aramaic context. A Greek rendering can illuminate how an ancient reader understood those relationships, but an interpretation expressed in Greek must not be silently substituted for Daniel’s Aramaic wording. The Old Greek is therefore an indispensable witness to the book’s early Greek history, with a more conditional role in correcting its Semitic text.

The Greek Daniel associated with Theodotion more often follows the Hebrew and Aramaic sequence and wording closely. This made it useful to Greek readers who wanted to compare Daniel with the Semitic text known in their communities. It also helps explain why Theodotion’s form became the customary Daniel in many Christian Greek manuscripts. The designation “Theodotionic” should not, however, imply that every feature of that form first arose with one reviser. Greek revisions toward a Hebrew text resembling the later Masoretic tradition were already developing before Theodotion’s work. Some readings associated with his version may belong to that earlier revisional activity, while others may reflect his own handling of a Greek text and its Semitic base. That history calls for judgment about each reading’s character rather than an assumption based on its label. In Daniel 2:31–45, for example, close correspondence in the sequence of the image, the stone, and Daniel’s interpretation helps a reader follow the Aramaic account. Such correspondence demonstrates the version’s usefulness, but its closeness alone cannot establish the date or origin of each Greek word.

Theodotion’s position in the sixth column made his version particularly visible in Origen’s comparison. Where the fifth-column Greek differed from the Hebrew, the sixth column might show a Greek rendering that tracked the Hebrew wording more directly. That contrast could identify a passage in which the Old Greek translator paraphrased an expression rather than omitted words from a different underlying text. It could also help an editor recognize a Greek clause inserted to bring a shorter Greek line into alignment with the Hebrew. Yet Theodotion’s agreement with Origen’s Hebrew does not make Theodotion an independent Hebrew manuscript. It is evidence from a Greek version whose revisional history must itself be examined. Nor does disagreement between Theodotion and the Old Greek prove that the earlier translator worked from different Hebrew or Aramaic wording. The older Greek may express the same sense less literally, while the later form may have been adjusted to mirror individual Semitic terms. The sixth column is most useful when it helps identify these alternatives and prompts a comparison with evidence beyond the two Greek renderings.

What the Hexapla Can Restore

Textual restoration has more than one possible object in Daniel. A scholar may seek the earliest recoverable Old Greek translation, the form of the Greek text edited in Origen’s fifth column, or the earliest attainable Hebrew and Aramaic wording of Daniel itself. Those goals require different uses of the Hexaplaric evidence. When the question concerns the Old Greek, an asterisked addition warns that the marked words were supplied during comparison rather than inherited without qualification from the earlier translation. An obelus warns that Greek wording lacked a counterpart in the Hebrew column Origen used, although that warning alone does not establish when the Greek wording arose. When the question concerns Origen’s edition, the critical marks are part of the evidence because they disclose how he presented a difference. When the question concerns Daniel’s Hebrew or Aramaic text, the Greek columns are secondary witnesses that must be weighed against the Semitic manuscript tradition. Keeping these objects distinct prevents an editor from “restoring” the Old Greek by inserting later Greek wording merely because it agrees with the Masoretic Text. It also prevents an editor from changing the Masoretic Text simply because an older Greek translation chose a different expression.

A responsible examination begins with the Hebrew or Aramaic passage in its immediate setting. Daniel 9:24–27, for instance, contains a sequence of periods, actions, and persons whose relationships govern interpretation. Before appealing to a Greek version, the reader must identify what the Hebrew clauses say and how their grammar connects them. The next step is to compare the Greek forms without assuming that one Greek term must correspond to one specific Hebrew term. A reviser might make an ambiguous relationship more explicit, or a translator might combine ideas that the Hebrew states separately. If the Greek difference can be explained by such a practice, it provides evidence for the history of interpretation without requiring a different Hebrew reading. A proposed change to the Hebrew becomes stronger only when early and independent evidence supports the same underlying wording and an ordinary copying process explains the received form. Where such support is lacking, the Masoretic reading should remain the base, and any uncertainty should be stated rather than concealed. This procedure protects both the accuracy of translation and the historical meaning of Daniel’s prophecy.

Daniel 5 offers a concrete example of the distinction between a textual detail and a translator’s treatment of it. The Hebrew and Aramaic account identifies Belshazzar’s nobles, wives, and concubines among those who drank from the vessels taken from Jerusalem’s temple, as Daniel 5:1–4 relates. A Greek witness that shortens a list of participants requires investigation, but a shorter list does not by itself prove that the Semitic exemplar lacked those people. The translator may have abbreviated the account, a Greek copyist may have omitted words, or an earlier Semitic reading may genuinely have differed. The surrounding narrative gives the detail its significance: Belshazzar’s court used vessels dedicated to the God whose authority Daniel then declared, as Daniel 5:18–28 explains. An editor must compare the available witnesses and the translation habits of the Greek form under examination before identifying the cause of the shorter reading. Theodotion’s closer correspondence to the Semitic account can help locate the difference precisely. It does not, standing alone, disclose how the difference arose. The example shows why the Hexapla’s value lies in making a problem visible and testable rather than deciding it by the appearance of a single column.

Daniel’s Greek Additions and the Boundary of the Hebrew Text

The transmission of Greek Daniel also includes material that must be distinguished from the Hebrew and Aramaic book. Greek manuscripts contain the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three within the furnace account, along with Susanna and Bel and the Dragon in differing positions around Daniel. Their inclusion affects how a reader encounters Greek Daniel, especially if a manuscript presents the additional material continuously with the biblical chapters. The Semitic text of Daniel 3:19–30 moves from Nebuchadnezzar’s command and the men’s confinement to the king’s astonishment and their deliverance. The extended Greek furnace passage adds prayer and praise within that narrative interval. This is a substantial feature of Greek transmission, and its history deserves accurate description. Its presence in a Greek copy does not, however, establish that corresponding Hebrew or Aramaic words once stood in the canonical passage. The Masoretic Daniel remains the base for determining the wording of the book received in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Greek additions can be studied as part of the book’s later circulation without being treated as missing lines to insert into Daniel 3.

The same distinction applies when studying Susanna or Bel and the Dragon beside the Greek Daniel associated with Theodotion. A manuscript’s binding or arrangement shows what its copyists transmitted together; it does not prove that all its material belonged to Daniel’s original composition. Daniel’s Hebrew and Aramaic chapters already possess a coherent sequence of court accounts and visions. Daniel 6 recounts the decree against prayer and Daniel’s rescue, while Daniel 7 moves to the vision of the beasts and the judgment of the Ancient of Days. The Greek additions should not be used to alter the wording or order of those chapters without compelling evidence from the Semitic tradition. Their presence also complicates casual references to “the Septuagint reading of Daniel,” because a reader must specify which Greek form and which passage is under discussion. In one context, the question concerns a translation of a canonical verse; in another, it concerns additional Greek material. The Hexapla’s parallel columns are most helpful when they keep the Hebrew or Aramaic line and the corresponding Greek renderings visibly distinct. Accurate textual restoration depends as much on preserving that distinction as on recognizing individual variants.

The Limits of Surviving Hexaplaric Evidence

The Hexapla cannot be consulted today as an intact ancient book containing every passage in its original arrangement. Its evidence survives through fragments and through later transmission influenced by Origen’s comparisons. This limits the certainty with which an editor can assign every Greek reading or critical sign to its original position. A later manuscript may preserve an insertion while omitting the asterisk that once identified it. Another may transmit wording from a revised Greek form within a text otherwise associated with the Old Greek. A reader must therefore distinguish a direct indication of Hexaplaric editing from a resemblance to wording that Origen might have used. Closer alignment with the Hebrew can suggest revision, but resemblance alone cannot prove which editor made it. The same caution applies to claims that a particular Greek word came from Theodotion’s sixth column. Without adequate surviving evidence, the responsible conclusion is that the word belongs to a more Hebrew-aligned Greek form, while its precise route into a manuscript remains uncertain.

Manuscript age must also be weighed with textual character. A later copy can preserve an older Greek reading, while an earlier surviving copy can contain a revision already made before it was written. Numerical superiority does not settle the matter when many manuscripts descend from a widely adopted form of Theodotionic Daniel. Their agreement may show how consistently that form was copied without showing that it represents the Old Greek translation. Conversely, the relative scarcity of Old Greek witnesses does not make their distinctive readings accidental. The critic must ask whether each reading fits the translation method of its Greek form and whether independent evidence supports it. The witnesses to Daniel are therefore evaluated according to their relationships and their identifiable habits, not merely counted. Where an Old Greek reading is difficult, the editor should examine whether the difficulty results from Greek expression, a different understanding of the Semitic passage, or damage in transmission. A sound decision explains the available evidence without assigning a definite origin to a reading that the surviving witnesses cannot securely identify.

Daniel’s Meaning and the Proper Role of Greek Evidence

Textual study serves the interpretation of what Daniel wrote. Daniel 7:9–14 describes a heavenly judgment, the end of oppressive rule, and authority given to one like a son of man. The Aramaic passage supplies the sequence and relationships that govern its meaning, while Greek renderings provide evidence of how those words were understood and transmitted. Daniel 12:1–3 likewise places deliverance and resurrection within the closing vision; an interpreter must establish its Hebrew wording before drawing conclusions from a Greek choice of vocabulary. Theodotion’s closer verbal alignment can be especially helpful when tracing a Hebrew or Aramaic expression across a passage. The Old Greek can show where an earlier translator understood the expression differently or expressed it more freely. Neither form should displace the immediate context of Daniel’s visions or the distinctions made by their original language. When Jesus refers to the Son of Man and the heavenly coming in Matthew 26:64, that New Testament passage may be read in relation to Daniel 7:13–14 without treating a later Greek revision as the author of Daniel’s meaning. The Greek evidence clarifies the history of reading Daniel, while the Semitic text remains the foundation for explaining Daniel’s own words.

Origen’s comparison remains valuable because it joined witnesses that are easily confused when studied separately. The Hebrew column showed the wording against which he measured Greek renderings, the fifth column displayed the Greek text under examination, and Theodotion’s column showed another way that Daniel circulated in Greek. The critical signs identified places where the edited Greek text required explanation in relation to Origen’s Hebrew. Those features help distinguish an early translator’s wording from a later effort to bring Greek Daniel into closer agreement with a Semitic text. Their surviving traces also reveal why a smooth, closely aligned Greek reading cannot always be assigned to the Old Greek. For the Hebrew and Aramaic text, the Masoretic tradition remains the starting point, with a departure justified only by strong evidence. For Greek textual history, both the Old Greek and the Theodotionic form must be examined on their own terms. The Hexapla’s contribution is thus a disciplined comparison that exposes the stages of transmission and sharpens the questions asked of each witness. Its limits are equally clear wherever lost columns, missing signs, or dependent manuscripts prevent a certain reconstruction.

You May Also Enjoy

The Samaritan Pentateuch in Exodus: Harmonistic Additions and Scribal Expansions

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS