Wednesday, March 2, 2022

T. J. Meadowcroft on Important Theological Differences between Greek and Aramaic Daniel 7:13-14

The following refutes the naïve claim that there are no significant theological variation in the biblical manuscripts:

 

. . . the son of man in the LXX seems to bear the mark of a divine figure in a way that the MT son of man does not. The ambiguity of the phrase ‘like a son of man’ (MT, כבר-אנשׁ; LXX, ως υιος ανθρωπου) is present in both versions, but the LXX’s use of επι and its portrayal of the heavenly audience clarifies the ambiguity. When it comes to v. 14 the MT and the LXX agree that the figure who arrives on the clouds is vested with a special authority, an authority that is eternal in scope. Indeed the homage offered him is of the sort appropriate to God. This on its own need not make him a divine figure any more than Nebuchadnezzar’s response to Daniel in 2.46 makes Daniel divine, although in that case the key words פלח and λατρευω are not present. It remains an open question in the MT whether or not the son of man’s authority becomes intrinsic or remains derived. The LXX has decided in favour of the first option. As a result, the divinity of the son of man perceived by the LXX in v. 14 is read back into v. 13 and so affects the translation. The translator chooses options that are possible renderings of the Aramaic, but cumulatively they tend to take the meaning in a particular direction. The LXX might well also have been working with a Vorlage that tended in the same direction by witnessing to על instead of עם in v. 13. (T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995], 229-30)