Differences in the Old Greek Version of Daniel (Chapter 4)

NebuChadnezzar’s 7 Years of Madness

This chapter of the ‘Old Greek’ version of Daniel contains 37 verses (in the traditional numbering). Of these, 30 have differences, this includes 2 verses with differences that are traditionally in chapter 3.

In our view, the Old Greek is generally more coherent, makes more sense, is usually more detailed, and much more specific in key places than the Masoretic Text. Things seem to be told in a more logical order, with details moved around and clarified.

To a casual reader, the differences would be minor and not really important.

However, they differences contain some suspicious details.

Watchers?

The Masoretic Text has those odd mentions of watchers, which are more common in later apocalyptic texts. Could that suggest later tampering in the Masoretic Text, that this chapter has indeed been edited in later times? Perhaps.

Times?

The Masoretic Text also uses imprecise phrases like times instead of years, even though the context makes it quite clear that we’re talking about years. This, like the addition of watchers, is suspicious, as if an editor has tried to make the text sound more ‘apocalyptic’. However, the less mysterious language in the Greek version could just be because the Greek translator wanted to make it more understandable to his audience.

Extra content

The Old Greek text quotes letters that the king sent all over the empire, praising God. Since this is the older text of Daniel, a specific factual claim would be harder to just make up; someone could more easily check it, being so much closer to the time of the events. Yet this detail does not appear in the Masoretic version.

It could actually be an ‘enhanced’ version of the story, where the Old Greek translator researched extra material and added it to be helpful (like in the Greek version of Esther).

On the other hand, that extra material could be original. It may suggest that the Hebrew/Aramaic text had some later abbreviation and reorganization. We don’t know.

The chopped down tree

Finally, the Masoretic Text has details about putting an iron band around the tree stump. The Old Greek does not say this, instead reporting that the tree is uprooted, only leaving a single root behind (presumably, a single root left in the ground).

Why anyone would add or remove that detail is a mystery… But we should mention how binding a tree stump with an iron band would not stop shoots growing from it. Usually, felled trees resprout buds lower down, near to the roots. Anyone who’s lived in an agricultural society would know this.

So this (inaccurate) detail present in the Masoretic Text is really quite odd. Perhaps the Greek translator saw this difficulty and ‘fixed’ it in his translation (even though it’s a dream and reality doesn’t really matter), or perhaps someone added it to the Masoretic Text for a more dramatic visual scene. We don’t know. But factually speaking, the Old Greek text is more correct.

Could this suggest that the Old Greek is a faithful translation of an older version, made prior to later changes and reorganization? Or is it a cleaned-up version of the same Masoretic Text we have today?

Who can say?

Differences

Note the differences in the verse numbering! Traditional Bible numbering appears (in parentheses).

4:1 (4:4)

The Old Greek repeats the introduction from 3:1, where it says it was King NebuChadnezzar’s 18^th year. This could just be a scribal error, or it could indicate that the previous chapter ended with a short letter, and this chapter started with another letter. We don’t know.

However, on balance, it’s not likely that NebuChadnezzar could be writing this letter in his 18^th year, since there’s no time for him to spend seven years in the wilderness.

So this reenforces our suspicions that this line is a mistaken scribal repetition from 3:1. For that reason, we ~~gray it out~~ in our translation to show it as a possibly spurious scribal addition.

4:3-6 (4:6-9)

The Old Greek tells the story in a more logical order… It goes straight into describing his dream, then afterwards he asks Daniel for help (in verse 15).

The Masoretic Text does it in a different order:

First, it only mentions he had a dream,
Then he brings in the wise men,
Only after that does the king say what his dream was.

The order of how the story is told is different, and also, in the Old Greek version, only Daniel is called to explain the dream, there’s no mention of other wise men failing to interpret it as in the Masoretic Text.

Note that the verse numbering is all muddled now, but that was added thousands of years later, so the numbers have nothing to do with the actual text, it’s just annoying for us.

4:7 (4:10)

The Old Greek has the King describing the tree in his dream as being unique, with no other like it. The Masoretic Text just says it was tall. This can’t be a misreading of the Aramaic, as it’s too different to be confused, so it’s either a choice of the translator, or the Masoretic Text was later edited.

4:8 (4:11)

The Old Greek has the King describe the tree’s top as reaching the ‘clouds’, with ‘the sun and moon residing within the tree’, ‘lighting up the whole earth’. The Masoretic Text just says it was so tall it could be ‘seen across the whole earth’.

This is an unusual addition. Was it added to the Greek, or later removed from the Masoretic Text? We don’t know.

4:9 (4:12)

The Old Greek has the king estimate the tree’s size in stadia measuremens; the Masoretic Text does not.

This is likely a translation choice, describing things in ways more familiar to a Greek-speaking audience.

4:10 (4:13)

The Old Greek describes a ‘messenger’ (an angel) coming down from heaven, but the Aramaic calls him a ‘watcher’ and a ‘holy one’.

Terms like ‘watcher’ are more common in apocalyptic texts like Enoch. Could this reveal a later tampering of the Masoretic Text to add such terms, or did our Greek translator change it to ‘messenger’ because his audience might not understand ‘watcher’? We don’t know.

4:11 (4:14)

The Old Greek has the messenger say that the tree should be cut down, uprooted, and stripped. The Masoretic Text, however, says much more… That the tree should be cut down, stripped, and have ‘its leaves and fruit scattered,’ with the ‘animals around it being driven away.’

Either one text added this, or one text removed it. We don’t know which.

However, it’s interesting to note that the Old Greek makes more sense here, as the King’s throne was given to someone else, so the ‘animals’ (people) were not really going anywhere else. They were still around, just not under his rule. The Masoretic Text, however, seems to suggest that peoples would be leaving Babylon to go somewhere else, which (as far as we know) didn’t happen.

So perhaps this is a literary flourish added to the Aramaic later?

4:12 (4:15)

The Old Greek says the tree will be left as just one ‘root,’ whereas the Masoretic Text adds much more, that it will be left as a ‘stump’ with its roots, with the stump ‘bound with an iron band.’ The Old Greek makes no mention of any stump or iron band.

Again, this was either added or removed to one of the texts.

One important point is that people from an agricultural society would know that a tree stump will grow shoots again from its roots. They would know that an iron band would not stop that. Of course, it’s a dream, so reality doesn’t really matter, but it’s still interesting to note that what the Masoretic Text adds does not align with reality. This perhaps suggests that it’s a later addition to the Aramaic text to make it more dramatic. But we don’t know.

4:13 (i) (4:16)

The Old Greek says that NebuChadnezzar’s ‘body’ will be changed, but the Aramaic says that his ‘heart’ (probably meaning his ‘mind’) will be changed into that of an animal. However, the body does include the heart and mind, so perhaps this is just a translation choice.

4:13 (ii) (4:17)

The Old Greek says the king will be changed for ‘seven years’, but the Masoretic Text uses the more imprecise expression, ‘seven times’.

It could be that the translator chose this so his Greek-speaking audience would understand it better. If so, that’s helpful to us, as it helps us understand what that term means.

4:14 (4:17)

The Old Greek makes no mention of the ‘watchers’ here, unlike the Masoretic Text which says it will all happen ‘by the decrees of the watchers and the word of the holy ones’. Again, that sounds like later apocalyptic texts like Enoch. Did someone add that later? But why? Alternatively, perhaps the Old Greek translator just didn’t include it, because these are unfamiliar terms to his audience.

4:14.1 (N/A)

The Old Greek has extra statements here, where the king describes seeing the tree cut down, and then he describes himself being turned into an animal and being chained up.

These make the narrative flow much better. Could this be the translator simply cleaning up the text? Or was the Aramaic text later edited to rearrange the story, and remove these details? We don’t know.

4:15-16 (4:18-19)

The Old Greek now describes the king waking up early from the dream and calling in DaniEl. It does not mention him calling in other wise men who couldn’t interpret it, like the Masoretic Text does at the start of the chapter in 4:6-8, or again here in 4:18. Also, the Old Greek just calls him DaniEl, but the Masoretic version repeatedly and unnecessarily reminds us that he’s called BelTeshazzar for no apparent reason.

Again, we get the impression that the Old Greek version is tidier and more logical. Could this be the translator tidying everything up, or was the Masoretic version later radically changed (and its quality degraded)?

4:17 (4:20)

The Old Greek has DaniEl merely say that the tree was a great sight that represents the king, but the Masoretic Text goes into more detail and doesn’t say that it means the king yet (that comes later).

Again, we see reorganization of the story.

4:18 (4:21)

The Old Greek has DaniEl state that the birds in the tree represent the people of the earth who serve the king. The Masoretic Text does not state this. Was it added to the Greek to make it more complete, or did later copyists miss it off the Masoretic version? We don’t know.

4:19 (4:22)

The Old Greek says that the king has grown ‘proud and bold’ towards God and his messengers, and that he was noticed because NebuChadnezzar was the one who destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. The Masoretic Text doesn’t mention any of this, just saying that the king is strong and his kingdom ‘reaches the heavens’ in a way not specifically explained.

Perhaps the Old Greek translator read the ‘reaches the heavens’ as a reference to NebuChadnezzar’s role in destroying the temple in Jerusalem, and wanted to make that clear. On the other hand, perhaps the Masoretic Text was later edited to remove that explicit reference for some reason. We don’t know.

4:20-22 (4:23)

The Old Greek again mentions the ‘messenger’ (an angel) coming down from heaven, but the Aramaic calls him a ‘watcher’.

The Old Greek says the king will end up in prison and then released to the wilderness. So we have yet more of the same types of differences.

4:23-25 (4:24-28)

Once again, the Old Greek does not mention an ‘band’ binding the tree stump, but the Masoretic Text does.

The Old Greek now calls the seven years ‘a time and an hour’, referring to the whole period.

The Masoretic Text then reiterates (in 4:24-28) that the king will be driven to the beasts and ‘seven times’ will pass over him.

The Old Greek doesn’t yet say that it’s for the purpose of ‘humbling’ him, but it does later.

Again, we see reorganization of the story.

4:26 (4:29)

The Old Greek says that the king changed into a beast while walking on the ‘city walls,’ but the Masoretic Text says it was while he was walking around his ‘palace.’

This is an interesting difference, but what caused it? The Aramaic words for royal palace look very different from any words that could mean city walls, so we can rule that out. Likewise, the equivalent Greek terms look very different too, so we can dismiss any copyist errors.

Somebody changed it deliberately, but which text, and why?

Perhaps the Aramaic didn’t seem to make sense to the Greek translator. Literally, it says he was walking ‘about the royal palace’ and then talks about how wonderful Babylon is. It might sound bizzare to be walking around your house and then marveling about the city you live in. So perhaps the Greek translator changed it to ‘city walls’ so it wouldn’t sound so jarring.

Most commentators think that the king was walking on his palace roof.

4:27 (4:30)

No important differences.

4:28 (4:31)

The Old Greek adds more details about how the king will be stripped of his kingdom. It says it will be ‘handed to a nobody’, some ‘lowly man from your own court’, who will move into his palace at sunrise!

The Masoretic Text doesn’t mention any of these details.

Also, it’s at this point that the Old Greek adds that it’s for the purpose of ‘humbling’ him (which was absent from the previous verses).

Again, we see reorganization of the story, but also more details that make sense. Now, are these extra details just made up by the Old Greek translator, or is there some historical basis for them? We don’t know, but what it says certainly sounds good, clarifies the story, and seems plausible.

We also can’t say for sure if these weren’t originally in the Aramaic text, but were later lost or removed for some reason.

4:29 (N/A)

The Old Greek now says that ‘messengers will persecute’ him for the seven years, and that he’ll eat grass like an ox and eat weeds, and that his clothes and palace will be taken over by someone else. Again, these details are not in the Masoretic Text, except that it again says seven times instead.

This detail about the messengers perhaps explains why it is happening, that it’s a supernatural punishment, rather than just some random misfortune. Like the other differences, it may be added to the Greek to tidy up the story or have been lost from the Aramaic later… We just don’t know.

4:30 (N/A)

The Old Greek says that it will all happen by morning. The Masoretic Text does not. Did it later lose this detail? Or was it added to the Greek?

4:30.1-4:30.2 (4:33-34)

The Old Greek now has the king himself tell us, in his own words, that it all happened to him. The Aramaic doesn’t, it’s written in the third person, but does change to the first person later.

The Old Greek has the king describe how he prayed to ‘Lord’ and actually repented! In addition, the grammar suggests God’s Name, but this may just be the translation style. These things don’t appear in the Masoretic Text. He merely praises God, but there’s no mention of him repenting.

While, like the Masoretic Text, the Greek describes his hair and nails growing long, but it also mentions that he had nightmares and panic attacks, and couldn’t sleep during that time. Then a messenger comes to tell him that God has forgiven him and will restore his kingdom to him. However, the Masoretic Text does not include most of this.

So once again we see the Old Greek adding details that make sense. Clearly one version is a reorganisation of the original — but which one?

4:33-4:34.3 (4:34-37)

The Old Greek shows NebuChadnezzar returning to normal and then giving a long prayer of thanks, in which he swears to serve God and to punish anyone who insults God.

Then, he writes letters to be sent all over the entire empire, praising God.

In contrast, the Masoretic Text just has NebuChadnezzar returning to normal after seven years, then briefly blessing God for restoring him to his throne, and mentioning how he now knows that God is able to humble anyone who is proud.

This contiues the same pattern of differences.