Original Article

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

What is Old Greek Daniel

2020, Vol. 44(4) 693­–710
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
chapter 8 about? sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0309089219864611
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089219864611
journals.sagepub.com/home/jot

Ian Young 
The University of Sydney, Australia

Abstract
The Old Greek text of Daniel chapter 8 exhibits many important differences compared to the
Masoretic Text more familiar to most readers. Instead of a little horn who successfully challenges
heaven, with a striking absence of divine intervention, the Old Greek tells of a strong horn who is
thrown down by the heavenly powers and of a prince of the host who rescues the captives. This
article attempts to give a coherent reading of the chapter in the Old Greek to bring out the quite
different storyline and message of the Old Greek compared to the Masoretic Text.

Keywords
Daniel, Septuagint, textual criticism

1. Introduction: Daniel 8 in the Masoretic Text and

the Old Greek
Daniel chapter 8 is usually discussed in the form attested in the Hebrew Masoretic Text
(MT). In this form, the chapter has some striking features. Unlike the closely related
chapter 7, there is a noticeable absence of divine power and authority in this chapter.1
The ‘little horn’ (Dan. 8.9), which readers since antiquity have taken to represent the
Seleucid king Antiochus IV, is shown in the vision to act successfully not only against
the nations of the world but also against the Jerusalem Temple and even against the heav-
enly host itself (Dan. 8.9–12). No judgement or other divine intervention is reported,

 1. A good summary of scholarship on the passage which emphasizes this aspect is Amy C.
Merrill Willis, Dissonance and the Drama of Divine Sovereignty in the Book of Daniel (LHB/
OTS, 520; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010), pp. 90–122. Cf. Carol A. Newsom with Brennan
W. Breed, Daniel: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), p. 256.

Corresponding author:
Ian Young, Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies, School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of
Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Email: Ian.Young@sydney.edu.au
694 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44(4)

contrast Dan. 7.9–14. The interpretation of the vision in Dan. 8.20–25 similarly lacks a
mention of divine intervention, contrast Dan. 7.17–18, 22, 26–27. The king who in the
vision-interpretation is equivalent to the little horn is similarly described as being suc-
cessful in his deceitful plots, even against ‘the people of the holy ones’. The only crumb
of comfort, other than the angelic assurance that the suffering has a limit (Dan. 8.14), is
the almost throwaway line at the very end of the interpretation of the vision (Dan. 8.25)
‘but without (human) hand he will be broken’ (‫)ּוב ֶא ֶפס יָ ד יִ ָּׁש ֵבר‬.
ְ 2
The MT of Dan. 8, therefore, has some interesting features. In contrast to the MT,
however, the Old Greek (OG) text of Dan. 8 does not share any of these features. The
powerful (not ‘little’) horn does not succeed against the heavenly host, but is defeated
by them. The OG does not discuss the defeat of the horn/king in the interpretation of
the vision, in that it does not represent the line about him being broken without human
hand. The OG of Dan. 8 is, therefore, quite different to the MT of that chapter. Scholars
have invested much energy in investigating the many textual difficulties and variations
between the MT, OG, and other versions.3 However, very little attention has been given
to investigating the question of what the OG of this chapter communicates as a whole.
Given that it lacks features that figure large in exegesis of MT Dan. 8, this is obviously
an interesting question. This article will argue that the variant OG text presents a coher-
ent message by attempting a reading of the whole chapter in its OG form. Investigation
of the relationship of the OG and MT readings and the origin of the variants is important,
but I will not discuss those issues here. Instead, I will focus on the OG text in its own
right, using comparison with the MT to bring out its differences.

2. Preliminary issues
In this article, I will avoid discussion, except where absolutely necessary, of inner-OG
variants and will accept the critical text of the Göttingen Septuagint.4 This decision is
made with full awareness of the problems limiting our knowledge of OG Daniel. Briefly,

 2. Merrill Willis, Dissonance, pp. 119–20 makes a point about how ‘overly brief’ this conclu-
sion is.
 3. Studies which give good attention to such matters include R. H. Charles, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929); James A.
Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1927); Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12
(CBQMS, 19; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988); and John
J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993).
 4. Olivier Munnich in Joseph Ziegler and Olivier Munnich, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum
Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum XVI.2: Susanna Daniel
Bel et Draco (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), which forms the basis of the
translation of R. Timothy McLay, ‘Daniel’, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright
(eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007),
pp. 991–1022 (henceforth: NETS). A full discussion of such text critical matters will be found
in my comparative textual commentary on Daniel, which is in preparation for the ‘Text of the
Hebrew Bible’ series.
Young 695

the first problem is that due to the dominance of the later Theodotion translation of
Daniel, there are very few manuscripts on which to base an edition of the OG. The OG
is witnessed by one pre-Hexaplaric witness, Papyrus 967, perhaps dated to the second
but no later than the early 3rd century CE.5 In addition, there are two closely related
Hexaplaric witnesses, the Greek manuscript 88 (Codex Chisianus, dated to the 9th–11th
century CE) and the Syro-Hexapla (Codex Ambrosianus, dated to the 8th–9th centuries;
originally made 616–617 CE).6
All witnesses, even the earliest, Papyrus 967, have been corrupted by readings from
the dominant MT/Theodotion tradition, as can be seen by comparison of the manuscripts
with each other.7 Furthermore, in all witnesses, throughout the OG, and especially in
some of the key verses to be discussed later in Dan. 8, we have the problem of doublet
readings and other glosses. This is the phenomenon of later corrections to the earlier OG,
especially where that translation was not deemed close enough to the MT/Theodotion
text, and thus a second translation was inserted.8 A great deal of work has been done by
scholars on passages such as Dan. 8.11–12 where it is widely considered that there are
many doublets and other glosses.9 Fortunately, it is not necessary to engage here with this
complicated discussion, since even taking a fairly maximal approach and commenting

 5. Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, p. 9; Alexander A. Di Lella, ‘The Textual
History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel’, in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint
(eds.), The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (2 vols; Boston: Brill, 2002), pp. 586–
607 (590). For a detailed introduction to papyrus 967 see Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna
Daniel Bel et Draco, pp. 63–76. For recent introductions to the Greek versions of Daniel
see: R. Timothy McLay, ‘Daniel (Old Greek and Theodotion)’, in James K. Aitken (ed.), The
T. & T. Clark Companion to the Septuagint (Bloomsbury Companions; London: Bloomsbury
T. & T. Clark, 2015), pp. 544–54; D. Amara, ‘Septuagint’, in Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov
(eds.), The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings (Textual History of the Bible; Leiden: Brill,
2017), pp. 542–54; Jason T. Parry, ‘Other Greek Versions Prior to the Hexapla’, in Armin
Lange and Emanuel Tov (eds.), The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings (Textual History of
the Bible; Leiden: Brill, 2017), pp. 554–58.
 6. On 88-Syh, see e.g., Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, pp. 22–50; Di Lella,
‘Textual History’, pp. 586–87; Amara, ‘Septuagint’, p. 542; Daniel Olariu, ‘Textual History
of Daniel’, in Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (eds.), The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1C Writings
(Textual History of the Bible; Leiden: Brill, 2017), pp. 517–27 (519).
 7. Tim McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (SBLSCS, 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996),
pp. 14, 109, 214–15, 242; Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, p. 76; Olivier
Munnich, ‘Texte massorétique et Septante dans le livre de Daniel’, in Adrian Schenker (ed.),
The Earliest Text Of The Hebrew Bible: The Relationship Between the Masoretic Text and
the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBLSCS, 52; Atlanta; Society of Biblical
Literature, 2003), pp. 93–120 (94–95).
 8. Montgomery, Daniel, p. 36; Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, pp. 50–63;
Dalia Amara, ‘The Old Greek Version of Daniel: The Translation, the Vorlage and the
Redaction’ (Ph.D. diss., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2006 [Hebrew]), p. v; Amara,
‘Septuagint’, pp. 550–51.
 9. See Montgomery, Daniel, pp. 356–58; Charles, Daniel, pp. 204–07; Pace Jeansonne, The Old
Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12, p. 87; Michael Segal, ‘The Old Greek and Theodotion
to Daniel 8’, (paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, November 2014),
pp. 1–17 (8–14). I would like to thank Prof. Segal for allowing me to see this unpublished paper.
696 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44(4)

on the text that is in our hands, as represented by the critical Göttingen edition,10 does
not in my opinion introduce any major loss of the key ideas represented by the OG. This
makes sense, since most doublets and glosses represent corrections towards the MT/
Theodotion text and in this case add to, but do not remove, the distinctive features of the
OG. Nevertheless, any such work on the OG must remain provisional.
Another preliminary issue that must be mentioned relates to the point of view of the
OG translator. The OG translator is considered to be quite close in time to the events
dealt with in Dan. 8.11 It is generally thought that the visions in Dan. 7–12 were com-
posed in the middle of the Antiochene crisis of the mid-160s BCE.12 However, we do
not have an autograph text, and so it is possible, even likely, given the fluidity of the
biblical text in the BCE period, that details of the Hebrew texts of Dan. 8 that we have,
the MT and Qumran scrolls, could reflect later revision of the book. This could equally
apply to the Vorlage translated by the OG. The OG translator also, for his part, is placed
after the events of the end of the crisis. It is therefore possible that already the original
OG translation introduces later modifications of an earlier text which reflect subsequent
events. The degree to which the OG translator intervened in an interpretative way in the
translation is a matter of debate, with some scholars seeing the amount of interpretation
as minimal, while others see the translator as strongly interpretative.13 It is not necessary
to resolve this question, since our primary focus is what the OG translator produced, not
the Vorlage that they were translating. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that either the
OG translation or its Vorlage may have a different, perhaps later, point of view on the
events than other texts do.

3. The ram, the goat, and the horns (Dan. 8.1–8)

While there are very many interesting variants in this chapter, I will focus my attention
on what I consider the key passages for outlining the overall message of OG Dan. 8 as
it differs from the MT. These all relate to the activities of the final horn in the vision,
who is the king in the interpretation provided later in the chapter. The texts have much
in common in the other parts of the chapter. Daniel sees a vision of a ram with two horns
(Dan. 8.3–4), which is interpreted later in the chapter as representing Media and Persia
(Dan. 8.20). The ram is overcome by a male goat (Dan. 8.5–7), which is interpreted as
Greece (Dan. 8.21). The goat has a prominent horn which is broken (Dan. 8.5, 8), which

10. Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco.

11. ‘The generally accepted view is that OG-Dan was created sometime in the second half of
the second century B.C.E’. (Amara, ‘Septuagint’, p. 543, with references). A. McCrystall,
‘Studies in the Old Greek Translation of Daniel’ (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 1980),
pp. 363, 386, for example, dates it as early as between 161 and 152 BCE.
12. E.g., Collins, Daniel, p. 61, Newsom, Daniel, pp. 11–12.
13. Contrast Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12, p. 133’s view that
‘the OG translator did not undertake the work with a particular agenda’ and ‘did not hold
that translation was the proper forum for the theological interpretation of the readings of the
sacred text’, with Amara, ‘Old Greek Version’, p. iii: ‘The OG translator intervenes with his
Vorlage far beyond his concern for the target language. He often operates as an interpreter of
his Vorlage’.
Young 697

is the first king (Alexander; Dan. 8.21), and four other horns arise in its place (Dan. 8.8),
representing the successor kingdoms to Alexander (Dan. 8.22). From one of these horns
(representing the Seleucid dynasty) comes another horn, which represents Antiochus IV
Epiphanes (175–164 BCE).

4. The final horn (Dan. 8.9)

The two texts of Dan. 8.9 are set out here:14

Vs MT OG Variants

9. And from one of them And out of one of them sprang one MT: small//
came forth a single horn, strong horn, . . . OG: strong
a small one . . . OG: καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς αὐτῶν ἀνεφύη κέρας
MT: ‫ן־ה ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהם יָ ָצא ֶק ֶרן־‬
ָ ‫ּומ‬
ִ ἰσχυρὸν ἓν
‫ַא ַחת ִמ ְּצ ִע ָירה‬
. . . and it grew greatly to . . . and it prevailed, and it struck MT + greatly
the south and to the east against the south and against the OG + and it struck
and to the glorious (land). east and against the north.
MT: and to the
MT: ‫ל־הּנֶ גֶ ב וְ ֶאל־‬ ַ ‫וַ ִּתגְ ַּדל־יֶ ֶתר ֶא‬ OG: καὶ κατίσχυσε καὶ ἐπάταξεν ἐπὶ glorious (land)// OG:
‫ל־ה ֶּצ ִבי‬
ַ ‫ַה ִּמזְ ָרח וְ ֶא‬ μεσημβρίαν καὶ ἐπ’ ἀνατολὰς καὶ ἐπὶ and against the north
βορρᾶν

The ‘little horn’ of the MT is a ‘strong horn’ (κέρας ἰσχυρὸν) in the OG. There is, there-
fore, no possible derogatory reference to this horn in the OG, as might be inferred from
the MT’s ‘small’.15 Rather, in the OG it is portrayed as a threat right from the outset. The
OG further portrays the horn as aggressive in that instead of MT’s ‘and it grew greatly’,
it has two verbs, ‘and it prevailed, and it struck’. This is in line with the OG’s initial
description of it as ‘strong’, rather than ‘small’. In the MT, it is necessary for the horn to
grow great.16 In the OG, it is already powerful.
It should be noted that the Greek verb translated by NETS as ‘it prevailed’ (κατίσχυσε)
almost never corresponds to ‫גדל‬, the root of MT’s ‘it grew great’, but more commonly
to ‘strength’ words like ‫ חזק‬and also ‫עצם‬.17 Thus, in verse 8, in regard to the goat, the
OG’s κατίσχυσε corresponds to the MT’s ‫ּוכ ָע ְצֹמו‬
ְ ‘and when he was strong’. Furthermore,
the verb ‘it struck’ (ἐπάταξεν) creates a link to the actions of the goat, from which the

14. For the OG I follow the NETS translation except in places where I alter it to bring out the
relationship between the texts more clearly. The translation of the Hebrew is mine, aiming for
a literal translation that allows for the relationship between the texts to be seen most easily.
15. That the horn is described as ‘small’ in Dan. 7.8, which is clearly related to its use in MT Dan.
8.9, is often taken as a slighting opinion of Antiochus’ right to the throne, which is covered
up by his acting big, see e.g., Charles, Daniel, p. 179; Collins, Daniel, p. 299; Merrill Willis,
Dissonance, p. 81.
16. Newsom, Daniel, p. 263.
17. Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek
Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2nd
edn, 1998 [1897–1906]), p. 751.
698 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44(4)

horn sprang, when it overcame the ram in verse 7.18 Both verbs add to the picture of
the strength and aggression of the horn. Thus, in the OG, the horn starts off with more
strength than in the MT, but as we shall soon discover, its defeat is near.
On the contrary, the horn is not portrayed in the OG yet as focused on Israel as is
implied by the usual understanding of the horn’s activities in the MT ‘to the south and to
the east and to the glorious (land)’, the last item (‫)ה ֶּצ ִבי‬
ַ being interpreted as a reference to
the land of Israel.19 Instead, the OG has a simple listing of directions: ‘against the south
and against the east and against the north’.

5. Attack of the horn (Dan. 8.10–12)

The most critical passage for understanding the variant message of OG Dan. 8 is found
in verses 10–12.

5.1. Verses 10–11a

The two texts are set out in parallel with each other here:

Vs MT OG Variants
10. And it grew great, up to the And it was exalted unto MT: grew great// OG: was
host of the heavens . . . the stars of the sky. exalted
MT: ‫ד־צ ָבא ַה ָּׁש ָמיִ ם‬
ְ ‫וַ ִּתגְ ַּדל ַע‬ OG: καὶ ὑψώθη ἕως τῶν MT: host// OG: stars
ἂστρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
. . . and it cast down to And it was thrown down MT: it cast down// OG: it
the earth some of the host upon the earth from the was thrown down
and some of the stars and stars and by them was MT: some of the host and
trampled them. trodden down . . . some of the stars // OG:
MT: ‫ּומן־‬ ִ ‫ן־ה ָּצ ָבא‬
ַ ‫וַ ַּת ֵּפל ַא ְר ָצה ִמ‬ OG: καὶ ἐρράχθη ἐπὶ τὴν from the stars and by them
‫ֹּכוכ ִבים וַ ִּת ְר ְמ ֵסם‬
ָ ‫ַה‬ γῆν ἀπὸ τῶν ἂστρων καὶ MT: (it) trampled// OG: was
ἀπὸ αὐτῶν κατεπατήθη trodden down
11a. And up to the prince of the . . . until the prince of the MT + and (up to)
host it magnified itself . . . host delivers the captives. MT: it magnified itself// OG:
MT: ‫ר־ה ָּצ ָבא ִהגְ ִּדיל‬
ַ ‫וְ ַעד ַׂש‬ OG: ἕως ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος delivers the captives
ῥύσηται τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν

In contrast to the MT’s ‘And it grew great, up to the host of the heavens’, the OG has
‘And it was exalted unto the stars of the sky’. The OG has a variety of ways of rendering
the Hiphil of ‫גדל‬, and in verse 4, the MT has ‫‘ וְ ִהגְ ִּדיל‬and it kept magnifying itself’ and
the OG has ὑψώθη ‘it became exalted’, parallel to the form here. The MT form is used in

18. Segal, ‘Daniel 8’, p. 5.

19. Compare the phrase ‫ ֶא ֶרץ ַה ְּצ ִבי‬in Dan. 11.16, 41 ‘the beautiful land’. See e.g., John E.
Goldingay, Daniel (WBC, 30; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), p. 209; Collins, Daniel,
pp. 325–26 n. 29, 331; Merrill Willis, Dissonance, p. 100; Segal, ‘Daniel 8’, p. 6.
Young 699

contexts of arrogance, see, for example, Jer. 48.26; Ps. 55.13.20 The OG form has even
more obvious nuances of pride, since it is usually used by the OG in that context. Thus,
whereas in OG Dan. 4.22 Nebuchadnezzar was ‘exalted above all humans who are upon
the face of the earth’ (ὑψώθης ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας ἐπὶ προσώπου πάσης
τῆς γῆς) which would likely imply divine activity, this is followed directly by ‘your heart
was exalted with pride and power’ (ὑψώθη σου ἡ καρδία ὑπερηφανίᾳ καὶ ἰσχύι). In Dan.
8.25, the MT has ‘in his heart he shall magnify himself’ (‫)ּוב ְל ָבֹבו יַ גְ ִּדיל‬,
ִ while the OG has
‘his heart will be exalted’ (ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ὑψωθήσεται). So too Dan. 11.12 ‘his heart will
be exalted’ (ὑψωθήσεται ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ) is paralleled by the MT’s ‫וְ ָרם ְל ָבֹבו‬, which is an
expression for pride;21 see also the related verb in Dan. 5.2 where Belshazzar’s ‘heart
was exalted’ (ἀνυψώθη ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ).22 In Dan. 11.36, Antiochus is ‘exalted over every
god’ (ὑψωθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν). One might also compare the reading of Theodotion in
Dan. 5.23, where Belshazzar is told ‘you have exalted yourself (ὑψώθης) against the Lord
God of heaven’. Here, however, the mythic reference of the text implies that the prideful
exaltation has an actual spatial dimension of attempted ascent to the stars.
In contrast to the active verbs of the MT, ‘and it cast down to the earth some of
the host and some of the stars and trampled them’, the OG has ‘and it was thrown
down upon the earth from the stars and by them was trodden down’. Passive verbs in
Daniel are regularly interpreted as implying divine involvement in the events,23 and
that seems straightforwardly the case here in the OG. The MT and the OG have dra-
matically different presentations of what is happening in this verse. In the MT, the
horn/Antiochus is successful in his assault on the heavenly powers, to the extent that
his actions overcome some of the heavenly host. In the OG, it is the horn who is the
subject of passive verbs ‘thrown down, trodden down’, whereas in the MT in this con-
text, passive verbs do not begin until the subject is the prince of the host in verse 11:
‘from him was taken away the continual burnt offering and the place of his sanctuary
was cast down’ (‫הּורם ַה ָּת ִמיד וְ ֻה ְׁש ַלְך ְמֹכון ִמ ְק ָּדֹׁשו‬
ַ ‫)ּומ ֶּמּנּו‬.
ִ 24
The horn’s actions of ‘trampling’ link in the MT with the actions of the goat
in Alexander’s time, in verse 7, when it defeats the ram. In contrast, in the OG it is
Antiochus who is trampled. In fact, there is no link here with verse 7, since there the
OG describes the goat as ‘crushing’ (verse 7: συνέτριψεν) the ram, not ‘trampling’ it
(verse 10: κατεπατήθη).
Scholars have pointed out that this passage links in with the myth of the heavenly
subordinate who aspires to conquer heaven, but is cast back down to earth. An impor-
tant biblical passage is Isa. 14.12–15, where the Day Star wishes to ascend to heaven
and raise his throne above the stars of God, but is instead cast down from heaven. This

20. Holger Gzella, Cosmic Battle and Political Conflict: Studies in Verbal Syntax and Contextual
Interpretation of Daniel 8 (BibOr, 47; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2003),
p. 121; cf. HALOT 1, p. 179.
21. BDB, p. 926b.
22. Cf. the OG Preface to chapter 5 where NETS translates ἀνυψούμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴνου as ‘in high
spirits from the wine’, in parallel to ‘and boasting in his drink’.
23. See e.g., Newsom, Daniel, p. 264.
24. Cf. the passive verb in the very obscure first part of MT verse 12, rendered tentatively below
as ‘and a host was being given over alongside the continual offering because of transgression’.
700 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44(4)

seems to reflect an ancient myth, such as in the Ugaritic story of the attempt of ‘Attar
to take over Baal’s throne.25 Merrill Willis notes that in the MT ‘the vision’s defeat of
the heavenly forces . . . disrupts the formal and readerly expectations of the rebellious
subordinate motif’.26 The OG is closer to the more typical version of this myth, since the
assault on heaven is not successful.
Antiochus has been witnessed in the vision as defeated by heaven and cast back to
earth. The following phrase in the OG lacks a conjunction, and therefore this phrase,
which corresponds to the beginning of a new verse in the MT (‘And up to the prince of
the host it magnified itself’), is best taken as a continuation of the preceding: ‘until the
prince of the host27 delivers [future tense]28 the captives’. Understanding the significance
of ‘until’ in the context, immediately following the description of Antiochus’ defeat by
heaven and casting down to earth, is crucial to understanding the OG’s construction
of the passage as a whole. It is widely accepted that Daniel pictures events in heaven
being mirrored on earth.29 The question which the OG addresses, therefore, is: given that
Antiochus has been defeated by heaven, how long, then, until the victory of heaven is
manifested on earth?30 The next phrase in the OG, ‘until the prince of the host delivers

25. Collins, Daniel, p. 332; C. L. Seow, Daniel (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), pp. 122–23; Merrill Willis, Dissonance, pp. 100–01;
Newsom, Daniel, p. 264. For more on this myth and the problems of relating the biblical and
Ugaritic material see Hugh Rowland Page, Jr., The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of its
Reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature (VTSup, 65; Leiden: Brill, 1996); Michael S.
Heiser, ‘The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic
Material’, VT 51 (2001), pp. 354–69. On the myth more generally see Adela Yarbro Collins,
The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (HDR, 9; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976).
26. Merrill Willis, Dissonance, p. 106; cf. Newsom, Daniel, p. 266.
27. I have translated the phrase the same in both texts because ἀρχιστράτηγος is a standard equiva-
lent of ‫(ּצ ָבא‬‎
ָ ‫ה‬‎ַ )‫ׂשר‬,
ַ usually in reference to a human army commander, see Hatch and Redpath,
Concordance, p. 166.
28. Martin Rösel, ‘Theology After the Crisis: The Septuagint Version of Daniel 8–12’, in Johann
Cook and Hermann-Josef Stipp (eds.), Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the
Septuagint (VTSup, 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), p. 213 in particular notes the use of the future
tense.
29. Thus, for example, Collins, Daniel, p. 318 talks of ‘a synergism between the faithful Israelites
on earth and their angelic counterparts in heaven’, cf. p. 333, and also e.g., Newsom, Daniel,
p. 237.
30. The activities of the vanquished rebel after their defeat plays a part in some of the versions
of the cosmic rebellion myth. Thus, Page 1996 says that ‘Job 38:13–15 may represent an
intermediate stage in the myth [of cosmic rebellion] when Athtar and his band fled to Earth
for protection after being defeated by El’s forces and being sentenced to the underworld’
(p. 206 n. 413; cf. his discussion of this text on pp. 171–75). Yarbro Collins, The Combat
Myth, p. 141 talks of a source of Revelation where: ‘After his defeat, Satan devoted his ener-
gies to spreading rebellion’. Cf. Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth, p. 122 who writes that the
‘time, times and half a time’ ‘designates the time left to Antiochus, the little horn, to exercise
his power’. This is evidently the storyline presupposed by Rev 12–13, where Satan is cast
down from heaven to earth with a limited time to wreak havoc on the people of God, although
it is likely that the OG of Daniel had some influence there, so that Revelation could be seen
as an interpretation of Daniel, a point worthy of further study.
Young 701

the captives’, gives the answer and therefore provides a parallel to the 2300 days that is
specified as the limit of the time of trouble in the angelic conversation of Dan. 8.13–14.
The MT does not describe any checks on the assault of the horn/Antiochus on heaven.
He overcomes some of the heavenly host and even arrogantly approaches the prince of
the host. In the OG, Antiochus’ assault on heaven is not successful and he is cast down to
earth and trodden down by the heavenly host, a heavenly reality that is yet to manifest on
earth but will do so when ‘the prince of the host’ releases ‘the captives’ from subjection
to Antiochus. So who is the prince of the host, and who are the captives?
The most common identification of ‘the prince of the host’ in the MT is with God.31
In favour of this identification is that it is easier to understand how in what follows in
the MT (verse 11b, below) the sanctuary and its offerings belong to him. Other super-
natural candidates proposed include the angel Michael, relating this passage to Dan. 12.1
where Michael is called ‘the great prince’ (‫)ה ַּׂשר ַהּגָ דֹול‬,
ַ 32 or an unnamed greater angel, like
‘the commander (prince) of the army of the LORD’ in Josh. 5.13–15.33 A suggestion less
in vogue among recent scholars is that the referent is human, especially the high priest
Onias.34 Even if the prince of the host in the MT is most likely God or at least some other
supernatural agent, this does not, however, mean that the same holds for the OG. Since the
OG in verse 11b is missing the direct connection between the prince of the host and the
sanctuary and its offerings, there is a greater possibility that this figure could be understood
as someone other than God. It is accepted that ‘prince’ in the MT is used of divine beings
in Daniel, with Dan. 8.25; 10.13, 20, 21; 12.1 often cited.35 However, it is also pointed out
that ‫ ַׂשר‬is used of human figures a number of times, in chapter 1 for a Babylonian offi-
cial (Dan. 1.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18), in Dan. 9.6, 8 for Judahite officials, and in Dan. 11.5 for
officers of the king of the south.36 A focus of this discussion is whether ‘the prince of the
kingdom of Persia’ (Dan. 10.13, 20 [‘prince of Persia’]) and ‘the prince of Greece’ (Dan.
10.20) refer to supernatural beings or human rulers.37 The common understanding of the
princes as supernatural beings gains support from the identification of the angel Michael
in the immediate context as ‘one of the chief princes’ (Dan. 10.13) and ‘your prince’ (Dan.
10.21). However, for the current discussion of the meaning of ‘the prince of the host’
in OG Dan. 8, it has been noted that the OG makes a distinction between the princes of
Persia and Greece, which are rendered with στρατηγὸς ‘prince, general’ and Michael, who

31. See e.g., Montgomery, Daniel, p. 335; Charles, Daniel, p. 207; Goldingay, Daniel, p. 210;
Collins, Daniel, pp. 332, 333; Newsom, Daniel, p. 264.
32. See Merrill Willis, Dissonance, p. 105 n. 61, cf. Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, ‘The Book of
Daniel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections’, NIB 7 (1996), pp. 17–152 (113) who
admits however the strength of the link between God and the sanctuary/ offerings.
33. See Gillian Bampfylde, ‘The Prince of the Host in the Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea
Scrolls’, JSJ 14 (1983), pp. 129–34.
34. Cf. the survey of opinions in Montgomery, Daniel, p. 335; Goldingay, Daniel, pp. 210–11.
35. See e.g., Seow, Daniel, p. 123.
36. Tim Meadowcroft, ‘Who are the Princes of Persia and Greece (Daniel 10)? Pointers Towards
the Danielic Vision of Earth and Heaven’, JSOT 29 (2004), pp. 99–113, cf. T. J. Meadowcroft,
Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison (JSOTSup, 198; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), p. 253.
37. The latter is the view favoured e.g., by Meadowcroft, ‘Who are the Princes’.
702 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44(4)

is described with a different term for ruler.38 The term στρατηγὸς is used elsewhere in the
OG for human officials in Dan. 3.2.39 Meadowcroft concludes, ‘This terminology almost
certainly indicates an assumption in the mind of the translator that the princes of Persia
and Greece are human figures, whereas Michael is not’.40 In line with the apparent human
reference of (ἀρχι)στράτηγος, and given hindsight on the part of the OG translator, could
it be that the reference in Dan. 8.11 ‘until the commander in chief delivers the captives’
is to God’s victory as manifested in the military victory of Judas Maccabaeus?41 It is to
be noted that this is the only time that the OG has an equivalent to the word ‫‘ ָצ ָבא‬host’
in the MT in this passage (see also ΜΤ Dan. 8.10, 10, 12, 13). Among other things, this
means that there is no association between the host and heaven and the stars as in MT
verse 10, strengthening the possibility that the host in OG verse 11 could be understood to
be an earthly one. In 1 Macc. 2.66, Judas is appointed by his father to be ἄρχων στρατιᾶς
‘commander of the army’, showing that similar terminology of ‘army commander’ could
be applied to him. If this is correct, and it is proposed with due reservations, the OG’s
presentation is influenced by knowledge of the later events of the era.
The word used for ‘captives’ (αἰχμαλωσίαν), who are to be delivered by the prince of
the host, is the word that elsewhere describes Daniel. In Dan. 2.25, the OG’s ‘the captives
of the sons of Judea’ (τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας τῶν υἱῶν τῆς Ιουδαίας) corresponds to the MT’s
‘the sons of the exiles of Judah’ (‫לּותא ִּדי יְ הּוד‬ ְ a description of the group to which
ָ ָ‫)ּבנֵ י ג‬,
Daniel belongs. In OG Dan. 5.10, the Greek is τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας τῆς Ιουδαίας ‘the captives
of Judah’. There is no direct parallel, but in MT Dan. 5.13 we have ‫לּותא ִּדי יְ הּוד‬ ָ ָ‫‘ ְּבנֵ י ג‬the
sons of the exiles of Judah’. Elsewhere in the Daniel tradition, we find the phrase also

38. Papyrus 967 has a double translation in Dan. 10.13: [εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν πρώτων] ἢ εἷς
τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ‘one of the chief rulers or one of the holy angels’. By the use of square
brackets, Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, p. 372 indicate that they think
the first phrase, shared with Theodotion, is a doublet of the second which is the earlier OG
reading. On the contrary Angelo Geissen, Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel, Kap.
5-12, zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther, Kap. 1, 1a-2, 15 nach dem Kölner
Teil des Papyrus 967 (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 5; Bonn: Habelt, 1968), p.
55 and Collins, Daniel, p. 362 n. 31, consider the second phrase, absent from 88-Syh, to be a
doublet or gloss. In either case the terminology is different in reference to Michael. Cf. Dan.
10.21 ἄγγελος ‘angel’ (in the main text of Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco,
374, but note the doublet in 967: ὁ στρατηγὸς).
39. Cf. Theodotion Dan. 3.2, 3, 94; 6.8. For cases in other LXX books, also in reference to earthly
commanders, see Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel, p. 253.
40. Meadowcroft, ‘Who are the Princes’, p. 102; cf. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek
Daniel, p. 254.
41. Note that Hippolytus’ early third century CE Commentary on Daniel, the earliest commen-
tary, strongly relates the fulfilment of this vision to the victory of Judas (4.26.8). Note further
that the reference to the ‘little help’ in Dan 11:34, which has often been associated with
the Maccabean uprising, is instead in the OG a reference to the wise ones gathering a little
strength for themselves (cf. Rösel, ‘Theology After the Crisis’, p. 217). After completion of
this article I found that Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, ‘Relecture et refonte historicisante du livre
de Daniel attestées par la premiere version grecque (papyrus 967)’, in R. Kuntzman and J.
Schlosser (eds.), Études sur le judaisme hellénistique (LD, 119; Paris: Cerf, 1984), p. 209 had
also raised the possibility that this is a reference to Judas.
Young 703

used to describe Daniel in MT Dan. 6.14, with no OG parallel, and in a plus in the Greek
text of Theodotion Dan. 1.3. In the second half of the book, there is a significant occur-
rence in Dan. 11.33.42 It is a common idea among scholars that the group behind the book
of Daniel identified with the ‘wise ones’, ‫מ ְׂש ִּכ ִילים‬.
ַ 43 Daniel is also described by the same
term in Dan. 1.4, allowing an identification of the figure of Daniel with this group, in
the context of his initially being taken into exile. It is therefore significant that one of the
fates suffered by these wise ones for their faithfulness to God in OG Dan. 11.33 is ‘cap-
tivity’ (αἰχμαλωσίᾳ).44 The hope that ‘the prince of the host’ would deliver ‘the captives’
is an important statement in the context of the Daniel tradition, since ‘the captives’ refers
both to Daniel in his literary context of the exile and to the wise, who are in the time
frame of Dan. 8 currently suffering from the persecution of Antiochus. OG Dan. 8 indi-
cates that despite the severity of that suffering, Antiochus has been defeated by heaven,
and that this period of suffering will end when the ‘captives’ will be delivered by God’s
intervention, perhaps as concretely realized in the military victory of Judas Maccabaeus.
Segal observes that the rescue in the OG of the captives by the prince of the host
completes a pattern begun in what has gone before. The idea of ‘rescuing’ has appeared
twice before in the chapter, using the same vocabulary. Thus, in verse 4, it is said of the
ram at the height of its power that ‘no one could rescue from its hands’ (οὐκ ἦν ὁ ῥυόμενος
ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτοῦ). However, in verse 7, the goat overthrows the ram and ‘there was
no one who could rescue the ram from the male goat’ (οὐκ ἦν ὁ ῥυόμενος τὸν κριὸν ἀπὸ
τοῦ τράγου). Finally, however, in line with a major emphasis of the book of Daniel, we
discover that the power of the empires is at the mercy of heaven, since the prince of the
host will rescue (ῥύσηται) the captives who are under the rule of the empire.45

5.2. Verses 11b–12

Having argued above for the storyline of the OG as implied by verses 10–11a, which
tells of Antiochus’ defeat, the challenge now is to make sense of what follows. The OG
shares with the MT a passage about the further great successes of the horn. How does
this follow after what we have been told about his defeat? Segal suggests that the order
of events in the OG is non-sequential,46 which is possible, but not the plain meaning
of the text, since the story being told follows directly on from what precedes, with no
indication that we are dealing with a flashback. We have, however, already seen the solu-
tion to this problem in the ‘until’ of the previous phrase. The victory of heaven is yet to
manifest itself on earth and will do so when the prince of the host rescues the captives,
something that is described within the storyline of Dan. 8 to be a future event. So too
here, Antiochus’ success on earth can continue for some time, even though he has already
been defeated by heaven.

42. It is also used in Dan. 11.8, about events in the Ptolemaic-Seleucid wars, where it just seems
to refer to taking objects into captivity and is therefore not relevant to the current discussion.
43. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM, 16; Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 167–70; Collins, Daniel, p. 66; Newsom, Daniel, pp. 22–23.
44. Relating to the Hebrew word ‫ׁש ִבי‬.
ְ
45. Segal, ‘Daniel 8’, pp. 9–10.
46. Segal, ‘Daniel 8’, p. 10.
704 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44(4)

The two texts are set out here:

Vs MT OG Variants47

11b. . . . and from him was taken And on account of it (i.e. the MTQ: was taken away//
away the continual burnt horn) the mountains, which OG: the mountains
offering and the place of his were from eternity, were MT: and the place of
sanctuary was cast down. overthrown and their place his sanctuary was cast
MT: ‎ ‫ ַה ָּת ִמיד וְ ֻה ְׁש ַלְך‬48‫הּורם‬
ַ ‫ּומ ֶּמּנּו‬
ִ and sacrifice were taken away. down// OG: and their
‫ְמֹכון ִמ ְק ָּדֹׁשו‬ OG: καὶ δι’ αὐτὸν τὰ ὄρη place and sacrifice
τὰ ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ἐρράχθη, καὶ were taken away
ἐξήρθη ὁ τόπος αὐτῶν καὶ
θυσία
Cf. the previous. And he put it49 to the ground
[upon the earth],50 and it
prospered, and it emerged,51
and the sanctuary will be
desolated.
OG: καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὴν ἕως
χαμαὶ [ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν] καὶ
εὐοδώθη καὶ ἐγενήθη, καὶ τὸ
ἅγιον ἐρημωθήσεται
12. And a host was being And sins were on the MT: And a host was
given over alongside the offering, . . . being given over
continual offering because of OG: καὶ ἐγενήθησαν ἐπὶ τῇ alongside the continual
transgression . . . (?) θυσίᾳ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι offering because of
MT: ‫ל־ה ָּת ִמיד ְּב ָפ ַׁשע‬
ַ ‫וְ ָצ ָבא ִּתּנָ ֵתן ַע‬ transgression// OG:
And sins were on the
offering
. . . and it cast truth to the . . . and justice was thrown MT: it cast// OG: was
ground and it acted and it to the ground, and it acted, thrown
prospered. and it prospered. MT: truth// OG: justice
MT: ‫וְ ַת ְׁש ֵלְך ֱא ֶמת ַא ְר ָצה וְ ָע ְׂש ָתה‬ OG: καὶ ἐρρίφη χαμαὶ ἡ
‫יחה‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ְצ ִל‬ δικαιοσύνη, καὶ ἐποίησε καὶ
εὐοδώθη
4748495051

The MT and the OG continue to tell their separate narratives. In the MT, the horn/
Antiochus has achieved success even against the heavenly host and has risen high enough

47. The table here is too simple in restricting the comparison to the first part of the OG in this
verse, since there is related material in what follows also. See above with n. 9 on suggested
doublets and glosses in this section.
48. Kethib: ‫הרים‬.
49. NETS note: ‘I.e. the horn’.
50. The square brackets in Ziegler and Munnich, Susanna Daniel Bel et Draco, p. 350, and the
NETS translation indicate one of the suspected doublets in this passage.
51. NETS note: ‘Possibly it happened’.
Young 705

to face the prince of the host. Here, the tale of success, even against God, continues.
Twice, the use of the third person masculine singular suffix in 11b emphasizes that it is
his (=God’s) offering and his sanctuary that are taken away.
In contrast, I have suggested, in the context of the OG (‘And on account of [the
horn] the mountains, which were from eternity, were overthrown and their place and
sacrifice were taken away’52), the horn/Antiochus has been cast down to the earth,
with a limited time to wreak havoc on the people of the holy ones. Here, despite his
defeat by the heavenly powers, he still appears to have almost supernatural power,
but apocalypses like to strip away the appearance of apparently overwhelming earthly
powers to reveal the heavenly reality that earthly powers are in the hand of God. The
mountains are often used as symbols of permanence in the Hebrew Bible, but here the
horn is able to cast them down in the same way (the exact same word ἐρράχθη is used)
as he was cast down by the heavenly powers. This power over creation is a usurpa-
tion of God’s powers, since it is usually him who is pictured treading the mountains
underfoot and them being overthrown by his appearance.53 Note in particular Hab.
3.6 where God shatters ‘the eternal mountains’ (‫)ה ְר ֵרי ַעד‬ ַ and ‘the everlasting hills’
(‫עֹולם‬
ָ ‫ )ּגִ ְבעֹות‬sink low.
These mountains appear to be related by the OG to ‘their place and sacrifice’, which
would seem to link them with Jerusalem and its Temple, which is a major focus of this
chapter of Daniel. Jerusalem is said to be ‘surrounded by mountains’ (‫)ה ִרים ָס ִביב ָלּה‬
ָ in
Ps. 125.2, and this passage seems to be a fruitful intertext for understanding what might
have been in the mind of the OG in this passage of Daniel.54 In Ps. 125, the comparison
is made with how God is ‘around’ his people ‘from now and forever’, and in the previ-
ous verse, ‘those who trust in the LORD are like Mt Zion, which cannot be moved, but
abides forever’. These references to the stability of the mountains, specifically Mt Zion,
and of God’s care and protection of his people allow for an interesting link with the ‘eter-
nal mountains’ of the OG in Dan. 8.11, which are overthrown, as is Mt Zion and God’s
sanctuary, by the horn, highlighting the extent of the crisis. If this psalm is in the mind
of the OG, it is also relevant that it continues to declare how ‘the sceptre of wickedness
shall not rest on the land allotted to the righteous’ (Ps. 125.3) and other assurances of the
defeat of the wicked.
The OG has next, ‘And he put it to the ground [upon the earth], and it prospered, and
it emerged, and the sanctuary will be desolated’. Despite its obscurity, in context, this
seems to develop a parallel thought to what precedes and follows. It talks about the horn
being brought (back) to earth and then being successful in the earthly sphere, even as
far as desolating the sanctuary, here clearly the Jerusalem sanctuary. This success con-
tinues in verse 12, which is quite similar in both texts. Both verses repeat ‘it prospered’

52. The comment of Newsom p. 264 about the passive verbs ‘suggesting that even these horrific
events are mysteriously in the hand of God’ could equally well apply to the OG. However,
the OG has provided more concrete evidence of the involvement of divine power on which to
base this faith.
53. See e.g., Deut. 32.22; Jdg. 5.5; 1 Kgs 19.11; Isa. 42.15; Nah. 1.5, etc.
54. Other references to the mountains of Zion include Ps. 133.3 (‫)ה ְר ֵרי ִצּיֹון‬,
ַ in the context of God’s
blessing of ‘life forevermore’; and Ps. 87.1 where God’s foundation, parallel to ‘the gates of
Zion’, is ‘on the holy mountains’ (‫)ּב ַה ְר ֵרי ק ֶֹדׁש‬.
ְ
706 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44(4)

(εὐοδώθη) in regard to the horn, which links with the description of the activities of
the final king in verses 24–25 (cf. Dan. 11.36), about whom it is said in verse 24 that
‘he will prosper’ (εὐοδωθήσεται) and in verse 25 that ‘the lie will prosper (εὐοδωθήσεται)
by his hands’.55 The OG has previously shown, however, that this is but the last gasp of
the tyrant, who has already been defeated by heaven.

6. The angelic conversation (Dan. 8.13–14)

The different presentations of the vision in the MT and the OG mean that the follow-
ing verses, where Daniel overhears a conversation between angels, are understood in
different ways. In the MT, the answer to the question of how long the sanctuary will
be downtrodden, and the daily sacrifice interrupted, is 2300 evenings and mornings.
The major interpretative question is whether this refers to 2300 days, consisting each
of an evening and a morning, or whether it means 2300 evenings and mornings, that
is, one each a day, and hence 1150 days. A common interpretation of the MT is that the
verse, given its context, is referring to the twice-daily offering of the Tamid sacrifice,
and hence to 1150 days.56 This number fits as another of the references to three and
some part of a year as the length of the crisis; see also the ‘time, times and half a time’
of Dan. 7.25; 12.7, usually understood as three and a half years, the half a week of years
in Dan. 9.27 (three and a half years), and the mention of 1290 days (Dan. 12.11) and
1335 days (Dan. 12.12).
In the OG, the answer to the question is ‘Two thousand three hundred days, evenings
and mornings, and the sanctuary will be purified’. The OG has a plus of ‘days’.57 This,
therefore, seems to imply that we are talking about a full 2300 days.58 This would tend
to separate it from a direct connection with the three years of persecution by Antiochus,
although the three years could be part of a longer section of that period.
The OG use of the verb καθαρίζω in ‘the sanctuary will be purified’ as the equiva-
lent of the verb ‫ צדק‬in the MT, ‘the sanctuary will be set right’, is unique.59 Rösel
connects this verse with Dan. 11.35, which talks of the learned being purified,60 and
Dan. 12.6, where the OG has a plus of ‘the purification of these things’ (ὁ καθαρισμὸν
τούτων) after ‘the consummation of the wonders’. He considers whether the transla-
tor is of the opinion that the Temple still needs to be purified after the Hasmonean
recapture and rededication of it.61 This would then perhaps link with the longer time

55. Segal, ‘Daniel 8’, p. 11.

56. E.g., Montgomery, Daniel, p. 343; Collins, Daniel, p. 336; Newsom, Daniel, p. 267. For
contrary opinions, favouring the interpretation as 2300 days, see Goldingay, Daniel, p. 213
(possibly symbolic); Seow, Daniel, p. 125.
57. A suggested analogy is the evenings and mornings of each day in Gen 1.
58. McCrystall, ‘Old Greek’, p. 266.
59. Daniel Olariu, ‘The Quest for the Common Basis in the Greek Versions of Daniel’ (M.A.
Thesis, Department of Bible, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2015), p. 27. Olariu
pp. 27 n. 34, 70 also notes that the adjective καθαρός is used as an equivalent for ‫ צדק‬in Num.
5.17 and Job 1.5.
60. The MT is similar in this verse.
61. Rösel, ‘Theology After the Crisis’, p. 213.
Young 707

period given and the fact that the OG translation was made some time after the
rededication of the Temple. In this context, the future tense of ‘and the sanctuary
will be desolated’ (καὶ τὸ ἅγιον ἐρημωθήσεται) in verse 11 may also be important.62 If
the suggestion is correct that OG verse 11 ‘until the commander in chief delivers the
captives’ refers to the military victories of Judas Maccabaeus, leading to the libera-
tion of the people and Jerusalem, this further chronological note may indicate that
although the Seleucid oppression of the Temple has been ended, the full purification
of the Temple is still to come. If so, this would place the translator after the end of
the persecution in 164 BCE, but before the end of the 2300 days from the start of the
crisis.63 Alternatively, the two time frames could fit together, with Judas’ liberation
of the Temple basically concurrent with the end of the 2300 days, which therefore
started earlier than 167 BCE.64

7. Daniel’s reaction, and the beginning of the interpretation

of the vision (Dan. 8.15–24)
The next section is mostly quite similar in the OG and the MT. An angel appears, and
Daniel collapses and is roused by the angel, who gives him the interpretation of the
vision.
One variant in verse 19 seems important for developing the OG’s distinctive storyline.
Both texts include the angel’s statement ‘Lo, I am telling you what will take place at the
end of the wrath’. The OG has a plus ‘against the sons of the [88-Syh: your] people’. The
phrase ‘the sons of your people’ is found in Dan. 12.1:

And at that hour will pass by (MT: arise) Michael, the great angel (MT: prince) who stands over
the sons of your people (τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου). That is a day of affliction, which will be such
as has not occurred since they were born until that day. And on that day the whole people will
be exalted (MT: saved) whoever is found inscribed in the book.

The OG therefore makes a connection between the time of anger talked about here and
the end described in the vision in Dan. 10–12. This intertextual link would therefore
evoke the greater detail about the eschatological solution to the current crisis found in
that later chapter.
Following this verse, the interpretation of the vision of the ram, goat, and first horns
is quite similar in the two texts. So too the first two verses of the interpretation of the
vision of the final horn, Antiochus (Dan. 8.23–24), which tell how ‘he will prosper and
will accomplish, and he will destroy the powerful and the common people of the holy
ones’ (καὶ εὐοδωθήσεται καὶ ποιήσει καὶ φθερεῖ δυνάστας καὶ δῆμον ἁγίων). It is only in the
final verse of the vision-interpretation that some variants occur which are important for
understanding the distinctive message of the chapter in the OG.

62. Martin Rösel, e-mail conversation, 30.1.2018.

63. Note again the early date proposed for the OG translation by McCrystall, ‘Studies in the Old
Greek Translation of Daniel’, mentioned in footnote 11.
64. For such an interpretation applied to the MT, see e.g., Seow, Daniel, p. 125.
708 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44(4)

8. The interpretation of the vision of the last horn

concluded (Dan. 8.25)

Vs MT OG Variants

25. And by (?) his cleverness
. . .
MT: ‫ל־ׂש ְכֹלו‬
ִ ‫וְ ַע‬
. . . and deceit will prosper
by his hand . . .
MT: ‫וְ ִה ְצ ִל ַיח ִמ ְר ָמה ְּביָ ֹדו‬
. . . and in his heart he will
magnify himself . . .
MT: ‫ּוב ְל ָבֹבו יַ גְ ִּדיל‬
ִ OG: καὶ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ
. . . and unexpectedly he
will destroy many . . .
MT: ‫ּוב ַׁש ְלוָ ה יַ ְׁש ִחית ַר ִּבים‬
ְ OG: καὶ δόλῳ ἀφανιεῖ
. . . and against the prince
of princes he will arise . . .
MT: ‫ר־ׂש ִרים יַ ֲעמֹד‬
ָ ‫ל־ׂש‬
ַ ‫וְ ַע‬
. . . but without (human)
hand he will be broken.
MT: ‫ּוב ֶא ֶפס יָ ד יִ ָּׁש ֵבר‬
ְ OG: καὶ ποιήσει συναγωγὴν
And his thought will be
against the holy ones.
OG: καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους τὸ
διανόημα αὐτοῦ
And the lie will prosper by
his hands, . . .
OG: καὶ εὐοδωθήσεται τὸ
ψεῦδος ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ
. . . and his heart will be
exalted.
ὑψωθήσεται
And by deceit he will
annihilate many, . . .
πολλοὺς
. . . and he will rise by the
destruction of men.
OG: καὶ ἐπὶ ἀπωλείας ἀνδρῶν
στήσεται
And he will make a gathering
by hand and will repay.
χειρὸς καὶ ἀποδώσεται
MT: And by (?) his
cleverness// OG: And his
thought will be against the
holy ones
OG + the (lie)
MT: hand// OG: hands
MT: and in his heart he will
magnify himself// OG: and
his heart will be exalted
MT: unexpectedly// OG:
by deceit
MT: the prince of princes//
OG: the destruction of
men
MT: without// OG: he will
make a gathering
MT: he will be broken//
OG: and will repay

Instead of the MT’s difficult ‘And by his cleverness’, the OG reads a more under-
standable ‘And his thought will be against the holy ones’. The suggested Vorlage of the
OG makes clearer an irony that is already present in the MT. If, as many scholars suggest,
the Daniel group identifies with the Maskilim (‫)ה ַּמ ְׂש ִּכ ִילים‬
ַ ‘insightful ones’ of Dan. 11.33,
35; cf. Dan. 1.4,65 then it is ironic that Antiochus uses his own ‫ ֵׂש ֶכל‬against the holy ones
and their people.66
The OG here links back to the major divergence between the OG and the MT in verse
10. There, in the MT, Antiochus (the small horn) is pictured as having some success
against the heavenly powers (the stars), whereas in the OG, he is repulsed and cast down
to earth. Thus, it is significant that here it is described that ‘his thought’ is against the
holy ones. As in verse 10, he may have designs against heaven, but as verse 10 has told
us, they will come to nothing.

65. See above with n. 43.

66. It is interesting though, that the OG does not make this connection itself, translating the
word ‫ ַמ ְׂש ִּכ ִילים‬differently in each case: ἐπιστήμονας (Dan. 1.4); ἐννοούμενοι (Dan. 11.33); and
συνιέντων (Dan. 11.35).
Young 709

It is generally accepted that the statement in the MT, ‘and against the prince of princes
he will arise’, links in with verse 11 ‘and up to the prince of the host it magnified itself’,
the ‘prince of princes’ here, and ‘the prince of the host’ being the same, that is, God.67
This link is not present in the OG, which has a variant text in both cases, here ‘and he
will rise by the destruction of men’ and in verse 11 ‘until the prince of the host delivers
the captives’. Rather, the OG is simply continuing to describe Antiochus’ violent behav-
iour against humans. There remains no hint of a successful direct assault on God or the
heavenly powers in the OG.
‘But without human hand he will be broken’ is taken as a major theological statement
in the MT, indicating that Antiochus will be destroyed by the direct agency of God. It
links with the statement in Dan. 2.34 that the stone, representing the kingdom of God,
which destroys the pagan kingdoms, is cut from a mountain ‘without hands’ (Aramaic
ָ In contrast, the OG reads quite differently: ‘And he will make a gathering by
‫)לא ִב ַידיִ ן‬.
hand and will repay’. The focus seems to remain on the activities of the king, without
talking about his fall. Elsewhere in the OG, the word ‘gathering’ (συναγωγή) is used of
an armed force that is mustered by the Seleucid kings of the north in Dan. 11.10–13, and
that fits this context well. Antiochus gathers an armed force to repay or get revenge on
his enemies.68 The OG has less need at this point to have a statement about Antiochus’
demise. That has been fully described in his failed attack on heaven in verses 10–11.
Since this is the very last thing said about Antiochus in OG Dan. 8, however, might the
reference to his gathering an army be meant to be seen in relation to his last campaign,
as described in Dan. 11.40–45,69 which ends in the OG also with ‘and the hour of his
consummation will come, and there will be no one who helps him’? In contrast to this,
at best, veiled reference to his fall, in the MT, this short phrase ‘but without human hand
he will be broken’ bears a very heavy burden as the only statement in the chapter that
Antiochus will fail.
The final verses (Dan. 8.26–27) are similar in the two texts and describe the angelic
assurance of the truth of the vision and Daniel’s appalled reaction to it.

9. Conclusion
To conclude, the OG tells quite a different story about the career and fate of the final horn,
Antiochus. This is centred in its vision report in verses 10–12. Although he will achieve
spectacular earthly success, even against the temple and God’s people, the visionary has
seen the defeat of Antiochus’ assault on heaven. All that remains, therefore, is for the vic-
tory in the heavenly sphere to manifest itself in the earthly sphere. This will happen with
the rescue of the captives, the literary Daniel’s fellow exiles who stand for the persecuted
in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. In contrast to the MT, the OG in no way lacks divine
presence and succeeds in completely keeping the horn away from the heavenly realm.

67. Montgomery, Daniel, p. 351; Charles, Daniel, p. 220; Goldingay, Daniel, p. 218; Collins,
Daniel, p. 333; Newsom, Daniel, p. 272.
68. See T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009), p. 73,
§5 for ἀποδίδωμι ‘to requite’ e.g., for deeds.
69. Or indeed, a reference to his actual death on campaign in Elam.
710 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 44(4)

I hope that others will pick up these suggestions regarding the overall storyline of OG
Dan. 8 and develop them further.
Finally, I note that standard discussions of major variations in the OG of Daniel focus
on the different literary editions of Dan. 4–6 and sometimes give the impression that
variations elsewhere in the book, especially in the visions, are rather minor.70 While it
is right to draw attention to the extraordinary level of variation in chapters 4–6,71 this
should not be allowed to obscure the fact that other parts of OG Daniel have significant
variations from the MT, whether in individual passages or, as shown here, in the overall
storyline of a whole chapter.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Anne Gardner, Tim Meadowcroft, and Martin Rösel for their very helpful com-
ments on earlier drafts.

ORCID iD
Ian Young  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1799-899X

70. Note as a typical example the statement in the excellent survey of scholarship on the text of
Daniel by Olariu, ‘Textual History of Daniel’, p. 517 that ‘most of the prominent dispari-
ties over against MT are evidenced by the Old Greek in Daniel 4–6’. It is clear that Olariu
understands that this statement is a simplification, but less experienced readers might find it
misleading.
71. On Dan 5, see the parallel presentation of the two texts in Ian Young, ‘The Original Problem:
The Old Greek and the Masoretic Text of Daniel Chapter 5’, in Raymond F. Person, Jr. and
Robert Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (SBLAIL, 25;
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), pp. 271–301.