THE PARALLEL EDITIONS OF THE OLD GREEK AND

MASORETIC TEXT OF DANIEL 5*

Eugene Ulrich

Then there are texts that appear to be either scriptural writings or slight
modifications of them . . .; others occupy points on a spectrum leading
from authoritative texts to writings intimately related to them, to works
that cite authoritative books, to ones that only allude to scripture or
employ scriptural language.1
James VanderKam has provided fundamental contributions as well as
numerous insights to the study of the Scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls,
and related religious writings of the Second Temple period.2 His state-
ment above articulates the concept of a broad and gradated spectrum
of types of composition encountered in this literature that—under
the umbrella of “rewritten Scripture”—is one of the most important
issues currently challenging Scrolls scholars. One set of writings that
illustrates such a spectrum is the corpus of Danielic writings.3 In this

* It is a pleasure to contribute this essay in honor of Professor James VanderKam,

an ideal colleague and long-treasured friend. As a superb scholar and a beloved
teacher, he has greatly advanced Jewish and Christian scholarship and immeasurably
enriched the lives of generations of students.
1
James C. VanderKam, “To What End? Functions of Scriptural Interpretation in
Qumran Texts,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented
to Eugene Ulrich (ed. Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; VTSup
101; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 302–20, esp. 304. See also his “Questions of Canon Viewed
through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee M. McDonald and James
A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 91–109.
2
To list but a few of his major contributions: The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (co-edited with Lawrence Schiffman; New York: Oxford University Press,
2000); The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the
Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (co-authored with Peter Flint; San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2002); for the general public, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (2d
ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), with translations into German, Italian, Japanese,
Portuguese, Polish, and Danish; Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition
(CBQMS 16; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984); and
The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; CSCO 510–11; Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88; Leuven:
Peeters, 1989).
3
For the editions of the scriptural scrolls of Daniel, see Eugene Ulrich, DJD 16:239–
89 and The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (VTSup 134;
Leiden: Brill, 2010), 755–75; for discussion, see idem, “The Text of Daniel in the Qum-
ran Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and
202 eugene ulrich

chapter I will cursorily review the scrolls containing Daniel-related tra-

ditions and then focus on the phenomenon even within biblical texts:
the two parallel editions of Daniel 5 attested in the OG and the MT.
In addition to the seven mss of the full scriptural book of Daniel,
the Scrolls provide a trajectory of Danielic literature: evidence of pos-
sible earlier sources for the book, as well as compositions beyond the
book. The Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242) is widely accepted as a prob-
able source for chapter 4 of Daniel. The small ms 4QDane (4Q116),
which most likely contained only the prayer of Dan 9:4–19,4 may
provide evidence of another source, a separate prayer that was taken
and incorporated into chapter 9.5 Alternatively, it may simply be an
“excerpted” ms drawn from the completed book. Esther Eshel suggests,
in addition to the Prayer of Nabonidus, that Historical Text A (4Q248;
formerly Acts of a Greek King) and column 2 of a Book of Giants
manuscript (4Q530) may also have served as sources of the book of
Daniel.6 Pseudo-Daniela–c (4Q243–245), and possibly Four Kingdomsa–c
(4Q552–553a), represent developments of the wider Danielic tradi-
tions, partly similar to the biblical book but also showing differences,
especially in the broader scope of Israelite history surveyed.7 But the
spectrum is not simply “sources–Scripture–developments”; within the
scriptural text itself, there is “rewritten Scripture,” that is, rewritten
versions of Daniel 4–6.

Peter W. Flint; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature 2.2; VTSup
83.2; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 573–85. For editions of the non-scriptural Daniel scrolls see
Collins, DJD 22:83–93, and Collins and Flint, DJD 22:95–151; for extensive treatment
see Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993); and Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in The Book of Daniel,
329–67.
4
4QDane survives in only seven small fragments with parts of 9:12–17; it is the only
Qumran attestation of chapter 9. Its small number of lines per column, estimated at
only nine, plus the large size of the letters suggests that it contained only the prayer,
in five columns. If it were to contain the entire Book of Daniel, it would require ca.
120 columns; see DJD 16:287 and Pl. XXXVII, and Collins, Daniel: A Commentary,
347–48.
5
See similarly inserted prayers in Daniel 3: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song
of the Three Youths, as well as prayers inserted elsewhere: e.g., Hannah’s prayer in
1 Samuel 2, and David’s song of thanksgiving in 2 Samuel 22.
6
Esther Eshel, “Possible Sources of the book of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel,
387–94.
7
Scholars have suggested that other compositions, such as the Aramaic Apocryphon
(4Q246 apocrDan ar), an Apocalypse in Aramaic on papyrus (4Q489 papApocalypse
ar), and another entitled Daniel-Susanna? (4Q551 Account ar, olim DanSuz? ar) were
related to the book of Daniel, but the suggestions no longer find favor.
 old greek and masoretic text of daniel 5 203

Though there is a rich Danielic tradition in the centuries leading

up to the “Great Divide,”8 the roots go back much earlier. The ca.
fourteenth century b.c.e. Canaanite Tale of Aqhat from Ugarit fea-
tures Danel as a just and wise man, father of Aqhat. Ezekiel (14:14, 20;
28:3) also mentions as early as the sixth century b.c.e. such an already
legendary and presumably well-known wise and righteous man. Espe-
cially the latter is commonly seen “as the literary ancestor of the hero”
of the biblical book.9 It is easy to see why stories such as Susanna and
Bel and the Dragon also employed the figure of Daniel as their hero.
While preparing the translation of Daniel for the New Revised Stan-
dard Version and reflecting on how to establish the text that was to be
translated, I noticed the phenomenon of “double literary editions” in
Daniel as well as in other biblical books.10 These double literary edi-
tions posed a significant question for producing a single-text Bible. In
light of the refinements and additional examples of variant editions
gained in the intervening two decades, it seems useful to work out
in textual detail here my earlier general impressions of these paral-
lel editions. Whereas most variant editions are successive “new and
expanded editions,” that is not the situation encountered when com-
paring the two main witnesses, the MT and the OG, for chapters 4–6.
Rather, although for much of chapters 1–2 and 7–12 the MT and OG

8
The term denotes the watershed in the production of Scripture: between the
earlier period of developmental composition while the Second Temple stood, and
the later period of the single form (not “standardized”) of the Scriptures when fur-
ther development was not allowed. The time cannot be precisely determined but is
sometime between the First Revolt (66–73 c.e.) and the Second Revolt (132–135 c.e.)
but not much later. See Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Crystallization of the ‘Canon of
Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran,” in The Bible as
Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E.
Tov; London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 5–20, esp. 14. For the
claim that the MT was not “standardized” but rather was a single form of each book
abruptly stopped from further development after the Great Divide, see Eugene Ulrich,
“Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Juda-
ism,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches
and Methods (ed. Maxine Grossman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 145–61.
9
See W. Sibley Towner, “Daniel,” NIDB 2:13.
10
“Double Literary Editions of Biblical Narratives and Reflections on Determining
the Form to be Translated,” in Perspectives on the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of
Walter J. Harrelson (ed. James L. Crenshaw; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press,
1988), 101–16; repr., in Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Stud-
ies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999),
34–50. See also Dean O. Wenthe, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 1–6” (Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1991). The present study is my long-delayed,
fresh analysis for Dan 5.
204 eugene ulrich

display the same edition,11 for chapters 4–6 they display parallel vari-
ant editions.12 It appears that both the MT and the OG are “new and
expanded editions” for these chapters, not in comparison with each
other, but insofar as they are separate, parallel expansions of a com-
mon narrative core which had served as an earlier form of the story
(see Appendix below). Thus, we find editorial and scribal creativity not
only prior to and subsequent to the biblical book, but we find it also
within the biblical book. This is the phenomenon I wish to analyze in
this essay.
For our purposes here we can pass over in silence considerations of
orthography and minor commonplace variants,13 such as routine addi-
tions14 and ketîb-qerê;15 the only emendation of the MT below is the
excision of the dittography in ‫( מנא מנא‬5:25), which may or may not
have been influenced by the ‫ מנא מנה‬in the following verse.16
In the texts provided in the Appendix, the central column lists the
words common to both the MT and the OG: words in the MT that

11
Chapter 3 is complicated. The edition with Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the
Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews attested by the OG and Theodotion
should be considered an expanded edition.
12
The distinct character of chapters (3)4–6 had already been recognized by August
Bludau in Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhältnis zum
massorethischen Text (BibS 2/2–3; Freiburg im Bresgau: Herder, 1897). Bludau’s anal-
ysis was confirmed by James A. Montgomery in The Book of Daniel (ICC; New York:
Scribner’s, 1927), 35–39, who concluded that the Greek translator “worked faithfully
word by word, especially in the obscure passages” (36). Montgomery’s notes provide
“considerable evidence for a translation from a Sem[itic] copy which is responsible
for much of the additions, largely midrash, now in [the OG]” (37). For detailed post-
Qumran textual discussions, see Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The
Book of Daniel (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978), 74–83; Sharon Pace, Daniel
(Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2008), 11–13;
and especially Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 3–7.
13
I have studied the orthography of the two larger scrolls (4QDana, b) in compari-
son with the MT in Scrolls and Origins, 148–62, and listed the individual textual vari-
ants for all eight of the scriptural scrolls vis-à-vis the MT, the OG, and Theodotion in
The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 755–75, and in “The Text of Daniel,” 575–79.
14
E.g., the MT adds “Belshazzar” (5:2), “king” (5:5), “the diviners” (5:7–8), and
“Chaldean” (5:30); the OG adds “opposite King Belshazzar” (5:5), “and fears” (5:6),
“all” (5:23), and “the king” (5:29).
15
Both the consistent qerê ‫ =( המניכא‬OG μανιάκην) and the ketîb ‫( המונכא‬5:7, 16,
29) have much of the word correctly; both should probably be emended to ‫המינכא‬
(< hamya–(ha)naka), according to Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic
(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1961), §189 59.
16
For ‫ מנא‬as a dittography see Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, 262, and Collins,
Daniel: A Commentary, 250. See similar dittographies in the MT at 2 Sam 6:2 (‫שם‬
‫ )שם‬and 6:3–4.
 old greek and masoretic text of daniel 5 205

are faithfully translated in the OG. The OG is a translation—closer to

free than to literal, but nonetheless faithful—that reflects an Aramaic
text that was close to the MT for most of the book but that was simply
different from the MT for chapters 4–6.17 In the “MT Pluses” column
are words that seem distinctive and at variance from (the Semitic Vor-
lage of ) the OG, whereas in the “OG Pluses” column are words not
found in the MT that the OG translates presumably faithfully from
its non-Masoretic Vorlage.18 Thus, the claim of this essay is that the
central column of the Appendix contains an earlier, no longer extant,
complete core form of the story of Belshazzar’s feast that served as the
basis for the two separate, more developed forms of the story trans-
mitted in the MT and in the OG. To that common narrative core the
MT and the OG (Vorlage) each added or emphasized distinctive story-
telling embellishments to produce their divergent editions.19 In the few
seemingly missing spots, especially at verse 9, the core narrative was
replaced in both by their distinctive expansions.20

17
For most of the book, the OG shows a free but faithful translation of a Semitic
parent text quite similar to the MT. The OG also shows no internal difference in chap-
ters 4–6 from its translation style in the rest of the book. Thus, it should be considered
a free but faithful translation of a Semitic parent text that was simply at variance with
the MT for the stories in chapters 4–6. The ubiquitous pluralism visible in virtually all
scriptural mss and in numerous quotations during the Second Temple period provides
a solid basis for a divergent Vorlage.
18
In most cases where it can be determined, the “new and expanded edition” of
various books was created at the Hebrew-Aramaic stage, not the Greek stage; see
Ulrich, Scrolls and Origins, 42–44.
19
In claiming that the OG of chapter 5 is an intact, and even expanded, edition, I
differ from Montgomery (The Book of Daniel, 267), who speaks of it as “considerably
abbreviated” in comparison with the MT, a “curtailment,” “a distinct toning down,”
and in “no respect . . . preferable” to the MT. He thinks that “it appears to be an inten-
tional abstract. There are but slight clews [sic] suggesting that [OG’s] Semitic text was
in like abstract form” (ibid.). In light of evidence, however, such as 4QJerb, 4QDeutq,
and 4QSama, and Montgomery’s statement above (n. 12) about “considerable evidence
for a translation from a Sem[itic] copy which is responsible for much of the addi-
tions,” the claim remains plausible.
20
The complete texts of the MT, the OG, and the core narrative are printed, but at
certain points they are shortened by omitting unnecessary words. These symbols are
used in the columns:
• italics denote words that occur in or are presumed by both traditions, with
minor changes due to translation technique or narrative adjustment
• ( ) in the Core column denotes a similar expression probably in the original
because both MT and OG use it
• ( ) in the MT and OG “Pluses” columns marks words already in the Core
• [ ] refers to occurrences in a different verse
• . . . marks the absence of unnecessary words
• Ñ marks the point of insertion for an addition
206 eugene ulrich

Note in the MT and OG “Pluses” columns the distinguishing story-

telling embellishments or favorite quasi-Homeric formulae, many of
which are more developed in the MT:

• the king and his lords and concubines in the MT (1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 23)
in contrast to simply his companions in the OG
• the gods of gold and silver in the MT (4, 23) in contrast to the idols
made with human hands in the OG
• more emphasis on royal grandeur in the MT (“the royal palace” 5;
“O King, live forever” 10; “gave a command” 29; “proclamation was
made” 29)
• emphasis in the OG on Daniel’s God (2, 4, 23)
• the MT formula: “read the writing and make known the interpreta-
tion” vs. the OG “explain the meaning of the writing” (7, 8, 15, 16,
17, 26)
• “the spirit of the holy gods” in the MT, not in the OG (11, 14)
• various formulations for the diviners and enchanters (7, 8, 11)
• the dominant differences: the different reactions of the king, and the
expanded speeches

Different reactions of the king distinguish the two editions. When the
king sees the writings (6), in the OG he naturally gets up quickly and
watches the writing, and his companions talk excitedly. In the MT,
however, his fearfulness is caricatured, with his knees knocking and
with a possible euphemism, his hip-joints or loins loosening. More-
over, though the core narrative relates one time that the king’s face
turns pale (6), the MT repeats that fearful reaction twice more (9, 10).
The largest expansions, however, are the major speeches by the main
characters in vv. 10–24, nearly half the chapter. In the OG the queen
briefly reminds the king about the wise Daniel. In the MT she gives an
extended speech (10–12); the king, in turn, summoning Daniel, gives
an extended introductory speech (13–16), to which Daniel replies with
a rather insolent, extended accusatory speech (17–24).
The OG adds mainly natural story-telling embellishments, whereas
the MT is more expanded with stock formulae and especially lengthy
rhetorical speeches by the queen, Belshazzar, and finally Daniel.
Thus, subsequent to the one or more scrolls preserved at Qumran
that may have served as a source for the book of Daniel, and prior
to several more eschatologically developed compositions beyond the
scriptural book, there are four variant editions that can be traced
 old greek and masoretic text of daniel 5 207

within the biblical book itself. We have seen that the MT of chapter 5
is significantly longer than the OG, producing a somewhat different
version of the story. The converse also happens, though space does not
permit demonstration: in chapters 4 and 6 the OG is longer than the
MT. The least that can be said is that the profile of the three chapters is
not consistent. Rather, an analogous process of new and expanded edi-
tions produced the different forms of the three chapters. To an earlier
core narrative of the three chapters, numerous insertions were added:
both minor routine additions and especially larger narrative embel-
lishments that enhanced the stories. Thus, four variant editions of the
scriptural Daniel can be distinguished:

1. the edition logically deduced, though no longer preserved, as

the necessary basis for the subsequent pair of parallel editions in
chapters 4–6;
2–3. the two parallel editions that can be labeled 2α (the expanded
edition in [the Vorlage of ] the OG for 4–6) and 2‫( א‬the expanded
edition in the MT for 4–6);
4. the longer edition of the book with the “Additions” (the Prayer
of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and
the Dragon).

With regard to chapters 4–6, for edition 1 there is no ms attestation that

survives. For edition 2α the only attestation is in the OG (preserved
only in ms 88, Papyrus 967, and the Syro-Hexapla). Edition 2‫ א‬appears
in the MT and, to judge from the few remaining variants, in 4QDana,
4QDanb, and 4QDand.21 The final, longer edition of the book, with the
“Additions” in chapter 3 and the extra chapters, appears in the OG
and Theodotion (and their non-surviving Semitic Vorlagen?); in con-
trast, 1QDanb and 4QDand attest to the shorter edition 2 as opposed to
the longer edition, since they both preserve 3:23 followed immediately
by 3:24 without the Prayer and Song. The remaining scrolls, 1QDana,
4QDanc, 4QDane, and 6QpapDan, are not extant for passages where
their affiliation could be determined.

21
These scrolls often have individual variants in agreement with the OG that are
minor additions beyond the MT, but for the edition they seem to agree with the
MT.
208 eugene ulrich

Finally, it should not pass without observation that all the textual
copies of the book of Daniel are free of “sectarian variants.” Although
the final form of the twelve-chapter book was composed in the turbu-
lent period of the Hellenistic crisis—the general time period in which
various Jewish parties, such as the Pharisees and the Essenes, were
defining themselves and the Qumran experiment eventually began—
none of the variants betray “sectarian” tampering. Moreover, our sur-
viving manuscripts were copied during the following couple centuries,
when it must have been tempting to add or revise phrases advanta-
geous to the group producing the copies. But even though clear expan-
sion can be detected at the levels of orthography, individual textual
variants (mainly the addition of predictable, neutral words),22 and lit-
erary editions, there is no sign of “sectarian” manipulation.”23 The var-
ious groups argued and debated vigorously between themselves, and
probably even within their own ranks, but the evidence shows that all
debate took place outside, not within, the text of the Scriptures.24

Conclusion

Insofar as the analysis above is correct, the OG of Daniel 5 and the

MT of that chapter represent two separate, parallel editions of that
narrative. The most cogent explanation seems to be that there was an
earlier version of the narrative that was shorter than the preserved
forms and that the OG (or probably the Aramaic Vorlage of the OG)
expanded the narrative in certain ways, whereas the precursor of the

22
See notes 13–15 above.
23
See George J. Brooke, “E pluribus unum: Textual Variety and Definitive Inter-
pretation in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context
(ed. Timothy H. Lim et al.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 107–19; and Eugene Ulrich,
“The Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants’ in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qum-
ran,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed.
Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov; London: The British Library and Oak Knoll
Press, 2002), 179–95.
24
The single exception noted thus far does not occur in the Scrolls but in the SP-
OG-OL and the MT: the placement of Joshua’s altar. In my view 4QJosha, supported
by Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, attests the early, neutral account of an altar built at
Gilgal, whereas the SP-OG-OL secondarily transfers the altar to Mount Gerizim, and
the MT then at a third stage rejects Mount Gerizim, replacing it with the improbable
Mount Ebal. The latter two moves would thus be sectarian variants, but not in the
scrolls; see Ulrich, Scrolls and Origins, 28.
 old greek and masoretic text of daniel 5 209

MT expanded it even more fully with different insertions.25 It seems

quite unlikely that either would have been produced by excising the
pluses in the other.26
What is the larger picture gained, when this small study of the Dan-
ielic trajectory of traditions—the sources behind the book (e.g., Prayer
of Nabonidus), the variant editions of the book itself, and the subse-
quent compositions (e.g., Pseudo-Daniela–c)—is joined with the results
of the other variant editions of biblical books? The combined manu-
script evidence from preserved Qumran sources and other sources
preceding the “Great-Divide” (e.g., the Samaritan Pentateuch, the
Septuagint, quotations of the Law and the Prophets in the New Testa-
ment, the recasting of the biblical narrative in Josephus) sketches a
tapestry of developmental composition of the Bible.
Based on a variety of oral and written literary sources, the early
forms of the biblical texts were composed by Israelite leaders reflect-
ing on God’s action in human affairs. Due to various historical, social,
military, or religious changes, the different sets of traditions were
intermittently transformed into what we can loosely term “new and
expanded editions” of those compositions. The written forms of these
compositions were copied as faithfully as possible for new genera-
tions until the next edition was produced for analogous reasons. The
evidence demonstrates that the evolutionary changes, different for

25
Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon were two of the early, influential
contributors to the theory of the history of the biblical text in light of the scrolls.
Cross (“The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts,” in Qumran and the History of
the Biblical Text [ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1975], 306–20) had suggested a theory of local texts (Palestine, Egypt,
and Babylon). Talmon (“The Old Testament Text,” in The Cambridge History of the
Bible [ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans; 3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970], 1.159–99; repr. in Qumran and the History, 1–41) rather offered a socio-
religious explanation: that, of the many forms circulating, the rabbis inherited one set
of texts (the MT) after the fall of the Temple, while the Christians inherited another
(the LXX). Both theories are correct and helpful to a certain extent. The two parallel
editions must have developed in different circles at different times; it is quite unlikely
that the same group produced both. Also, the rabbis did receive the MT form of Dan-
iel 5, while the Christians eventually received the OG form. But neither view provides
a full, causal explanation. There is no indication in the editions to link them with
any particular locality; they could have been produced anywhere, even in neighboring
towns or in the same town by different groups. Nor is there any theological, group-
specific, or other sectarian clue (other than language) to suggest why the rabbis or the
Christians would have chosen their particular edition. Hopefully the theory of variant
literary editions comes one step closer to explaining the evidence for Daniel.
26
Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, 267.
210 eugene ulrich

each book or group of books, continued sporadically up to the “Great

Divide.” The evolutionary process continued through the late Second
Temple period until it was abruptly frozen (not “standardized”) by
the results of the two Jewish Revolts and the religious threat of early
Christianity.
 ‫‪old greek and masoretic text of daniel 5‬‬ ‫‪211‬‬

‫‪APPENDIX‬‬

‫‪OG Pluses‬‬ ‫‪Core Narrative‬‬ ‫‪MT Pluses‬‬

‫‪ 1‬בלשאצר מלכא‬
‫עבד לחם רב‬
‫‪τοῖς ἑταίροις αὐτοῦ‬‬ ‫לרברבנוהי אלף‬
‫ולקבל אלפא‬
‫חמרא שתה׃‬
‫‪ Ñ 2‬אמר‬ ‫בלשאצר ‪+‬‬
‫בטעם חמרא‬
‫להיתיה למאני דהבא‬
‫וכספא‬
‫די הנפק נבוכדנצר אבוהי‬
‫‪τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ . . .‬‬ ‫מן היכלא די בירושלם‬
‫‪ἀπὸ Ιερουσαλημ‬‬ ‫וישתון בהון‬

‫‪τοῖς ἑταίροις αὐτοῦ‬‬ ‫מלכא ורברבנוהי‬

‫שגלתה ולחנתה׃‬
‫‪ 3‬באדין היתיו‬
‫מאני דהבא די הנפקו‬
‫מן היכלא‬
‫די בית אלהא די‬
‫בירושלם‬
‫ואשתיו בהון‬
‫מלכא ורברבנוהי‬
‫שגלתה ולחנתה׃‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪ 4‬אשתיו חמרא‬
‫ושבחו לאלהי‬
‫‪τὰ χειροποίητα αὐτῶν‬‬
‫דהבא וכספא נחשא‬
‫פרזלא‬
‫אעא ואבנא׃‬
‫‪καὶ τὸν θεὸν τοῦ‬‬
‫‪αἰῶνος‬‬
‫‪οὐκ εὐλόγησαν τὸν‬‬
‫‪ἔχοντα‬‬
‫‪τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ‬‬
‫‪πνεύματος αὐτῶν.‬‬
212 eugene ulrich

Table (cont.)
OG Pluses Core Narrative MT Pluses
‫ בה שעתה נפקו אצבען‬5
‫די יד אנש וכתבן לקבל‬
‫נברשתא‬
‫על גירא די כתל‬
τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ‫היכלא די מלכא‬
ἔναντι τοῦ βασιλέως
Βαλτασαρ
‫ חזה פס‬Ñ + ‫ומלכא‬
‫ידה די כתבה׃‬
‫ אדין מלכא זיוהי שנוהי‬6
+καὶ ὑπόνοιαι ‫ יבהלונה‬Ñ‫ורעינהי‬
‫וקטרי חרצה משתרין‬
‫וארכבתה דא לדא‬
‫נקשן׃‬
ἔσπευσεν οὖν ὁ
βασιλεὺς καὶ
ἐξανέστη καὶ ἑώρα
τὴν γραφὴν
ἐκείνην, καὶ οἱ
συνέταιροι
κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ
ἐκαυχῶντο.
‫ קרא מלכא בחיל להעלה‬7
+ καὶ φαρμακοὺς ‫ כשדיא וגזריא‬Ñ‫לאשפיא‬
ἀπαγγεῖλαι τὸ
σύγκριμα τῆς
γραφῆς.
καὶ εἰσεπορεύοντο
ἐπὶ θεωρίαν ἰδεῖν τὴν
γραφήν,
καὶ τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς
γραφῆς
οὐκ ἠδύναντο
συγκρῖναι τῷ
βασιλεῖ.
‫מלכא‬ ‫ענה‬
ἐξέθηκε πρόσταγμα (‫)אמר‬ ‫ואמר‬
λέγων
‫לחכימי בבל די‬
‫כל אנש די‬
ὑποδείξῃ (‫)יקרא‬ ‫יקרה כתבה דנה‬
‫ופשרה יחונני‬
 old greek and masoretic text of daniel 5 213

Table (cont.)
OG Pluses Core Narrative MT Pluses
τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς
γραφῆς,
‫ארגונא ילבש‬
‫והמונכא די דהבא על‬
‫צוארה‬
‫ותלתי במלכותא ישלט׃‬
‫ אדין עללין‬8
οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ καὶ (‫)חכימיא‬ ‫כל חכימי מלכא‬
φαρμακοὶ καὶ
γαζαρηνοὶ,
‫ולא כהלין‬
τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς (‫)למקרא‬ ‫כתבא למקרא ופשרא‬
γραφῆς ἀπαγγεῖλαι. ‫להודעה‬
‫למלכא׃‬
‫ אדין מלכא‬9
‫בלשאצר שגיא מתבהל‬
‫וזיוהי שנין עלוהי‬
‫ורברבנוהי משתבשין׃‬
ἐκάλεσε τὴν (?‫)קרא‬
βασίλισσαν περὶ
τοῦ
σημείου καὶ ὑπέδειξεν
αὐτῇ,
ὡς μέγα ἐστί, καὶ ὅτι
πᾶς ἄνθρωπος
οὐκ ἐδύνατο
ἀπαγγεῖλαι τῷ
βασιλεῖ
τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς
γραφῆς.
‫ מלכתא‬10
‫לקבל מלי מלכא‬
‫ורברבנוהי‬
‫לבית משתיא עללת‬
‫ענת מלכתא‬
‫ואמרת מלכא לעלמין‬
‫חיי‬
ἐμνήσθη πρὸς αὐτὸν (‫)ואמרת‬ ‫אל יבהלוך רעיונך‬
‫וזיויך אל ישתנו׃‬
περὶ τοῦ ∆ανιηλ, ὅς ἦν (‫)דניאל‬ [= MT 12]
ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας
τῆς Ιουδαίας,
‫‪214‬‬ ‫‪eugene ulrich‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬
‫‪OG Pluses‬‬ ‫‪Core Narrative‬‬ ‫‪MT Pluses‬‬
‫‪11 καὶ εἶπε τῷ βασιλεῖ‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫)‪(Ὁ ἄνθρωπος‬‬ ‫גבר‬ ‫איתי )גבר(‬
‫במלכותך‬
‫די רוח אלהין קדישין‬
‫בה‬
‫]‪[= OG 12‬‬ ‫וביומי אבוך‬
‫‪(ἐπιστήμων ἦν καὶ‬‬ ‫ושכלתנו וחכמה‬ ‫נהירו )ושכלתנו‬
‫)‪σοφὸς‬‬ ‫וחכמה(‬
‫כחכמת אלהין‬
‫השתכחת בה‬
‫‪(καὶ ὑπερέχων πάντας‬‬ ‫רב חרטמין‬ ‫ומלכא נבכדנצר אבוך‬
‫)‪τοὺς σοφοὺς‬‬ ‫)רב חרטמין(‬
‫‪Βαβυλῶνος,‬‬ ‫אשפין כשדאין גזרין‬
‫הקימה‬
‫אבוך מלכא׃‬
‫‪ 12‬כל קבל די רוח יתירה‬
‫‪ . . .‬בה‬
‫‪καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις‬‬ ‫]‪[= MT 11‬‬
‫‪τοῦ πατρός σου‬‬
‫‪τοῦ βασιλέως‬‬
‫ומנדע ושכלתנו‬
‫ומשרא קטרין‬ ‫מפשר חלמין‬
‫‪(συγκρίματα ὑπέρογκα‬‬ ‫ואחוית אחידן )ומשרא‬
‫)‪ὑπέδειξε‬‬ ‫קטרין(‬
‫]‪[= OG 10‬‬ ‫השתכחת בה בדניאל‬
‫‪Ναβουχοδονοσορ τῷ‬‬ ‫די מלכא‬
‫‪πατρί σου.‬‬ ‫שם שמה בלטשאצר‬
‫כען דניאל יתקרי‬
‫ופשרה יהחוה׃‬
‫‪ 13‬באדין דניאל העל קדם‬
‫מלכא‬
‫ענה מלכא ואמר לדניאל‬
‫אנתה הוא דניאל די‬
‫מן בני גלותא‬
‫די יהוד די היתי מלכא‬
‫אבי מן יהוד׃‬
‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪ 14‬ושמעת עליך די‬
‫רוח אלהין בך‬
‫ונהירו ושכלתנו וחכמה‬
‫יתירה‬
‫השתכחת בך׃‬
 ‫‪old greek and masoretic text of daniel 5‬‬ ‫‪215‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬
‫‪OG Pluses‬‬ ‫‪Core Narrative‬‬ ‫‪MT Pluses‬‬
‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪ 15‬וכען העלו קדמי‬
‫חכימיא אשפיא‬
‫די כתבה דנה יקרון‬
‫ופשרה להודעתני‬
‫ולא כהלין פשר מלתא‬
‫להחויה׃‬
‫‪ 16‬ואנה שמעת עליך ‪16‬‬
‫די תוכל‬
‫פשרין למפשר‬
‫וקטרין למשרא‬
‫)‪Ὦ ∆ανιηλ, (δύνῃ‬‬ ‫תוכל‬ ‫כען הן )תוכל(‬
‫‪μοι ὑποδεῖξαι‬‬
‫)למקרא(‬ ‫כתבא למקרא‬
‫‪τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς‬‬ ‫ופשרה להודעתני‬
‫;‪γραφῆς‬‬ ‫ארגונא תלבש‬
‫והמונכא די דהבא על‬
‫צוארך‬
‫ותלתא במלכותא תשלט׃‬
‫‪(τότε ∆ανιηλ) ἔστη‬‬ ‫‪ 17‬באדין ‪ . . .‬דניאל‬
‫‪κατέναντι‬‬
‫‪τῆς γραφῆς καὶ‬‬
‫‪ἀνέγνω καὶ‬‬
‫‪(οὕτως ἀπεκρίθη τῷ‬‬ ‫ענה )דניאל( ואמר קדם‬ ‫)ענה דניאל ואמר קדם‬
‫)‪βασιλεῖ‬‬ ‫מלכא‬ ‫מלכא(‬

‫מתנתך לך להוין‬
‫ונבזביתך לאחרן הב‬
‫ברם כתבא‬
‫אקרא למלכא‬
‫ופשרא אהודענה׃‬
‫‪ 18‬אנתה מלכא אלהא עליא‬
‫מלכותא ורבותא ויקרא והדרה יהב לנבכדנצר אבוך׃‬
‫‪ 19‬ומן רבותא די יהב לה כל עממיא אמיא ולשניא‬
‫הוו זאעין‬
‫ודחלין מן קדמוהי די הוה צבא הוא קטל ‪ . . .‬הוה‬
‫מחא ‪. . .‬‬
‫הוה מרים ‪ . . .‬הוה משפיל׃‬
‫‪ 20‬וכדי רם לבבה ורוחה תקפת להזדה הנחת‬
‫מן כרסא מלכותה ויקרה העדיו מנה׃‬
‫‪216‬‬ ‫‪eugene ulrich‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬
‫‪OG Pluses‬‬ ‫‪Core Narrative‬‬ ‫‪MT Pluses‬‬
‫‪ 21‬ומן בני אנשא טריד ולבבה עם חיותא שוי ועם‬
‫ערדיא‬
‫מדורה עשבא כתורין יטעמונה ומטל שמיא גשמה‬
‫יצטבע‬
‫עד די ידע די שליט אלהא עליא במלכות אנשא‬
‫ולמן די יצבה יהקים עליה׃‬
‫‪ 22‬ואנתה ברה בלשאצר לא השפלת לבבך‬
‫כל קבל די כל דנה ידעת׃‬
‫‪(17) Αὕτη ἡ γραφή‬‬ ‫)כתבא(‬ ‫]‪[= MT 25‬‬
‫‪Ἠρίθμηται,‬‬ ‫]‪[= MT 25‬‬
‫‪κατελογίσθη,‬‬
‫‪ἐξῆρται‬‬
‫‪καὶ ἔστη ἡ γράψασα‬‬
‫‪χείρ.‬‬
‫‪καὶ αὕτη ἡ σὐγκρισις‬‬ ‫)פשרא(‬ ‫]‪[= MT 26‬‬
‫‪αὐτῶν.‬‬
‫‪βασιλεῦ, σὺ ἐποιήσω‬‬ ‫‪) 23‬ואנתה מלכא(‬ ‫ועל מרא שמיא‬
‫‪ἑστιατορίαν‬‬ ‫התרוממת‬
‫‪τοῖς φίλοις σου καὶ‬‬
‫‪ἔπινες οἶνον,‬‬
‫ולמאניא די ביתה‬
‫‪+ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος‬‬

‫היתיו קדמיך‬
‫ואנתה‬
‫‪καὶ οἱ μεγιστᾶνές σου‬‬ ‫ורברבניך שגלתך‬
‫ולחנתך‬
‫חמרא שתין בהון‬
‫‪+ πάντα‬‬ ‫‪ Ñ‬ולאלהי‬
‫‪τὰ χειροποίητα τῶν‬‬ ‫כספא ודהבא נחשא‬
‫‪ἀνθρώπων‬‬ ‫פרזלא‬
‫אעא ואבנא די לא‬
‫חזין ולא שמעין‬
‫ולא ידעין‬
‫שבחת‬
‫‪+ τῷ ζῶντι οὐκ‬‬ ‫‪Ñ‬ולאלהא‬
‫‪εὐλογήσατε‬‬
‫די נשמתך בידה‬
‫‪καὶ τὸ βασίλειόν σου‬‬ ‫וכל ארחתך לה‬
‫‪αὐτὸς ἔδωκέ σοι‬‬
‫‪+ οὐδὲ ᾔνεσας αὐτῷ.‬‬ ‫‪Ñ‬לא הדרת‪:‬‬
 ‫‪old greek and masoretic text of daniel 5‬‬ ‫‪217‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬
‫‪OG Pluses‬‬ ‫‪Core Narrative‬‬ ‫‪MT Pluses‬‬
‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪ 24‬באדין מן קדמוהי‬
‫שליח פסא‬
‫די ידא וכתבא דנה‬
‫רשים׃‬
‫]‪[= OG 17‬‬ ‫‪) 25‬כתבא(‬ ‫ודנה כתבא‬
‫די רשים‬
‫]‪[= OG 17‬‬ ‫מנא תקל ופרסין׃‬
‫‪ 26‬דנה‬
‫‪τὸ σύγκριμα τῆς‬‬ ‫)פשרא(‬ ‫פשר מלתא‬
‫‪γραφῆς‬‬ ‫מנא‬
‫מנה‪ Ñ‬מלכותך והשלמה׃‬ ‫אלהא‪+‬‬
‫‪27 συντέτμηται καὶ‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫‪ 27‬תקל תקילתה‬
‫‪συντετέλεσται‬‬ ‫במאזניא‬
‫והשתכחת חסיר׃‬
‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪ 28‬פרס פריסת‬
‫מלכותך ויהיבת למדי‬
‫ופרס׃‬
‫‪ 29‬באדין‬
‫‪+ ὁ βασιλεὺς‬‬ ‫אמר‪+‬‬
‫בלשאצר‪Ñ‬‬
‫והלבישו לדניאל ארגונא‬
‫והמונכא די דהבא על‬
‫צוארה‬
‫והכרזו עלוהי‪+‬‬
‫די להוא שליט תלתא‬
‫במלכותא׃‬
‫‪30 καὶ τὸ σύγκριμα‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫‪ 30‬בה בליליא קטיל‬
‫‪ἐπῆλθε‬‬ ‫בלאשצר מלכא‪Ñ‬‬ ‫כשדיא׃ ‪+‬‬

‫‪καὶ (τὸ βασίλειον) . . .‬‬ ‫מלכותא ‪ . . .‬למדי‬ ‫‪ 6:1‬ודריוש )מדיא( קבל‬

‫‪ἐδόθη (τοῖς‬‬
‫‪Μήδοις) . . .‬‬ ‫ )מלכותא(  ‪. . .‬‬