The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (review)

Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 345 Reviews On the whole, Longman has provided an up-to-date, conversant and provocative commentary on the ever-difficult words of Qohelet. Eric S. Christianson Chester College Chester, United Kingdom e.christianson@chester.ac.uk THE OG AND TH VERSIONS OF DANIEL. By Tim McLay. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 43. pp. xviii + 286. Atlanta. GA: Scholars Press, 1996. Cloth, $39.95. In this book. based on his 1994 University of Durham dissertation, Tim McLay analyzes "the Translation Technique...employed in the Old Greek (OG) and Theodotion (Th) versions of the Book of Daniel in order to compare their relationship" (p. 1) and applies it to textual criticism of the MT. McLay seeks "to determine whether Th is a translation or a recension of the OG, and, if it is a recension, [whether it] is part of the kaige tradition " (p. 12). In chapter I, he describes his procedure and discusses some theoretical issues. In chapters 2--6, the core of his analysis, he studies the translation technique of the Old Greek and of Theodotion in five passages representing a cross section of the book; they are Dan 1:1-10; Dan 2:1-10; Dan 3:11-20; Dan 8:1-10; and Dan 12:1-13. In chapter 7, McLay summarizes the findings of his analysis and in chapter 8 he asks whether these fmdings indicate that Theodotion belongs to the kaige tradition. McLay covers much ground in this book. The introductory chapter includes a brief, but useful discussion of translation technique, in which McLay observes that a translator may be required to choose between preserving surface structure or preserving meaning. The former choice yields a translation characterized by formal equivalence whereas the latter yields one characterized by dynamic equivalence. To study translation technique in Theodotion and the Old Greek McLay "assumes there are three structural elements...to analyze and compare in the source and receptor texts: Morphology. Syntax, and Lexicology" (p. 21). He examines Theodotion and the Old Greek with respect to morphology, syntax, and lexicology in tum. In examining each of the three, he places the usage found in the translation in a context of usage throughout Daniel and in some instances with reference to the LXX. For example, concerning lexicology McLay takes 1:4 as a starting point to discuss the wisdom vocabulary of Theodotion and the Old Greek (pp. 47-50), and also concerning lexicology, he takes 2:2-10 as a starting point to discuss the translation of verbs of saying (pp. 87-92). Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 346 Reviews McLay's procedure for analyzing 8:1-10 differs from his procedure in analyzing the other four passages because here his "sole concern will be to evaluate [So P. Jeansonne's] conclusion that Th is a recension of the 00" (p. 153). For the text of Theodotion. McLay refers to Ziegler's critical text of Theodotion. For the Old Greek. however. McLay reconstructs his own text. based on Ziegler's but preferring some readings from papyrus 967 that were unavailable to Ziegler. Hence, McLay prefaces the analysis in each of chapters 2-6 with textual notes explaining where his text for the Old Greek differs from Ziegler's. McLay's project is a constructive and an important one. particularly with respect to two premises of his methodology: the direction of dependence and the significance of common readings. On the first, McLay raises Theodotion's connection with the Old Greek as a completely open question. With any given reading, he allows for dependence of Theodotion on the Old Greek, of the Old Greek on Theodotion, and independence of the two. His study draws attention to the subjective factor inherent in text criticism by showing how the assumption that Theodotion is a recension has biased assessments of the differences between the translations. McLay notes that common readings in themselves need not indicate dependence. Hence he considers the common readings in connection with translation technique and weighs them alongside both distinctive agreements and distinctive disagreements . He observes that common readings. even when numerous, per se need not be significant because an argument that "Th has 'retained' OG...