Her Story,History,and the Ancient Versions of Daniel 11.6

Abstract

Text-critical study of Dan 11.6 shows that the Hebrew text behind the Old Greek may have been tweaked to be more historically accurate to present the verse as it appears in the Masoretic text and Theodotion. It is possible that two versions of this verse, one emphasizing the fate of the Ptolemaic princess Berenice and one that does not mention her, already existed in the earliest Hebrew texts. Recent proposals for the historical reconstruction of the Third Syrian War are considered alongside these textual points to portray the kind of close attention and activity that went into the writing and rewriting of Dan 10–12.

Keywords

LXX Old Greek Masoretic text book of Daniel Daniel 11.6 textual criticism biblical history

You are translating a problematic verse of the Hebrew Bible and look at the two oldest (Greek) versions only to find a significant difference between the two. Your usual tools do not provide you with a strong basis for your own translation. The verse summarizes a historical event that you are familiar with, but you take an extra step and find that historians recently have added to our knowledge and have reconstructed the event in a new way. Now you see that one version lines up with the new reconstruction, and the other diverges from it. Your assessment of the accuracy and the possible bias of the textual traditions is determined by a study of the historical event that is the basis for the textual traditions.

The complexity does not end there, however, because we cannot assume that the biblical writers themselves knew that much about history. The book of Daniel, even though it was written in the Hellenistic period, when there were many famous works by many famous historians, presents obvious errors. The consensus of modern scholarship is that Belshazzar was never king. It was Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar, who had a famous sojourn in Arabia. There was no Darius the Mede.¹ So while you assess the textual traditions based on historical knowledge, you cannot be certain that the writer(s) knew as much about the historical event as you may now know.

As one example of how historical knowledge affects translation, recent research informed in Seleucid history has shown that “the scorned prince” (not “the contemptible man” of most translations) of 11.21 describes how the future Antiochus IV, who was rejected and left as a hostage in Rome and who was not brought back to a role of power, then gradually took the power for himself (Scolnic 2012). Another example is how the “small nation” of 11.23 may refer to a small band of Miletians who conspired with Antiochus IV to help him become king (Scolnic 2013). Since the field of biblical history is always in motion, translators need to be aware of current trends that may help them to understand the texts before them.

To illustrate how historical knowledge can aid the text critic or translator, I have selected Dan 11.6, a verse that presents details about an event in ancient history, the Third Syrian War. The Old Greek (OG) and the Masoretic text (MT) of 11.6 are quite different. Translators must have open minds in examining ancient versions and take each of them seriously, respecting their integrity and competence. Daniel 11, and all of Dan 7–12, are very late biblical texts that critical scholarship agrees were written in the 160s B.C.E., an era of intense textual activity.² We must be sympathetic to the idea that this was a very different milieu where modern notions of authority and originality did not apply. The MT should not necessarily be privileged with priority in the case of the book of Daniel.³

The historical situation is this: In 253 B.C.E., Ptolemy II of the Ptolemaic kingdom and Seleucus III of the Seleucid kingdom make an alliance; the Egyptian king gives his daughter Berenice to the Seleucid king in marriage. The alliance is a disaster. The texts differ about what happens. Here is the MT in v. 6:

וּלְקֵץ שָׁנִים יִתְחַבָּרוּ וּבַת מֶלֶךְ־הַנֶּגֶב תָּבוֹא אֶל־מֶלֶךְ הַצָּפוֹן לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵישָׁרִים

וְלֹא־תַעְצֹר כּוֹחַ הַזְּרוֹעַ וְלֹא יַעֲמֹד וּזְרֹעוֹ

.וְתִנָּתֵן הִיא וּמְבִיאֶיהָ וְהַיֹּלְדָהּ וּמַחֲזִקָהּ בָּעִתִּים

After some years, an alliance will be made, and the daughter of the king of the south will come to the king of the north to effect the agreement, but she will not maintain her strength [lit. “the strength of arm”], nor will his strength [lit. “his arm”] endure. She will be surrendered together with those who escorted her and the one who begat her and helped her during those times.⁴

As confusing as this is, and it is very confusing indeed, Theodotion follows it and translates from the Hebrew as follows:

καὶ μετὰ τὰ ἔτη αὐτοῦ συμμειγήσονται καὶ θυγάτηρ βασιλέως τοῦ νότου εἰσελεύσεται πρὸς βασιλέα τοῦ βορρᾶ τοῦ ποιῆσαι συνθήκας μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐ κρατήσει ἰσχύος βραχίονος καὶ οὐ στήσεται τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ καὶ παραδοθήσεται αὐτὴ καὶ οἱ φέροντες αὐτὴν καὶ ἡ νεᾶνις καὶ ὁ κατισχύων αὐτὴν ἐν τοῖς καιροῖς.

And after his years they will be united, and the daughter of the king of the south will come to the king of the north to ratify an agreement with him. And she will not gain her strength [lit. “strength of arm”], and his seed will not endure. And she herself will be given up, and those supporting her, both the young woman and the one who put her in power in those times.⁵

This text seems to say that the new queen, Berenice, along with the child who was born to her and the Seleucid king Antiochus II, and her entourage, will all die.

But here is the very different OG:

καὶ εἰς συντέλειαν ἐνιαυτῶν ἄξει αὐτούς καὶ εἰσελεύσεται βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τὴν βορρᾶ ποιήσασθαι συνθήκας καὶ οὐ μὴ κατισχύσῃ, ὅτι ὁ βραχίων αὐτοῦ οὐ στήσει ἰσχύν, καὶ ὁ βραχίων αὐτοῦ ναρχήσει καὶ τῶν συμπορευομένων μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ μενεῖ εἰς ὥρας.

And at the completion of the years he will lead them, and the king of Egypt will enter the northern kingdom to ratify an agreement. And he will never prevail, because his arm will not establish strength. And the arm of him and of those associating with him will grow numb, and he will continue for a season.

The OG seems to say that Ptolemy II comes to make an alliance but weakens, and yet goes on. There is nothing about Berenice and her son.

We should not immediately say that the MT is better than the OG, or that the OG must be wrong because it is different. We should have several questions: What is each version saying, and why? Can we find any tendencies or biases in these versions? Our main theme here is translation and history. Which version conforms to the historical situation, at least as we understand it at present?

The Old Greek of Dan 11

Since each version must be seen as its own witness, let us read the OG as if we do not know the Hebrew text at all but do know the history of the period. What would we be able to understand, or at least deduce, from the OG of Dan 11 if we read it as its own text?

⁵And the king of Egypt will grow strong, and one of the sovereigns will overpower him and will dominate a large domain.

Ptolemy I will have a strong kingdom in Egypt, but Seleucus I will overpower Ptolemy I and create his own, very large, dominion. In v. 6 (cited in the previous section), Ptolemy II will enter the north to ratify an agreement with Antiochus II but he and those with him will be weak, though he and his kingdom will live on.

⁷And a plant from his root will arise against himself. And the king of the north will come upon his idleness with his strength, and he will cause turmoil and will prevail. ⁸And he will overthrow their gods with their cast images and their crowds with their precious vessels. They will carry off the silver and the gold to Egypt in captivity, and the king of the north will have a year. ⁹And he will enter into the kingdom of Egypt for days and he will return to his own land.

Ptolemy III will be strong, and Seleucus II will attack him, but Ptolemy III will prevail and carry off the Seleucid gods and images to Egypt. Then Seleucus II will attack again but return again to Syria.

¹⁰And his son will both be irritated and will gather a gathering of a great crowd. And he will march against it, ravaging. He will pass through and will return and will be greatly provoked. ¹¹And the king of Egypt will be inflamed and will do battle against the king of the north, and the gathering will be given into his hands. ¹²And he will carry off the gathering, and his heart will be exalted, and he will trouble many, and he will never be afraid.

While the antecedent of “his son” would seem to be Ptolemy III, and Ptolemy IV would be the son involved, v. 11 speaks of how the “king of Egypt” responds to the provocation, so it seems that in vv. 10-12, Antiochus III, son of Seleucus II, will start the Fourth Syrian War, only to lose to Ptolemy IV at the Battle of Raphia.

¹³And the king of the north will return and will gather [from the city] a gathering, greater than the previous, according to the completion of the time of the year. And he will advance into it with a large crowd and many goods. ¹⁴And in those times thoughts will rise against the king of Egypt. And he will rebuild the fallen of your nation, and he will rise in order to restore prophecy, and they will take offense. ¹⁵And the king of the north will attack and will turn his spears and will take the fortified city.

In vv. 13-19, in the Fifth Syrian War, Antiochus III will again provoke war. We have a difficult time ascertaining who “the builder” is, but it seems to be the king of Egypt, because the king of the north attacks him for his efforts.

If I have understood the basic outline of these verses correctly, we notice that the Seleucids provoked all the conflicts, with mixed results. Seleucus I prevails over Ptolemy I, Antiochus II seems to prevail over Ptolemy II, Ptolemy III prevails over Seleucus II; Antiochus III loses to Ptolemy IV but then prevails over Ptolemy V.

Historically, how much of this conforms to our understanding of these kings and their careers?

As opposed to v. 5, Seleucus I never overpowered Ptolemy I. In fact, Ptolemy gave his captain and admiral Seleucus a force with which to conquer Babylon.

As opposed to v. 6, while Ptolemy II did want to make a treaty with Antiochus II, this text seems to say Ptolemy II was alive and was attacked by Seleucus II in the Third Syrian War. Yet we know that Ptolemy II died before the war.⁶

In vv. 7-9, it is the last verse that is problematic. We have no knowledge that a year after his victory in the Third Syrian War, Ptolemy III returned to attack the north.

On the other hand, the prophesy of vv. 13-19 reflects history, in that Antiochus III lost in the Fourth Syrian War but won in the Fifth Syrian War, only to be rebuffed by the Romans and die in an eastern campaign.

Could it be the author who does not know much about history? Or is the author, or the translator, slanting these events in a way that is more sympathetic to the Ptolemies than their Seleucid enemies?

Daniel 11.6 in the OG and the MT

We can examine one major point of contrast with the MT in v. 6. Here are translations of the OG again and then the MT:

OG: And at the completion of the years he will lead them, and the king of Egypt will enter the northern kingdom to ratify an agreement. And he will never prevail, because his arm will not establish strength. And the arm of him and of those associating with him will grow numb, and he will continue for a season.

MT: After some years an alliance will be made and the daughter of the king of the south will come to the king of the north to effect the agreement, but she will not maintain her strength, nor will his strength endure. She will be surrendered together with those who escorted her and the one who begot her and helped her during those times.

What shall we make of the difference here? Ptolemy II did want to make a treaty with Antiochus II, but there is no mention in the OG as to how this treaty would be ratified, though historical sources and the MT tell us about the marriage of Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II, and Antiochus II (see below). As difficult as the Hebrew is to understand, the marriage ends with death for all concerned, including possibly the child from that marriage.

In the OG, there is no allusion to Berenice at all; this event in history does not mention “her” story. This cannot be to refrain from talking about a female, because Cleopatra Syra will be referred to in v. 17. The MT Hebrew provides more detailed historical information in this case.

If we briefly look at the historical events referred to in 11.6, we see just how vague the OG verse is and how much more specific the MT verse is. Here is the history, including both the traditional historical consensus and a new reconstruction by Coşkun (2018):

After the Second Syrian War, Antiochus II married Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, whether it was an alliance of equals (traditional) or a glorified indemnity for Ptolemaic losses in the war (new);⁷

Antiochus II and Berenice have a son, whether he was a potential successor (traditional) or not (new);⁸

Antiochus II dies, whether he was assassinated by Laodice (traditional) or not (new);

Ptolemy III moves on the Seleucid kingdom, whether to protect his sister and nephew (traditional) or to grasp a strategic opportunity (new);

Ptolemy III is welcomed first in Seleucia in Pieria, then in Antioch, before marching on to Babylonia;

Before Seleucus II can confront him, Ptolemy III retreats to Egypt with great spoil,⁹ whether to quell a native insurgency (traditional) or because a confrontation might lead to a terrible defeat (new).

It is hard to see any of this in OG 11.6, but MT 11.6 speaks of the intentions of the marriage and its disastrous results for all concerned, which leads into 11.7 in a logical way, as Ptolemy III, a shoot from the Ptolemaic stock, invades the north after the violent death of his sister and her son.

Now, which is the primary text, and which the secondary one? OG 11.6 is not evocative; it just says something vague about the relative strength and weakness of the kings. MT 11.6, on the other hand, is very evocative, pointing to the Seleucid betrayal of a marriage agreement made in good faith by the Ptolemies. Whether Laodice or Seleucus were involved or not, whether Berenice's son is indicated or not, Berenice was killed, and this became the justification if not the motivation for the invasion by her brother Ptolemy III in the Third Syrian War.

The MT shows that there are two problematic marriages, one that ended in disaster for all concerned in v. 6, and the other in v. 17, another extremely difficult verse, which is described as a plot by Antiochus III to hurt the Ptolemaic kingdom, a plot that failed because of the greatness of Antiochus III's own daughter; and he suffered retribution for his treachery by losing first in his invasion of the west and then by dying in his invasion of the east (11.18-19).

We sense the author of the proto-MT tweaking the text, making small historically informed edits to create a symmetry of two Seleucid–Ptolemaic marriages that both involved Seleucid treachery. The eventual defeat of Antiochus III by the Romans and his death in the east are recompense for his plot to use his own daughter to hurt the Ptolemies and perhaps justice for what happened to Berenice in the previous generation.

In other verses, the OG also seems less historical and less anti-Seleucid. In OG 11.7-9, it is the last verse that is problematic. We have no knowledge that after a year, Ptolemy III returned to attack the north. In MT 11.9, the problem is that we have no knowledge and many logical arguments against the idea that Seleucus II attacked the south. Still, it is Seleucus II who attacks even after Ptolemy III has returned to his own land. In OG 11.10, Antiochus III, son of Seleucus II, will start the Fourth Syrian War, only to lose to Ptolemy IV at the Battle of Raphia. In MT 11.10, two sons of Seleucus II—Seleucus III and Antiochus—are referenced in v. 10a, with only Antiochus III left to carry on the Fourth Syrian War in v. 10b. Since Seleucus III did attack the Ptolemaic realm in Asia Minor, the Hebrew shows better historical information in this case, too.

Certainly, translators made errors based on their misunderstanding of the biblical text, as Emanuel Tov (1984) and others have shown. It is unlikely, however, that the OG translator would have been translating an MT-like Vorlage of Dan 11.6, if the Hebrew for v. 6bc was as it is in the MT:

וְלֹא־תַעְצֹר כּוֹחַ הַזְּרוֹעַ וְלֹא יַעֲמֹד וּזְרֹעוֹ וְתִנָּתֵן הִיא וּמְבִיאֶיהָ וְהַיֹּלְדָהּ וּמַחֲזִקָהּ בָּעִתִּים׃

And she will not hold the strength of the arm and he will not stand and his arm and she shall be delivered up, she and those who brought her and bore her and he who strengthened her in those times.¹⁰

And Theodotion translates from the Hebrew as follows:

But she shall not retain strength of arm; neither shall his seed stand; and she shall be delivered up, and they who brought her, and the maiden, and he who strengthened her in these times.

If there were two Hebrew Vorlagen that were almost identical, we can look at a point of difference such as 11.6 and ask, If one diverged from the other, which would be a more logical base from which to diverge? Would it be more logical to posit a Hebrew writer who tweaked this verse:

And he will not prevail, for his strength will not stand firm. And his strength will grow weak along with the strength of those accompanying him, but he will endure for some time. (as in OG)

to make this verse:

but she will not maintain her strength, nor will his strength endure. She will be surrendered together with those who escorted her and the one who begat her and helped her during those times. (as in MT)

or the other way around? This sequence seems more attractive than the reverse, which would be that the proto-MT 11.6 was simplified to make a nonhistorical version of the OG.

As we have seen, our posited first source made historical errors. Could it be that a second proto-MT/Theodotion author/editor tried to fix them to show that the prophecies in the sixth century were accurate and true, making its version more historicized, and even more condemnatory of the treachery and violence of the Seleucids? The story of the deaths of Berenice and her child is dramatic and heart-wrenching. The story of wars between two kings is nothing close to this.

I see two scenarios:

The Hebrew Vorlage used by the OG is tweaked to become more historical and dramatic in referring to the fate of Berenice and her child. Perhaps the OG did not know much history, but the proto-MT knew more. Perhaps the proto-MT took the second occurrence of zǝrôa‘ “arm/strength” as zera‘ “seed/child” and changed the verse accordingly.¹¹

The other possibility is that there were two early Hebrew versions of 11.6 during the time of the first writing and circulation of this text in the 160s, one which had a reference to Berenice and another which did not. That is, there was no “original” text of Dan 11.6 but two versions of certain verses from the beginning, as if they were born twins. I will now explore this possibility.

When is an ancient “version” more than a translation?

An ancient “version” is more than a translation when it reflects a Hebrew or Aramaic text that may be older than the extant texts in those languages. The book of Daniel, as a late biblical book with an unusual textual history, presents an interesting area of study. Most of the extant ancient and medieval manuscripts of the book of Daniel in Greek present the Theodotion translation, which is closer to the Hebrew of the MT (ninth to tenth centuries C.E.) than the few OG manuscripts (written in the second century B.C.E.). Even though the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to reflect the MT's Hebrew, they are at the earliest (125 B.C.E.) contemporaneous with the OG.¹² The Theodotion that translates the MT is younger than the OG, and the MT itself is a millennium younger than the OG. Since Dan 7–12 was written in the 160s B.C.E., the OG is a very early translation.

The Theodotion of Daniel became the authoritative Greek translation because it was closer to the Hebrew, but in a way, this makes the OG more interesting in that it has more differences from the Hebrew. We know that the OG is a translation, but of what, exactly? Could the OG be a translation from a Hebrew Vorlage that was different from the extant Hebrew text, the MT? Could the Hebrew version that we have be a development of that earlier Hebrew text? Or should we refrain from thinking about a Hebrew “original” and think instead about two or more Hebrew versions in the 160s, that were themselves developments and expansions of earlier Aramaic recensions of the “book” of Daniel that contained what we now think of as Dan 2–6(7)?

While it is true that there are major differences between the OG and the Theodotion/MT versions of Dan 4–6, the Greek versions are both based on Vorlagen that were very similar to that of the MT for the rest of the book, including our subject here, Dan 11.¹³ How shall we account for the small but meaningful differences that we find?

We can posit this sequence:

Two or more Hebrew versions of Dan 8–12 (or parts thereof) written in the 160s B.C.E.;

A Hebrew version—we will arbitrarily call it Hebrew A—was translated into Greek, in Egypt¹⁴ in the second century B.C.E.; this translation is now known as the Old Greek (OG);

Another Hebrew version, Hebrew A*, became the Hebrew version, and so Hebrew version A was lost as A* was copied and passed down;

Theodotion was a Greek translation of the popular Hebrew version A*, and since it was closer to the Hebrew that scholars saw, became the popular Greek version, so that few manuscripts of the OG survived.

In this vein, instead of reading the OG of Dan 11 as “just a translation” from a Hebrew or Aramaic original, let us see it as a text tradition of at least equal antiquity if not priority.

A prospect for further study: Do textual criticism and source criticism of Dan 11 meet?

If we posit such historically informed and polemical textual activity in the early stages of the development of Dan 11, and source criticism independently reveals different recensions of Dan 8–12, it seems reasonable to suggest that the different methods may converge. The fictional reference to the death of Antiochus IV in Dan 11.45 implies a strong terminus ante quem of late 164, and most scholars suggest a composition around 166. Coşkun (2019, 437) states that this date should not be applied to all these prophecies, only Dan 10–11: “We should not have a unitarian prejudice considering that these units seem to be at least semi-independent units within the various versions of the heterogeneous book of Daniel.” The author of Dan 11 seems to be under a fresh impression of the parade at Daphne in 166 and unaware of Antiochus IV's eastern campaign in 165 (Polyb. 30.25f.). Different chronological indicators allow for an analysis of the Seleucid prophecies: Dan 10.1–12.3-4 was written ca. 166, chs. 7–9 and 12 were formulated after the reestablishment of the traditional cult on 25 Kislev 164 (cf. 7.25; 8.13f.; 12.7, 11), and Dan 12.12, the latest prophecy, was finalized in January 163.

My suggestion is that one of these Hebrew editions was the Vorlage used by the translator of the OG and that the text of Dan 11 continued to be edited just as the next chapter, Dan 12, certainly was, before it was “standardized” into the Hebrew Vorlage underlying proto-MT, DSS, Theodotion, and the Vulgate.

Daniel 11.6 is edited to make it more historical, more indicative of Seleucid treachery, and more symmetrical with what are taken to be Antiochus III's nefarious intentions in marrying his daughter Cleopatra I Syra to Ptolemy V. This textual study of the different versions of Dan 11.6 points to intense activity involving the texts of Dan 8–12 by authors who invoked the “prophecies” of a sixth-century B.C.E. figure to make sense of and give hope to the Judeans during a time of great crisis.

Daniel 11 may be the text with the most details and interest regarding secular history in the entire Hebrew Bible, but there are many texts, from Genesis to 2 Chronicles, that require extensive knowledge of the historical situation. The textual critic and the Bible translator, in addition to their specializations, must know a great deal about history.

Footnotes

Notes

Abbreviations

References

Collins

John J.

1993. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Coşkun

Altay

. 2018. “The War of Brothers, the Third Syrian War, and the Battle of Ankyra (246–241 BC): A Re-Appraisal.” Pages 197–252 in The Seleukid Empire, 281–222 BC: War within the Family. Edited by Erickson

Kyle

. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.

Coşkun

Altay

. 2019. “The Chronology of the Desecration of the Temple and the Prophecies of Daniel 7–12 Reconsidered.” Historia 68: 436–62.

Edgar

C. C.

, ed. 1926. Zenon Papyri: Catalogue Général des Antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Vol. 2. (Cat. 82). Nos. 59140–59297. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.

Grainger

John D.

2010. The Syrian Wars. Leiden: Brill.

Hölbl

Günther

. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. London: Routledge.

Jacoby

Felix

, ed. 1962. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Vol. 2. Zeitgeschichte. Part B. Spezialgeschichten, Autobiographien und Memoiren. Zeittafeln. Leiden: Brill.

McLay, R.

Timothy

. 1996. The OG and TH Versions of Daniel. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

McLay, R.

Timothy

. 2005. “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel IV–VI and the Formation of the Book of Daniel.” Vetus Testamentum 55: 304–23.

10.

Mendelssohn

Ludwig

, ed. 1879. Appiani Historia romana. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner.

11.

Montgomery

James A

. 1927. Daniel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

12.

Pietersma

Albert

Wright

Benjamin G.

, eds. 2007. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13.

Scolnic

Benjamin

. 2012. “Antiochus IV as the Scorned Prince in Dan 11:21.” Vetus Testamentum 62: 572–81.

14.

Scolnic

Benjamin

. 2013. “The Milesian Connection: Dan 11:23 and Antiochus IV’s Rise to Power.” Vetus Testamentum 63: 89−98.

15.

Tov

Emanuel

. 1984. “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand Their Hebrew Text?” Pages 53–70 in De Septuaginta. Edited by Pietersma

Albert

Cox

Claude

. Mississauga: Benben Publications.

16.

Ulrich

Eugene

. 2002. “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 573–85 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Vol. 2. Edited by Collins

John J.

Flint

Peter W.

. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 83/2. Leiden: Brill.

17.

Ziegler

Joseph

Munnich

Olivier

Fraenkel

Detlef

, eds. 1999. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. Göttingen Septuagint XVI/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

18.

Zsengellér

József

. 2010. “Addition or Edition? Deconstructing the Concept of Additions.” Pages 1–15 in Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books. Edited by Xeravits

Géza G.

Zsengellér

József

. Berlin: De Gruyter.