# Daniel 4:27 and "efficacy of good works"



## wturri78 (Aug 19, 2008)

I've been digging around some lately, trying to discern a few discrepancies among translations of Daniel. I was reading through a treatise by Cyprian of Carthage (ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix | Christian Classics Ethereal Library) called "On Works and Alms." He quotes Daniel (Schaff's footnote identifies it as 4:27) as saying "Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to thee; and redeem thy sins by almsgivings, and thine unrighteousness by mercies to the poor, and God will be patient to thy sins." The gist of the treatise appears to support a view that good works and almsgiving can propitiate God after we've committed sin. I looked up 4:27 in numerous translations, and every one of them translates it as "break off your sins by practicing righteousness" or something similar. The Catholic _New American Bible_ however translates it as "Therefore, O king, take my advice; *atone *for your sins by good deeds, and for your misdeeds by kindness to the poor; then your prosperity will be long" (emphasis mine of course). What's more, the NAB footnote to the verse states "A classic Scriptural text for the efficacy of good works."

So I'm confused. I looked up the verse in an online interlinear Bible and the Aramaic word there is defined in the lexicon as "break off." However, I'm wondering if this might be a textual issue since in the NAB this verse is listed as verse 4:24 rather than 4:27...the first three verses in Ch. 4 are included at the end of Ch. 3, which in the NAB has 100 rather than 30 verses because it includes a long psalm sung by the men in the furnace that apparently only exist in Greek and not the Hebrew or Aramaic.

Anyway, my question is, does the translation "atone" or "redeem" come from some text other than the Aramaic, or is it translated that way out of a theological predisposition to the efficacy of good works? And for that matter, does Cyprian's translation of "almsgiving" in place of "practicing righteousness" have any merit? Is it an acceptable translation or is it too specific (i.e. almsgiving is only one of many good deeds), or could it be a problem in translating Cyprian into English? 

Man, this stuff is confusing. Why couldn't everyone just have written in 21st Century Americanized English?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 19, 2008)

Bill,

It would seem to be the language of the Septuagint. From Lancelot Brenton's translation (Zondervan): "...atone for thy sins by alms..." In this edition of the LXX it is Daniel 4:24.

The King James (from the Masoretic Hebrew): "...break off thy sins by righteousness..." Dan 4:27.

The LXX is a translation from the Hebrew, and often a very poor one at that. We get our version of the LXX from the Roman Catholic Library's Codex Vaticanus (it had an interesting prior history as well).


----------



## wturri78 (Aug 19, 2008)

Thanks for the feedback. So if many of the 1st century Jews who were contemporary with Jesus and the apostles were familiar with the LXX translation, and the apostles themselves quoted from the LXX when writing their gospels and epistles in Greek, would it stand to reason that many would have been accustomed to thinking of almsgiving as propitiatory toward God? 

I believe there was something in one of the books of the Maccabees about giving alms for the sake of souls who'd died guilty of idolatry, or something like that...often cited as "proof" for purgatory or at least prayers/intercessions for the dead.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 19, 2008)

Bill,

I would not agree that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), although that is the conventional wisdom in some quarters. It has been much discussed here at PB. Here's a thread with an extended discussion (I'd start around post #40):

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-authorized-version-31573/

Here's an excellent ebook (in PDF) on the topic: _The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis_, by Floyd Nolen Jones. (The hardcopy version of this book is out of print.)

To your question, "...would it stand to reason that many [1st century Jews] would have been accustomed to thinking of almsgiving as propitiatory toward God?" I'd say no, except perhaps for those of a legalistic bent. Godly Jews knew only of _prescribed_ propitiation, that is, the sacrificial offerings according to the Law of God.

In the NT there is only one acceptable propitiation, and that is the offering of Jesus Christ unto God, and for sinners. Paul says that if we give all we have, and even our bodies to be burned, and have not love, it profits nothing. Nor can one have love save the love of God be in him.

The Greek and Roman churches have different views, contrary to Scripture.

Nonetheless, almsgiving was a fruit of faith in a godly heart -- the word itself derives from the word for _mercy_ -- and we are expected so to give (Cf Matt 6:3, 4). One can give sacrificially without intending it to be propitiatory. One must _not_ intend it to be so!


----------

