Later Greek Versions.
1. At Alexandria and in Egypt generally the Alexandrian version was regarded, as Philo plainly says, with a reverence scarcely less than that which belonged to the original. It was the Bible of the Egyptian Jews, even of those who belonged to the educated and literary class. This feeling was shared by the rest of the Hellenistic world. In Palestine indeed the version seems to have been received with less enthusiasm, and whether it was used in the synagogues is still uncertain. But elsewhere its acceptance by Greek-speaking Jews was universal during the Apostolic age and in the next generation.

On the question of the use of the LXX. in the synagogues see Hody iii.1.1, Frankel, Vorstudien, p.56 ff., König, Einleitung, p.105ff.; the negative is stoutly maintained by J. Lightfoot, hor. Hebr. (add. to 1 Cor. xiv.). If the Ep. to the Hebrews was addressed to the Church of Jerusalem, the preponderating use of the LXX. in its quotations from the O. T. is strong evidence, so far as it goes, for the acceptance of the LXX. by Palestinian Hellenists. Its use by St Paul vouches for the practice of the Hellenists of Asia Minor and Europe; no rival version had gained circulation at Antioch, Ephesus, or Rome. In the next century we have the evidence of Justin (apol. i.31 emeinan hai bibloi [the translated books] kai par' Aiguptiois mechri tou deuro kai pantachou para pasin eisin Ioudaiois: dial.72 haute he perikope he ek ton logon tou Ieremiou eti estin engegrammene en tisin antigraphois ton en sunagogais Ioudaion), Tertullian (apol.18 "Judaea palam lectitant"), Pseudo-Justin (cohort. ad Gr.13 to de par' Ioudaiois eti kai nun tas te hemetera theosebeia diapherousas sozesthai biblous, theias pronoias ergon huper hemon gegonen . . . apo tes ton Ioudaion sunagoges tautas axioumen prokomizesthai).

2. When the LXX. passed into the hands of the Church and was used in controversy with Jewish antagonists, the Jews not unnaturally began to doubt the accuracy of the Alexandrian version (Justin, dial.68 tolmosi legein ten exegesin hen exegesanto hoi hebdomekonta humon presbuteroi para Ptolemaio to ton Aiguption basilei genomenoi me einai en tisin alethe). The crucial instance was the rendering of tslth by parthenos in Isa. vii.14, where neanis, it was contended, would have given the true meaning of the Hebrew word (ib.71, 84; Iren. iii.21.1). But the dissatisfaction with which the LXX. was regarded by the Jewish leaders of the second century was perhaps not altogether due to polemical causes. The LXX. "did not suit the newer school of [Jewish] interpretation, it did not correspond with the received text [81] ." An official text differing considerably from the text accepted in earlier times had received the approval of the Rabbis, and the Alexandrian version, which represented the older text, began to be suspected and to pass into disuse. Attempts were made to provide something better for Greek-speaking Israelites (Justin, dial.71 autoi exegeisthai peirontai). Of two such fresh translations Irenaeus speaks in terms of reprehension (l.c. ouch hos enioi phasin ton nun methermeneuein tolmonton ten graphen . . . hos Theodotion . . . ho Ephesios kai Akulas ho Pontikos, amphoteroi Ioudaioi proselutoi). Origen, who realised the importance of these translations, was able to add to those of Aquila and Theodotion the version of Symmachus and three others which were anonymous [82] . Of the anonymous versions little remains, but Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus are represented by numerous and in some cases important fragments.

3. Aquila. The name had been borne in the Apostolic age by a native of Pontus who was of Jewish birth (Acts xviii.2 Ioudaion onomati Akulan, Pontikon to genei). Aquila the translator was also of Pontus, from the famous sea-port [83] Sinope, which had been constituted by Julius Caesar a Roman colony; but he was of Gentile origin. He lived in the reign of Hadrian (A.D.117 -- 138), and was a connexion of the Emperor (pentherides, Epiph., Dial. of Timothy and Aquila; pentheros, Ps.-Ath., Chron. Pasch.). Hadrian employed his relative to superintend the building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, and while there Aquila was converted to Christianity by Christians who had returned from Pella. Refusing, however, to abandon the pagan practice of astrology, he was excommunicated; upon which he shewed his resentment by submitting to circumcision and attaching himself to the teaching of the Jewish Rabbis. The purpose of his translation was to set aside the interpretation of the LXX., in so far as it appeared to support the views of the Christian Church.

This is the story of Epiphanius (de mens. et pond.14 sq.: labon [sc. ho Hadrianos] ton Akulan touton . . . Hellena onta kai hautou pentheriden, apo Sinopes de tes Pontou hormomenon, kathistesin auton ekeise epistatein tois ergois ktl. . . . pikrantheis de . . . proseluteuei kai peritemnetai Ioudaios; kai epiponos philotimesamenos exedoken heauton mathein ten Ebraion dialekton kai ta auton stoicheia. tauten de akrotata paideutheis hermeneusen ouk ortho logismo chresamenos, all' hopos diastrepse tina ton rheton, enskepsas te ton ob' hermeneia hina ta peri Christou en tais graphais memarturemena allos ekdosei). The same tale is told in substance by the Pseudo-Athanasian author of Synopsis script. sacr., c.77, and in the Dialogue between Timothy and Aquila printed in Anecdota Oxon., class. ser. pt viii. According to the writer of the Dialogue Aquila learned Hebrew in his 40th year, and there are other features peculiar to this form of the story which have led the editor, Mr F. C. Conybeare, to conjecture that it is independent of the Epiphanian narrative, though derived from the same source, which he believes to have been ultimately the history of Ariston of Pella (op. cit. p. xxvi. ff.). An Aquila figures in the Clementine romance (hom. ii. sqq., recogn. ii. sqq.); the name and character were perhaps suggested by some floating memories of the translator. Cf. Lagarde, Clementina, p.12 f.

That Aquila was a proselyte to Judaism is attested by the Jewish tradition (Jer. Talm. Meg.1.11, Kidush.1.1), in which he appears as hgr, ho proselutos [84] . After his conversion to Judaism, Aquila became a pupil of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua (Meg. f.71 c) or, according to another authority, of R. Akiba (Kiddush. f.59 a). The latter statement seems to have been current among the Jews of Palestine in Jerome's time (Hieron. in Isa. viii, 14 "scribae et Pharisaei quorum suscepit scholam Akybas, quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant"), and it derives some confirmation from the character of the version.

According to Epiphanius the floruit of Aquila is to be placed in the 12th year of Hadrian (Epiph. de mens. et pond.13 Hadrianos ete ka, houtinos to dodekato etei Akulas egnorizeto . . . hos einai apo tou chronou tes hermeneias ton ob' hermeneuton heos Akula tou hermeneutou, egoun heos dodekatou etous Hadrianou, ete ul' kai menas d'. The 12th year of Hadrian was A.D.128 -- 9, the year in which the Emperor began to rebuild Aelia. This date is doubtless approximately correct, if Aquila was a pupil of R. Akiba, who taught from A.D.95 to A.D.135 [85] , or even of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, who immediately preceded Akiba. It must have taken the Greek proselyte many years to acquire an adequate knowledge of Hebrew and of the Rabbinical methods of interpretation, and under these circumstances his great work could hardly have been completed before the fourth decade of the second century. When Irenaeus wrote his third book, in the ninth decade, Aquila's translation might still be regarded as comparatively recent (ton nun methermeneuein tolmonton ten graphen . . . hos . . . Akulas).

4. It was natural that the version of Aquila should be received with acclamation by his co-religionists. His teachers congratulated him in the words of Ps. xlv.3, yphyphyt mbny 'dm ? [86] . The Talmud quotes or refers to his translation of not a few passages (Gen. xvii.1; Lev. xix.20, 23, 40; Esth. i.6; Prov. xviii.21, xxv.11; Isa. iii.20; Ezek. xvi.10, xxiii.43; Dan. v.5, viii.13). In Origen's time he was trusted implicitly in Jewish circles, and used by all Jews who did not understand Hebrew (ep. ad African.2 philotimoteron pepisteumenos para Ioudaiois . . . o malista eiothasin hoi agnoountes ten Ebraion dialekton chresthai, hos panton mallon epiteteugmeno); and the same preference for Aquila seems to have been characteristic of the Jews in the fourth and fifth centuries (cf. Jerome on Ezek. iii.5, and Augustine de civ. Dei xv. z3), and at a still later period, for even Justinian, when regulating the public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues, thought it expedient to permit the use of Aquila (novell.146: "at vero ii qui Graeca lingua legunt LXX. interpretum utentur translatione . . . verum . . . licentiam concedimus etiam Aquilae versione utendi"). It was equally natural that the proselyte's version should be regarded with distrust by Christians, who saw in it the work of a champion of Rabbinism as well as a bold attempt to displace the Septuagint [87] . Yet the few Christian writers who were students of the Hebrew Bible learnt to recognise the fidelity of Aquila's work. He was 'a slave to the letter' (douleuon te Ebraike lexei; whatever was wanting in the Hebrew text was not to be found in Aquila ou keitai para tois Ebraiois, dioper oude para to Akula). So Origen confesses [88] ; and Jerome, though when in a censorious mood he does not spare the proselyte (e.g. praef. in Job, ep. ad Pammach.), elsewhere admits his honesty and diligence (ep. ad Damas.12 "non contentiosius, ut quidam putant, sed studiosius verbum interpretatur ad verbum"; ep. ad Marcell. "iamdudum cum voluminibus Hebraeorum editionem Aquilae confero, ne quid forsitan propter odium Christi synagoga mutaverit, et -- ut amicae menti fatear -- quae ad nostram fidem pertineant roborandam plura reperio"). After these testimonies from the two most competent witnesses in the ancient Church, we need not stop to consider the invective of Epiphanius [89] .

5. Until the summer of 1897 Aquila's version was known to students only from the description of ancient writers, chiefly Christian, and the fragments of the Hexapla (c. iii.), which when complete contained the entire work. These sources were used with admirable skill by Dr Field (prolegomena in Hexapla, p. xix, ff.) and Dr C. Taylor (D. C. B. art. Hexapla) to illustrate the purpose and style of Aquila's work. But an unexpected discovery has since placed at our disposal several larger fragments of the version, emanating from a Jewish source. Among the débris of the Genizah of the Cairo synagogue brought to Cambridge in 1897 through the efforts of Dr Taylor and Dr Schechter, Professor Burkitt was so fortunate as to discover some palimpsest scraps which under later Hebrew writing contain in a good uncial hand of the sixth century Aquila's translation of 1 Kings xx.9 -- 17 and 2 Kings xxiii.12 -- 27 [90] . From the same treasure Dr Taylor recovered portions of Pss. xc.-ciii., and a Hexaplar fragment of Ps. xxii. [91] The student will find below specimens of these discoveries, placed for the purpose of comparison in parallel columns with the version of the LXX.

3 Regn. xxi. (1 Kings xx.) 10 -- 13.

LXX. (Cod. B [92] ) Aquila.

^10kai apesteilen pros auton uios Hader legon Tade poiesai moi ho theos kai tade prostheie, ei ekpoiesei ho chous Samareias tais alopexin panti to lao tois pezois mou. ^11kai apekrithe basileus Israel kai eipen Hikanoustho; me kauchastho ho kurtos hos ho orthos. ^12kai egeneto hote apekrithe auto ton logon touton, pinon en autos kai pantes basileis met' autou en skenais; kai eipen tois paisin autou Oikodomesate charaka; kai ethento charaka epi ten polin. ^13kai idou prophetes heis proselthen to basilei Israel kai eipen Tade legei Kurios Ei heorakas ton ochlon ton megan touton; idou ego didomi auton semeron eis cheiras sas, kai gnose hoti ego Kurios.

^10kai apesteilen pros auton uios Hadad kai eipen Tade poiesaisan moi theoi kai tade prostheiesan, ei exarkesei chous Samarias tois lichasin [93] tou pantos tou laou hos en posin mou. ^11kai apekrithe basileus Israel kai eipen Lalesate Me kauchastho zonnumenos hos ho periluomenos. ^12kai egeneto hos ekousen sun to rhema touto, kai autos epinnen autos kai hoi basileis en suskiasmois; kai eipen pros doulous autou Thete; kai ethekan epi ten polin.^ 13kai idou prophetes heis prosengisen pros Aab basilea Israel kai eipen Tade legei Eides sun panta ton ochlon ton megan touton; idou ego didomi auton eis cheira sou semeron, kai gnose hoti ego .

4 Regn. (2 Kings) xxiii.21 -- 24.

LXX. (Cod. B [94] ). Aquila.

^21kai eneteilato ho baseleus panti to lao legon Poiesate pascha to kurio theo hemon, kathos gegraptai epi bibliou tes diathekes tautes. ^22hoti ouk egenethe to pascha touto aph' hemeron ton kriton ohi ekrinon ton Israel, kai pasas ta?s hemeras basileon Israel kai basileon Iouda; ^23hoti all' e to oktokaidekato etei tou basileos Ioseia egenethe to pascha to kurio en Ierousalem. ^24kai ge tous theletas kai tous gnoristas kai ta theraphein kai ta eidola kai panta ta prosochthismata ta gegonota en ge Iouda kai en Ierousalem exeren Ioseias, hina stese tous logous tou nomou tous gegrammenous epi to biblio hou heuren Chelkeias ho hiereus en oiko Kuriou.

^21kai eneteilapo ho basileus sun panti to lao to legein Poiesate phesa to theo humon kata to gegrammenon epi bibliou tes sunthekes tautes. ^22hoti ouk epoiethe kata to phesa touto apo hemeron ton kriton ohi ekrinan ton Israel kai pason hemeron basileon Israel kai basileon Iouda; ^23hoti alla en oktokaidekato etei tou basileos Iosiaou epoiethe to phesa touto to en Ierousalem. ^24kai kai ge sun tous magous kai sun tous gnoristas kai sun ta morphomata kai sun ta katharmata kai sun panta prosochthismata ha horathesan en ge Iouda kai en Ierousalem epelexen Iosiaou, hopos anastese ta rhemata tou nomou ta gegrammena epi tou bibliou [hou heuren] Helkiaou ho hiereus oiko Kuriou [95]

Ps. xc. (xci.) 6b -- 13.

LXX. (Cod. B). Aquila.

apo sumptomatos kai daimoniou mesembrinou.

apo degmou daim[onizontos mesembrias].

^7peseitai ek tou klitous sou chilias,

^7peseitai apo plagiou s[ouchilias],

kai murias ek dexion sou,

kai murias apo dexi[on sou];

pros se de ouk engiei;

pros se ou proseng[isei];

^8plen tois ophthalmois sou katanoeseis,

^8ektos en ophthalmois [sou epible]pseis,

kai antapodosin hamartolon opse.

kai apotisin asebon opse.

^9hoti su, Kurie, he elpis mou;

^9hoti su, , elpis mou;

ton hupsiston ethou kataphugen sou.

hupsiston ethekas oiketerion sou.

^10ou proseleusetai pros se kaka,

^10ou metachthesetai pros se kakia,

kai mastix ouk engiei to skenomati sou;

kai haphe ouk engisei en skepe sou;

^11hoti tois angelois autou enteleitai peri sou,

^11hoti angelois autou enteleitai se,

tou diaphulaxai se en tais hodois [96] sou.

tou phulaxai se en pasais hodois sou;

^12epi cheiron arousin se,

^12epi tarson arousin se,

me pote proskopses pros lithon ton poda sou;

mepote proskopse en litho [pous sou];

^13ep' aspida kai basiliskon epibese.

^13epi leaina[n] [97] kai aspida pateseis.

Ps. xci. (xcii.) 5 -- 10.

LXX. (Cod. B [98] ). Aquila.

^5hoti euphranas me, Kurie, en to poiemati sou,

^5[hoti euphranas me, ] , en katergo sou,

kai en tois ergois ton cheiron sou agalliasomai.

[en poiemasi] cheiron sou aineso.

^6hos emegalunthe ta erga sou, Kurie,

^6[hos emegalunthe] poiemata sou,

sphodra ebarunthesan hoi dialogismoi sou.

sphodra [ebathunth]esan logismoi sou.

^7aner aphron ou gnosetai,

^7[aner] asunetos ou geosetai,

kai asunetos ou sunesei tauta.

kai anoetos ou sunesei sui tauten.

^8en to anateilai tous hamartolous hos chorton

^8en to blastesai asebeis homoios chloe

kai diekupsan pantes hoi ergathomenoi ten anomian,

kai enthesan pantes katergazomenoi anopheles,

hopos an exolethreuthosin eis ton aiona tou aionos.

ektribenai autous heos eti;

^9su de Hupsistos eis ton aiona,

^9kai su Hupsistos eis aiona,



^10hoti idou oi echthroi sou apolountai,

^10idou oi echthroi sou, , idou hoi echthroi sou apolountai,

kai diaskorpisthesontai pantes hoi ergathomenoi ten anomian.

[skorpi]sthesontai pantes katergazo[menoi anopheles].

6. If the student examines these specimens of Aquila's work and compares them with the Hebrew and LXX., the greater literalness of the later version and several of its most striking peculiarities will at once be apparent. He will notice especially the following. (1) There are frequent instances of an absolutely literal rendering of the original, e.g.1 Kings xx.10 hos en posin mou = 'sr brgly (LXX. tois pezois mou); 12 thete;kai ethekan = symv vysymv (LXX. oikodomesate charaka, kai ethento charaka); 2 Kings xxiii.21 to legein = l'mr (LXX. legon); 24 ha horathesan =
'sr nr'v (LXX. ta gegonota). (2) Under certain circumstances [99] sun is employed to represent the Hebrew 't, when it is the sign of the accusative [100] ; e.g.1 Kings xx.12 sun to rhema = 'thdvr?, 13 sun panta ton ochlon = 'tklhhmvn?, 2 Kings xxiii.21 sun panti to lao (where the dat. is governed by the preceding verb), 24 sun tous magous ktl. (3) The same Hebrew words are scrupulously rendered by the same Greek, e.g. kai kaige = vgm occurs thrice in one context (2 Kings xxiii.15, 19, 24); and in Ps. xcii.8, 10 katergazomenoi anopheles twice represents ply 'vn? (4) The transliterations adhere with greater closeness to the Hebrew than in the LXX. [101] ; thus pmch becomes phesa, y'syhv Iosiaou, chlqyhv Helkiaou. (5) The Tetragrammaton is not transliterated, but written in Hebrew letters, and the characters are of the archaic type ( , not yhvh); cf. Orig. in Ps. ii., kai en tois akribestatois de ton antigraphon Ebraiois charaktersin keitai to onoma, Ebraikois de ou tois nun alla tois archaiotatois -- where the 'most exact copies' are doubtless those of Aquila's version, for there is no reason to suppose that any copyists of the Alexandrian version hesitated to write o ks or ke for yhvh? [102] . (6) That the crudities of Aquila's style are not due to an insufficient vocabulary [103] is clear from his ready use of words belonging to the classical or the literary type when they appear to him to correspond to the Hebrew more closely than the colloquialisms of the LXX. The following are specimens; 1 Kings xx.10 LXX. ekpoiesei, Aq. exarkesei; LXX. alopexin, Aq. lichasin [104] ; 12 LXX. skenais, Aq. suskiasmois; 2 Kings xxiii.21 LXX. diathekes, Aq. sunthekes; 24 LXX. theraphein, Aq. morphomata; LXX. eidola, Aq. katharmata; Ps. xc.8 LXX. antapodosin, Aq. apotisin; ib.10 LXX. proseleusetai, Aq. metachthesetai; LXX. mastix, Aq. haphe; xci.5 LXX. poiemati, Aq. katergo.

From the fragments which survive in the margins of hexaplaric MSS. it is possible to illustrate certain other characteristic features of Aquila which arise out of his extreme loyalty to the letter of his Hebrew text. (1) Jerome remarks upon his endeavour to represent even the etymological meaning of the Hebrew words (ad Pammach.11 "non solum verba sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est)," and by way of example he cites the rendering of Deut. vii.13, where Aquila substituted cheuma, oporismon, stilpnoteta for siton, oinon, elaion in order to reflect more exactly the Hebrew ytshr ,tyrs ,dgn -- as though, adds Jerome humorously, we were to use in Latin fusio, pomatio, splendentia. Similarly, Aquila represented tsm by osteoun, and hskyl by epistemonizein or epistemonoun, and even coined the impossible form haphemenos to correspond with ngv?. (2) An attempt is made to represent Hebrew particles, even such as defy translation; thus h local becomes the enclitic de (e. g. notonde = hngbh, Gen. xii.9, Kurenende = qyrh?, 2 Kings xvi.9); and similarly prepositions are accumulated in a manner quite alien from Greek usage (e.g. eis apo makrothen = lmrchvq?, 2 Kings xix.25). (3) Other devices are adopted for the purpose of bringing the version into close conformity with the original; a word of complex meaning or form is represented by two Greek words (e.g. z'zl is converted into tragos apoluomenos and tsltsl into skia skia; a Hebrew word is replaced by a Greek word somewhat similar in sound, e.g. for 'lvn (Deut. xi.30) Aquila gives aulon, and for trphym ? (1 Sam. xv.23) therapeia [105] .

Enough has been said to shew the absurdity of Aquila's method when it is regarded from the standpoint of the modern translator. Even in ancient times such a translation could never have attained to the popularity which belonged to the LXX.; that it was widely accepted by the Greek synagogues of the Empire can only have been due to the prejudice created in its favour by its known adherence to the standard text and the traditional exegesis [106] . The version of Aquila emanated from a famous school of Jewish teachers; it was issued with the full approval of the Synagogue, and its affectation of preserving at all costs the idiom of the original recommended it to orthodox Jews whose loyalty to their faith was stronger than their sense of the niceties of the Greek tongue. For ourselves the work of Aquila possesses a value which arises from another consideration. His "high standard of exactitude and rigid consistency give his translation, with all its imperfections, unique worth for the critic [107] ." Its importance for the criticism of the Old Testament was fully recognised by the two greatest scholars of ancient Christendom, and there are few things more to be desired by the modern student of Scripture than the complete recovery of this monument of the text and methods of interpretation approved by the chief Jewish teachers of the generation which followed the close of the Apostolic age.

7. Theodotion. With Aquila Irenaeus couples Theodotion of Ephesus, as another Jewish proselyte who translated the Old Testament into Greek (Theodotion hermecheusen ho Ephesios kai Akulas . . . amphoteroi Ioudaioi proselutoi). Himself of Asiatic origin, and probably a junior contemporary of Theodotion, Irenaeus may be trusted when he assigns this translator to Ephesus, and describes him as a convert to Judaism. Later writers, however, depart more or less widely from this statement. According to Epiphanius, Theodotion was a native of Pontus, who had been a disciple of Marcion of Sinope before he espoused Judaism. According to Jerome, he was an Ebionite, probably a Jew who had embraced Ebionitic Christianity. His floruit is fixed by Epiphanius in the reign of the second Commodus, i.e. of the Emperor Commodes, so called to distinguish him from L. Ceionius Commodus, better known as L. Aurelius Verus.

Epiph. de mens. et pond.17 peri ten tou deuterou Komodou basileian tou basileusantos meta ton proeiremenon Komodon Loukion Aurelion ete ig', Theodotion tis Pontikos apo tes diadoches Markionos tou hairesiarchou tou Sinopitou, menion kai autos te autou hairesei kai eis Ioudaismon apoklinas kai peritmetheis kai ten ton Ebraion phonen kai ta auton stoicheia paideutheis, idios kai autos exedoke. Hieron. ep. ad Augustin.: "hominis Judaei atque blasphemi"; praef. in Job: "Iudaeus Aquila, et Symmachus et Theodotio Judaizantes haeretici"; de virr. ill.54 "editiones . . . Aquilae . . . Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionaei"; praef. ad Daniel.: "Theodotionem, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit, licet eum quidam dicant Hebionitam qui altero genere Iudaeus est [108] ."

The date assigned to Theodotion by Epiphanius is obviously too late, in view of the statement of Irenaeus, and the whole account suspiciously resembles the story of Aquila. That within the same century two natives of Pontus learnt Hebrew as adults, and used their knowledge to produce independent translations of the Hebrew Bible, is scarcely credible. But it is not unlikely that Theodotion was an Ephesian Jew or Jewish Ebionite. The attitude of a Hellenist towards the Alexandrian version would naturally be one of respectful consideration, and his view of the office of a translator widely different from that of Aquila, who had been trained by the strictest Rabbis of the Palestinian school. And these expectations are justified by what we know of Theodotion's work. "Inter veteres medius incedit" (Hieron. praef. ad evang.); "simplicitate sermonis a LXX. interpretibus non discordat" (praef. in Pss.); "Septuaginta et Theodotio . . . in plurimis locis concordant" (in Eccl. ii.) -- such is Jerome's judgement; and Epiphanius agrees with this estimate (de mens. et pond.17: ta pleista tois ob' sunadontos exedoken). Theodotion seems to have produced a free revision of the LXX. rather than an independent version. The revision was made on the whole upon the basis of the standard Hebrew text; thus the Job of Theodotion was longer than the Job of the LXX. by a sixth part of the whole (Orig. ep. ad Afric.3 sqq., Hieron. praef. ad Job) [109] , and in Daniel, on the other hand, the Midrashic expansions which characterise the LXX. version disappear in Theodotion. His practice with regard to apocryphal books or additional matter appears not to have been uniform; he followed the LXX. in accepting the additions to Daniel and the supplementary verses in Job [110] , but there is no evidence that he admitted the non-canonical books in general [111] .

8. Specimens of Theodotion's style and manner may be obtained from the large and important fragments of his work which were used by Origen to fill up the lacunae in Jeremiah (LXX.). The following passage, preserved in the margin of Codex Marchalianus, will serve as an example [112] .

Jeremiah xl. (xxxiii.) 14 -- 26.

^14 Idou hemerai erchontai, phesi Kurios, kai anasteso ton logon mou ton agathon hon elalesa epi ton oikon Israel kai epi ton oikon Iouda. ^15 en tais hemerais ekeinais kai en to kairo ekeino anatelo to Dauid anatolen dikaian, poion krima kai dikaiosunen en te ge. ^16 en tais hemerais ekeinais sothesetai he Ioudaia kai Ierousalem kataskenosei pepoithuia; kai touto to onoma ho kalesei auten ^17 hoti tade legei Kurios, Ouk exolothreuthesetai to Dauid aner kathemenos epi thronon oikou Israel; ^18 kai tois hiereusi tois Leuitais ouk exolothreuthesetai aner ek prosopou mou, anapheron holokautomata kai thuon thusian. ^19 kai egeneto logos Kuriou pros Ieremian legon ^20 Tade legei Kurios Ei diaskedasete ten diatheken mou ten hemeran kai ten diatheken mou ten nukta, tou me einai hemeran kai nukta en kairo auton; ^21 kaige he diatheke mou diaskedasthesetai meta Dauid tou doulou mou, tou me einai auto huion basileuonta epi ton thronon autou, kai e pros tous Leuitas tous iereis tous leitourgountas moi. ^22 hos ouk exarithmethesetai he dunamis tou ouranou, oude ekmetrethesetai he ammos tes thalasses, houtos plethuno to sperma Dauid tou doulou mou kai tous Leuitas tous leitourgountas moi. ^23 kai egeneto logos Kuriou pros Ieremian legon ^24 Ara ge ouk ides ti ho laos elalesan legontes Hai duo patriai has exelexato Kurios en autais, kai idou aposato autous;; kai ton laon mou paroxunan tou me einai eti ethnos enopion mou. ^25 tade legei Kurios Ei me ten diatheken mou hemeras kai nuktos, akribasmata ouranou kai ges, ouk etaxa, ^26 kaige to sperma Iakob kai Dauid tou doulou mou apodokimo, tou me labein ek tou spermatos autou archonta pros to sperma Abraam kai Isaak kai Iakob; hoti epistrepso ten epistrophen auton, kai oikteireso autous [113] .

Unfortunately there is no other Greek version which can be compared with Theodotion in this passage, for the LXX. is wanting, and only a few shreds of Aquila and Symmachus have reached us. But the student will probably agree with Field that the style is on the whole not wanting in simple dignity, and that it is scarcely to be distinguished from the best manner of the LXX. [114] With his Hebrew Bible open at the place, he will observe that the rendering is faithful to the original, while it escapes the crudities and absurdities which beset the excessive fidelity of Aquila. Now and again we meet with a word unknown to the LXX. (e.g. akribasmata = chqvt?) [115] , or a reminiscence of Aquila; on the other hand Theodotion agrees with the LXX. against Aquila in translating bryt by diatheke. If in one place Theodotion is more obscure than Aquila ten diatheken ten hemeran . . . ten nukta, Aq. tes hemeras . . . tes nuktos), yet the passage as a whole is a singularly clear and unaffected rendering. His chief defect does not reveal itself in this context; it is a habit of transliterating Hebrew words which could have presented no difficulty to a person moderately acquainted with both languages. Field gives a list of 90 words which are treated by Theodotion in this way without any apparent cause [116] . When among these we find such a word as 'l (which is represented by el in Mal. ii.11), we are compelled to absolve him from the charge of incompetence, for, as has been pertinently asked, how could a man who was unacquainted with so ordinary a word or with its Greek equivalent have produced a version at all? Probably an explanation should be sought in the cautious and conservative temperament of this translator [117] . Field's judgement is here sounder than Montfaucon's; Theodotion is not to be pronounced indoctior, or indiligentior, but only "scrupulosior quam operis sui instituto fortasse conveniret [118] ."

9. The relation of the two extant Greek versions of Daniel is a perplexing problem which calls for further consideration. In his lost Stromata Origen, it appears [119] , announced his intention of using Theodotion's version of Daniel; and an examination of Origen's extant works shews that his citations of Daniel "agree almost verbatim with the text of Theodotion now current [120] ." The action of Origen in this matter was generally endorsed by the Church, as we learn from Jerome (praef. in Dan.: "Danielem prophetam iuxta LXX. interpretes ecclesiae non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione"; cf. c. Rufin. ii.33). Jerome did not know how this happened, but his own words supply a sufficient explanation: "hoc unum affirmare possum quod multum a veritate discordet et recto iudicio repudiata sit." So universal was the rejection of the LXX. version of Daniel that, though Origen loyally gave it a place in his Hexapla, only one Greek copy has survived [121] , Theodotion's version having been substituted in all other extant Greek MSS. of Daniel.

But the use of Theodotion's Daniel in preference to the version which was attributed to the LXX. did not begin with Origen. Clement of Alexandria (as edited) uses Theodotion, with a sprinkling of LXX. readings, in the few places where he quotes Daniel (paed. ii.8, iii.3, strom. i.4, 21). In North Africa both versions seem to have influenced the Latin text of Daniel. The subject has been carefully investigated by Prof. F. C. Burkitt [122] , who shews that Tertullian used "a form of the LXX. differing slightly from Origen's edition," whilst Cyprian quotes from a mixed text, in which Theodotion sometimes predominates. Irenaeus, notwithstanding his reverence for the LXX. and distrust of the later versions, cites Daniel after Theodotion's version [123] . Further, Theodotion's Daniel appears to be used by writers anterior to the date usually assigned to this translator. Thus Hermas (vis. iv.2, 4) has a clear reference to Theodotion's rendering of Dan. vi.22 [124] . Justin (dial.31) gives a long extract from Dan. vii. in which characteristic readings from the two versions occur in almost equal proportions [125] . Clement of Rome (1 Cor.34) cites a part of the same context, with a Theodotionic reading (eleitourgoun, LXX. ethera?euon). Barnabas (ep. iv.5) also refers to Dan. vii., and, though his citation is too loose to be pressed, the words exanastesontai opisthen auton are more likely to be a reminiscence of opiso auton anastesetai (Th.) than of meta toutous stesetai (LXX.). The Greek version of Baruch (i.15 -- 18, ii.11 -- 19) undoubtedly supports Theodotion against the LXX. Still more remarkable is the appearance of Theodotionic renderings in the New Testament. A writer so faithful to the LXX. as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his only reference to Daniel Heb. xi.33 = Dan. vi.23) agrees with Theodotion against the Chigi version [126] . The Apocalypse, which makes frequent use of Daniel, supports Theodotion on the whole; cf. Apoc. ix.20 (Dan. v.23), x.6 (Dan. xii.7), xii.7 (Dan. x.20), xiii.7 (Dan. vii.21), xix.6 (Dan. x.6), xx.4 (Dan. vii.9), xx.11 (Dan. ii.35) [127] . Even in the Synoptic Gospels Theodotion's rendering in Dan. vii.13 (meta ton nephelon) occurs as well as the LXX. epi ton n. comp. Mc. xiv.62 with Mt. xxiv.30, xxvi.64 [128] .

From these premisses the inference has been drawn that there were two pre-Christian versions of Daniel, both passing as 'LXX.', one of which is preserved in the Chigi MS., whilst the other formed the basis of Theodotion's revision [129] . It has been urged by Dr Gwynn with much acuteness that the two Septuagintal Books of Esdras offer an analogy to the two versions of Daniel, and the appearance of the phrase apereisato auta en to eidolio autou in 1 Esdr. ii.9 and Dan. i.2 (LXX.) has been regarded as an indication that the Greek Esdras and the Chigi Daniel were the work of the same translator [130] . An obvious objection to the hypothesis of two Septuagintal or Alexandrian versions is the entire disappearance of the version which was used ex hypothesi not only by the authors of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, but by Theodotion and other writers of the second century. But Theodotion's revision of Daniel may have differed so little from the stricter Alexandrian version as to have taken its place without remark [131] .

10. Symmachus. Of this translator Irenaeus says nothing, and it has been inferred, perhaps too hastily, that he was unknown to the Bishop of Lyons, and of later date. Origen knew and used Symmachus, and had received a copy of his commentary on St Matthew from a wealthy Christian woman named Juliana, to whom it had been given by the author. According to Eusebius, Symmachus was an Ebionite, and this is confirmed by Jerome; a less probable tradition in Epiphanius represents him as a Samaritan who had become a convert to Judaism [132] .

Eus. H. E. vi.17 ton ge men hermeneuuon auton de touton isteon Ebionaion ton Summachon gegonenai . . . kai hupomnemata de tou Summachou eiseti nun pheretai en hois dokei pros to kata Matthaion apoteinomenos euangelion ten dedelomenen hairesin kratunein. tauta de ho Origenes meta kai allon eis tas graphas hermeneion tou Summachou semainei para Ioulianes tinos eilephenai, hen kai phesi par autou Summachou tas biblous diadexasthai. Hieron. de virr. ill.54 "Theodotionis Hebionaei et Symmachi eiusdem dogmatis" (cf. in Hab. iii.13); praef. in Job: "Symmachus et Theodotion Iudaizantes haeretici." Epiph. de mens. et pond.15 en tois tou Seuerou chronois Summachos tis Samareites ton par autois sophon me timetheis hupo tou oikeiou ethnous . . . proseluteuei kai peritemnetai deuteran peritomen . . . houtos toinun ho Summachos pros diastrophen ton para Samareitais hermeneion hermeneusas ten triten exedoken hermeneian.

That Symmachus, even if of Jewish or Samaritan birth, became an Ebionite leader is scarcely doubtful, since an Ebionitic commentary on St Matthew bearing his name was still extant in the fourth century [133] ; the Symmachians, an Ebionite sect probably named after him, are mentioned by Ambrosiaster (comm. in Gal., prolegg.) and Augustine (c. Faust. xix.4, c. Crescon. i.36) [134] . His floruit is open to some question. Dr Gwynn has shewn [135] that Epiphanius, who makes Theodotion follow Symmachus, probably placed Symmachus in the reign of Verus, i.e. Marcus Aurelius. Now in the Historia Lausiaca, c.147, Palladius says that Juliana sheltered Origen during a persecution, i.e. probably during the persecution of the Emperor Maximius (A.D.238 -- 241). If this was so, the literary activity of Symmachus must have belonged, at the earliest, to the last years of M. Aurelius, and it may be questioned whether Epiphanius has not inverted the order of the two translators, i.e. whether Theodotion ought not to be placed under M. Aurelius and Symmachus under Commodus (A.D.180 -- 192) [136] . The version of Symmachus was in the hands of Origen when he wrote his earliest commentaries, i.e. about A.D.228 [137] ; but the interval is long enough to admit of its having reached Alexandria.

11. The aim of Symmachus, as Jerome perceived, was to express the sense of his Hebrew text rather than to attempt a verbal rendering: "non solet verborum kakozelian sed intellegentiae ordinem sequi" (in Am. iii.11). While Aquila endeavoured "verbum de verbo exprimere," Symmachus made it his business "sensum potius sequi" (praef. in Chron. Eus., cf. praef. in Job). Epiphanius, who believed Symmachus to have been a Samaritan proselyte to Judaism, jumped to the conclusion that his purpose was polemical (pros diastrophen ton para Samareitais hermeneion hermeneusas). But if Symmachus had any antagonist in view, it was probably the literalism and violation of the Greek idiom which made the work of Aquila unacceptable to non-Jewish readers. So far as we can judge from the fragments of his version which survive in Hexaplaric MSS., he wrote with Aquila's version before him, and in his efforts to recast it made free use of both the LXX. and Theodotion. The following extracts will serve to illustrate this view of his relation to his predecessors.

MALACHI II.13 [138]

LXX. Aq.
kai tauta ha emisoun epoieite; ekaluptete dakrusin to thusiasterion Kuriou kai klauthmo kai stenagmo ek kopon. eti axion epiblepsai eis thusian e labein dekton ek ton cheiron humon kai touto deuteron epoieite; ekaluptete dakruo to thusiasterion klauthmo kai oimoge, apo tou me einai eti neusai pros to doron kai labein eudokian apo cheiros humon.
Th. Symm.
kai touto deuteron epoiesate; ekaluptete dakrusin to thusiasterion, klaiontes kai stenontes, apo tou me einai eti prosengizonta to holokautoma kai labein teleion ek cheiron humon. kai tauta deuteron epoieite, kaluptontes en dakrusin to thusiasterion, klaiontes kai oimossontes, apo tou me einai eti neuonta pros to doron kai dexasthai to eudokemenon apo cheiros humon.

But it must not be supposed that Symmachus is a mere reviser of earlier versions, or that he follows the lead of Aquila as Theodotion follows the LXX. Again and again he goes his own way in absolute independence of earlier versions, and sometimes at least, it must be confessed, of the original. This is due partly to his desire to produce a good Greek rendering, more or less after the current literary style; partly, as it seems, to dogmatic reasons. The following may serve as specimens of the Greek style of Symmachus when he breaks loose from the influence of his predecessors: Gen. xviii.25 ho panta anthropon apaiton dikaiopragein, alritos me poieses touto; Job xxvi.14 ti de psithurisma ton logon autou akousomen, hopou bronten dunasteias autou oudeis ennoesei; Ps. xliii.16 di holes hemeras he aschemonesis mou antikrus mou, kai ho kataischummos tou prosopou mou kaluptei me. Ps. lxviii.3 ebaptisthen eis aperantous kataduseis, kai ouk estin stasis; eiselthon eis ta bathe ton hudaton, kai rheithron epeklusen me. Eccl. iv.9 eisin ameinous duo henos; echousin gar kerdos agathon. Isa. xxix.4 upo gen edaphisthesetai he lalia sou, kai estai hos engastrimuthos he phone pou kai apo tes ges he lalia sou rhoisetai.

It cannot be said that these renderings approach to excellence, but a comparison with the corresponding LXX. will shew that Symmachus has at least attempted to set himself free from the trammels of the Hebrew idiom and to clothe the thoughts of the Old Testament in the richer drapery of the Greek tongue. It is his custom to use compounds to represent ideas which in Hebrew can be expressed only by two or more words (e.g. blyphs, Symm. anaitios, yn ?byn, Symm. hophthalmophanos, lr's pnh Symm. akrogoniaios); he converts into a participle the first of two finite verbs connected by a copula (Exod. v.7 Symm. aperchomenoi kalamasthosan, 4 Regn. i.2 sphalentes epeson); he has at his command a large supply of Greek particles (e.g. he renders 'k by ara, ontos, isos, di holou, monon, houtos, all' homos) [139] . More interesting and important is the tendency which Symmachus manifests to soften the anthropomorphic expressions of the Old Testament; e.g. Gen. i.27, ektisen ho theos ton anthropon en eikoni diaphoro [140] ; orthion ho theos ektisen auton. Exod. xxiv.10, eidon horamati ton theon Israel. Jud. ix.13 ton oinon . . . ten euphrosunen ton anthropon. Ps. xliii.24 hina ti hos hupnon ei, Despota; In these and other instances Symmachus seems to shew a knowledge of current Jewish exegesis [141] which agrees with the story of his Jewish origin or training.

Literature. On Aquila the student may consult R. Anger de Onkelo Chaldaico, 1845; art. in D. C. B. (W. J. Dickson); M. Friedmann, Onkelos u. Akylas, 1896; Lagarde, Clementina, p.12 ff.; Krauss, Akylas der Proselyt (Festschrift), 1896; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of Aquila, 1897; C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers^2, 1897 (p. viii.); Schürer^3, iii. p.317 ff. On Symmachus, C. H. Thieme, pro puritate Symmachi dissert., 1755; art. in D. C. B. (J. Gwynn); Giov. Mercati, l'età di Simmaco interprete, 1892. On Theodotion, Credner, Beiträge, ii. p.253 ff.; art. in D. C. B. (J. Gwynn); G. Salmon, Intr. to the N. T.^7, p.538 ff.; Schürer^3, iii. p.323 ff. Works which deal with the ancient non-Septuagintal versions in general will be mentioned in c. iii., under Literature of the Hexapla.

12. Other ancient Greek versions. The researches of Origen (A.D.185 -- 253) brought to light three anonymous versions besides those of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus; from their relative position in the columns of his great collection (see c. iii.) they are known as the Quinta (e'), Sexta (s'), and Septima (z') respectively. The following are the chief authorities:

Eus. H. E. vi.16 tosaute de eisegeto to Origenei ton theion logon apekribomene exetasis hos . . . kai tinas heteras para tas; kathemaxeumenas hermeneias enallattousas . . ., epheurein, has ouk oid' hothen ek tinon muchon ton palai lanthanousas chronon eis phos anichneusas proegagen . . . tinos ar eien ouk eidos auto touto monon epesemenato hos ara ten men heuroi en te pros Aktio Nikopolei . . .epi mias authis sesemeiotai hos en Ierichoi heuremenes en pitho kata tous chronous Antoninou tou uiou Seberou. Epiph. de mens. et pond.18 meta ton diogmon tou basileos Seuerou heurethe he pempte en pithois en Iericho kekrummene en chronois tou huiou Seuerou tou epiklethentos Karakallou te kai Geta . . . en de to hebdomo autou etei heurethesan kai bibloi tes pemptes ekdoseos en pithois en Iericho kekrummenes meta allon biblion Ebraikon kai Hellenikon. ton de Karakallon diadechetai Antoninos heteros . . . meta touton ebasileusen Alexandros . . . ete ig'; en meso ton chronon touton heurethe hekte ekdosis, kai aute en pithois kekrummene, en Nikopolei te pros Aktio. Pseudo-Ath. syn. scr. sacr.77 pempte hermeneia estin he en pithois heuretheisa kekrummene epi Antoninou basileos tou Karakalla en Iericho para tinos ton en Ierosolumois spoudaion. hekte ermeneia estin he en pithois heuretheisa, kai haute kekrummene, epi Alexandrou tou Mamaias paidos en Nikopolei te pros Aktion hupo Origenous gnorimon. Hieron. de virr. ill.54 "quintam et sextam et septimam editionem, quas etiam nos de eius bibliotheca habemus, miro labore repperit et cum ceteris editionibus conparavit": in ep. ad Tit. "nonnulli vero libri, et maxime hi qui apud Hebraeos versu compositi sunt, tres alias editiones additas habent quam 'quintam' et 'sextam' et 'septimam' translationem vocant, auctoritatem sine nominibus interpretum consecutas." Cf. in Hab. ii.11, iii.13.

It appears from the statement of Eusebius [142] that Origen found the Quinta at Nicopolis near Actium, and that either the Sexta or the Septima was discovered in the reign of Caracalla (A.D.211 -- 217) at Jericho; while Epiphanius, reversing this order, says that the Quinta was found at Jericho c. A.D.217, and the Sexta at Nicopolis under Severus Alexander (A.D.222 -- 235) [143] . According to Epiphanius both the Quinta and the Sexta, according to Eusebius the Sexta only, lay buried in a pithos (dolium), one of the earthenware jars, pitched internally, and partly sunk in the ground, in which the mustum was usually stored while it underwent the process of fermentation [144] . Since Origen was in Palestine A.D.217, and in Greece A.D.231, it is natural to connect his discoveries with those years. How long the versions had been buried cannot be determined, for it is impossible to attach any importance to the vague statements of Eusebius (ton palai lanthanousas chronon). The version found at or near Nicopolis may have been a relic of the early Christianity of Epirus, to which there is an indirect allusion in the Pastoral Epistles [145] . The Jericho find, on the other hand, was very possibly a Palestinian work, deposited in the wine jar for the sake of safety during the persecution of Septimius Severus, who was in Palestine A.D.202, and issued edicts against both the Synagogue and the Church [146] . Of Septima nothing is known, beyond what Eusebius tells us, and the very sparing use of it in the Psalter of some Hexaplaric MSS.; the few instances are so dubious that Field was disposed to conclude either that this version never existed, or that all traces of it have been lost [147] .

There is no conclusive evidence to shew that any of these versions covered the whole of the Old Testament [148] . Renderings from Quinta [149] are more or less abundant in 2 Kings, Job, Psalms, Canticles, and the Minor Prophets, and a few traces have been observed in the Pentateuch. Sexta is well represented in the Psalms and in Canticles, and has left indications of its existence in Exodus, 1 Kings, and the Minor Prophets.

With regard to the literary character of Quinta and Sexta, the style of Quinta is characterised by Field as "omnium elegantissimus . . . cum optimis Graecis suae aetatis scriptoribus comparandus." Sexta also shews some command of Greek, but is said to be disposed to paraphrase; Field, while he regards that charge as on the whole 'not proven,' cites a remarkable example of the tendency from Ps. xxxvi.35, which s' renders, Eidon asebe kai anaide antipoioumenon en skleroteti kai legonta Eimi hos autochthon peripaton en dikaiosune. Jerome [150] attributes both versions to 'Jewish translators,' but the Christian origin of Sexta betrays itself [151] at Hab. iii.13 exelthes tou sosai ton laon sou dia Iesoun ton christon sou [152] .

The Greek fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries quotes non-Septuagintal renderings from an interpreter who is styled ho Ebraios. Ho Suros is also cited, frequently as agreeing with ho Ebraios. Nothing is known of these translators (if such they were), but an elaborate discussion of all the facts may be seen in Field [153] .

13. The 'GRAECUS VENETUS.' This is a version of the Pentateuch, together with the books of Ruth, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Daniel, preserved in St Mark's Library at Venice in a single MS. of cent. xiv. -- xv. (cod. Gr. vii.) [154] . It was first given to the world by de Villoison (Strassburg, 1784) and C. F. Ammon (Erlangen, 1790 -- 1); a new edition with valuable prolegomena by O. von Gebhardt appeared at Leipzig in 1875 [155] . This translation has been made directly from the M. T., but the author appears to have occasionally availed himself of earlier Greek versions (LXX., Aq., Symm., Theod.) [156] . His chief guide however appears to have been David Kimchi, whose interpretations are closely followed [157] . That he was a Jew is clear from incidental renderings (e.g. in Exod. xxiii.20 he translates hmqvm ton ontoten [158] , sc. yhvh). From the fact of his having undertaken a Greek version Gebhardt infers that he was a proselyte to Christianity, but the argument may be used to support an opposite conclusion; as a Jew he may have been moved by a desire to place before the dominant Orthodox Church a better rendering of the Old Testament than the LXX. Delitzsch wishes to identify him with Elissaeus, a Jewish scholar at the court of Murad I., who flourished in the second half of the 14th century.

The style of this remarkable version will be best illustrated by a few specimens:

Gen. vi.2 f.

^2 tetheantai goun hoi huieis tou theou tas thugateras tou anthrhopou hoti kalai eteloun, kai elaron heautois gunaikas apo pason on heilonto. ^3 ephe toinun ho ontotes Ou krinei pneuma toumon en to anthropo es aiona, eph' hois eti per esti sarx; telesousi d' hai hemerai autou hekaton kai eikosin ete.

Prov. viii.22 ff.

^22 ho ontotes ektesato me archen hodou hoi, pro ton ergon autou ek tote. ^23 ap' aionos kechumai, apo kratos, apo prolemmatos ges. ^24 en ouk abussois peplasmai, en ou pegais dedoxasmenon hudaton; ^25 prin ore empagenai, pro ton bounon hodinemai; ^26 achris ouk epoiese gen, diodous kai kephalen koneon tes oikoumenes.

Daniel vii.13.

^13 horaon ekuresa en horasesin euphronas, autika te xun tais nephelais ton polon hos huieus anthropo aphiknoumenos een, mechri te to palaio tais hamerais ephthase kanopion teno prosegagon he. ^14 teno t' edothe archa tima te kai basileia, pantes te laoi ethnea kai glottai teno latreuseionti; ha archu heu archa aionos hos ou pareleuseietai, ha te basileia heu haper ouk oicheseietai.

The student will not fail to notice the translator's desire to render his text faithfully, and, on the other hand, his curiously infelicitous attempt to reproduce it in Attic Greek; and lastly his use of the Doric dialect in Daniel to distinguish the Aramaic passages from the rest of the book. The result reminds us of a schoolboy's exercise, and the reader turns from it with pleasure to the less ambitious diction of the LXX., which, with its many imperfections, is at least the natural outgrowth of historical surroundings.

Klostermann (Analecta p.30) mentions a MS. Psalter (Vat. Gr.343), bearing the date 22 April, 1450, which professes to be a translation into the Greek of the fifteenth century (kata ten nun koinen ton Graikon phonen). A version of the Pentateuch into modern Greek in Hebrew characters was printed at Constantinople in 1547, forming the left-hand column of a Polyglott (Hebrew, Chaldee, Spanish, Greek). It is described in Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. p.355, and more fully in La version Neo-grecque du Pentateuche Polyglotte . . . remarques du Dr Lasare Belléli (Paris, 1897). This Greek version has recently been transliterated and published in a separate form with an introduction and glossary by D. C. Hesseling (Leide, 1897). A Greek version of job (1576) is mentioned by Neubauer in J. Q. R. iv. p.18 f.


[81] Robertson Smith, The O. T. in the J. Ch., p. 64; cf. ib. p. 87 f.; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, p. 63 ff.; cf. Buhl, p. 118 f.

[82] Eus. H. E. vi. 16.

[83] Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, p. 27 f.; cf. Hort, Commentary on Peter, p. 172 ff.

[84] The name is written qylm ,'qylm ,qylm or qylm, and in the Bab. Talmud, 'gqlvm. On the identity of Aquila with Onkelos see Anger de Onkelo Chaldaico (before 1845), Friedmann Onkelos u. Akylas (Wien, 1896); or the brief statement in Buhl, p. 173.

[85] Field, Hexapla, prolegg. p. xviii.

[86] Megilla 1. 9: in yphyphyt there is a play upon ypht (cf. Genesis 9:27).

[87] See Dr C. Taylor in the preface to Prof. Burkitt's Fragments of Aquila, p. vi.: "Aquila in a sense was not the sole or independent author of the version, its uncompromising literalism being the necessary outcome of his Jewish teachers' system of exegesis."

[88] Ep. ad Afric. 3. Cf. Aug. l.c.

[89] See p. 31.

[90] Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the translation of Aquila (Cambridge, 1897).

[91] Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests (Camb. 1900). See also Amherst Papyri, i. p. 30 f. (London, 1900).

[92] Cod. A is nearer to Aquila, as the following variants shew: 10 poiesaisan moi oi theoi kai tade prostheiesan A 12 ote] os A pantes oi b. A 13 to bas.] pr to Achaab A ton ochlon] pr panta A eis ch. sas semeron A.

[93] MS. ; see Burkitt, op. cit. p. 2.

[94] The following variants in Cod. A agree with Aquila: 22 pason emeron A 23 to pascha] + touto A

[95] MS. , at the end of a line: see Burkitt, p. 16.

[96] 11 tais odois] pr tasais A(R)T

[97] MS. .

[98] The following variants deserve attention: 6 ebathunth. Bab'c.aRT 10 pr oti idou oi echthroi sou ke 'AaRT

[99] For these see Burkitt, Aquila, p. 12.

[100] This singular use of sun appears also in the LXX., but only in Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which Freudenthal is disposed to assign to Aquila (p. 65); cf. König, Einleitung, p. 108 n., and McNeile, Introd. to Ecclesiastes.

[101] Aq. does not transliterate chh' (see Burkitt, p. 14).

[102] In a few Hexaplaric MSS. (e.g. Q, 86, 88, 243mg, 264) the Greek letters PIPI are written for yhvh, but (with the exception of the Genizah Palimpsest, Taylor, p. 27) the Greek MSS. use it solely in their excerpts from the non-Septuagintal columns of the Hexapla, and only the Hexaplaric Syriac admits PIPI into the text of the LXX., using it freely for kurios, even with a preposition (as ). Oxyrh. Pap. 1007 (vol. VII.), late 3rd cent., has ZZ, representing doubled yod, in Genesis 2. iii. Ceriani expresses the opinion that the use of PIPI is due either to Origen or Eusebius, i.e. one of those fathers substituted PIPI for for in the non-Septuagintal columns, using the letters to represent the Hebrew characters which were familiar to them. On the whole subject the student may consult Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profane, ii. p. 106 ff.; Schleusner, s.v. pipi, Field, Hexapla ad Esa. i. 2; Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, p. 1135; Driver in Studia Biblia, i. p. 12, n. 3; Z. D. M. G. (1878), 465 ff., 501, 506. Prof. Burkitt acutely points out (p. 16) that (and doubtless also PIPI was read as Kurios, since in one place in the Aquila fragments where there was no room to write the Hebrew characters "instead of oiko we find oiko ku." On the orthography see Burkitt, p. 15, par. 4.

[103] Even Jerome speaks of Aquila as "eruditissimus linguae Graecae" (in Isaiah 49:5).

[104] See Prof. Burkitt's note (p. 26).

[105] The student who wishes to pursue the subject may refer to Field, Prolegg. p. xxi. sqq., and Dr Taylor's article Hexapla in Smith and Wace's Dict. Chr. Biog. iii. p. 17 ff. Jerome speaks more than once of a second edition of Aquila "quam Hebraei kat' akribeian nominant." The question is discussed by Field (prolegg. xxiv. ff.).

[106] See Prof. Burkitt's article Aquila in the Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan. 1898, p. 211 ff.

[107] Dr Taylor, pref. to Fragments of Aquila, p. vii.

[108] Marcion flourished c. A.D. 150; Commodus was Emperor from 180--192. The Paschal Chronicle, following Epiphanius, dates the work of Theodotion A.D. 184.

[109] See Field, Hexapla, p. xxxix.; Hatch, Essays, p. 215; Margoliouth, art. 'Job' in Smith's Bible Dict. (ed. 2).

[110] Orig. ep. ad Afric. 3.

[111] On Baruch see Nestle's remarks in Hastings' D. B. iv. (art. Septuagint).

[112] O. T. in Greek, iii. pp. vii. ff., 320 f.

[113] Another considerable fragment of Theodotion may be found in Jeremiah 46.(xxxix.) 4--13, see O. T. in Greek, p. 534 f.

[114] Hexapla, prolegg. p. xxxix. "Theodotionis stylus simplex et gravis est." LXX. of Jeremiah 23:5, 6 may be set beside Th of xl. 14, 15.

[115] Cod. A employs akribasmos in this sense (Jud. 5. 15, 3 Regn. xi. 34, 4 Regn. xvii. 15), but under the influence of Theodotion, at least in the last two passages; see Field ad loc.

[116] 0p. cit. p. xl. sq.

[117] D. C. B. art. Hexapla (iii. p. 22). Cf. ib. iv. p. 978.

[118] Thus in Mal. 50. c. he was perhaps unwilling to use theos in connexion with the phrase 'l gkr.

[119] Jerome on Daniel 4. "Origenes in nono Stromatum volumine asserit se quae sequuntur ab hoc loco in propheta Daniele non iuxta LXX. interpretes . . . sed iuxta Theodotionis editionem disserere."

[120] Dr Gwynn in D. C. B. (iv. p. 974).

[121] The Chigi MS. known as Cod. 87 (H. P. 88); see O. T. in Greek, iii. pp. vi., xii., and cf. the subscription printed ib. p. 574.

[122] Old Latin and Itala, p. 18 ff.

[123] An exception in i. 19. 2 (Daniel 12:9 f.) is due to a Marcosian source.

[124] See Salmon, Intr. to the N. T.^7 p. 639.

[125] On the trustworthiness of Justin's text here see Burkitt, op. cit. p. 25 n. (against Hatch, Essays, p. 190).

[126] Heb. 50. c. ephraxan stomata leonton (Dan. Th., enephraxen ta stomata ton leonton; LXX., sesoke me apo ton leonton).

[127] The references are from Dr Salmon's Intr. p. 548 f. He adds: "I actually find in the Apocalypse no clear evidence that St John had ever seen the so-called LXX. version." See Bludau in Th. Q. 1897 (p. 1 ff.).

[128] The N. T. occasionally inclines to Theodotion in citations which are not from Daniel; cf. John 19:37 (Zechariah 12:10), 1 Corinthians 15:54 (Isaiah 25:8); see Schürer³, iii. p. 324 "entweder Th. selbst ist älter als die Apostel, oder es hat einen 'Th.' vor Th. gegeben."

[129] D. C. B. art. Theodotion iv. p. 970 ff. Dr Salmon (Intr. p. 547) is disposed to accept this view.

[130] D. C. B. iv. p. 977 n.; cf. Hastings' D. B., i.[p. 761.

[131] On the whole question of the date of Theodotion, see Schürer, G. J. V.³ iii. 323 f., where the literature of the subject is given.

[132] The name svmkvm occurs in the Talmud as that of a disciple of R. Meir, who flourished towards the end of the second or beginning of the third century. Geiger desires to identify our translator with this Symmachus; see Field, prolegg. ad Hex. p. xxix.

[133] Euseb. l. c.

[134] Philastrius, who represents the Symmachiani as holding other views, says (c. 145): "sunt haeretici alii qui Theodotionis et Symmachi itidem interpretationem diverso modo expositam sequuntur." See Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Litt., 1. i. p. 212.

[135] D. C. B. iv. p. 971 ff. Seuerou in de pond. et mens. 16 is on this hypothesis a corruption of Ouerou. Cf. Lagarde's Symmicta, ii.[p. 168.

[136] The Gospel of Peter, which cannot he much later than A.D. 170, and may be fifteen or twenty years earlier, shews some verbal coincidences with Symmachus (Akhmîm fragment, pp. xxxiv. 18, 20), but they are not decisive.

[137] Cf. D. C. B. iv. p. 103.

[138] The Hexaplaric renderings are from Cod. 86 (Cod. Barberinus): Field, Hexapla, ii.[p. 1033.

[139] For other examples see Field, prolegg. p. xxx. ff.; D. C. B. iv. p. 19 f.

[140] Reading, perhaps, vlm vvlm 'lhym; cf. Nestle, Marginalien, pp. 3, 15.

[141] See D. C. B. iii.[p. 20.

[142] Jerome (prol. in Orig. exp. Cant.) confirms Eusebius, on whose words see Dr Mercati, Studi a Testi 5, v. p. 47 (1901).

[143] The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila identifies Nicopolis with Emmaus Nicopolis in Palestine.

[144] D. of Gk and Lat. Ant. p. 1202. These pithoi are said to have been sometimes used instead of cistae or capsae for preserving books. In 1906 five Greek documents were found in an earthenware jar at Elephantine; see Dr F. G. Kenyon in Egypt Exploration Fund Archaeological Report for 1907--8, p. 50.

[145] Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 432.

[146] Cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 7; Spartian. in Sev. 17.

[147] Prolegg. ad Hexapla, p. xlvi; see however R. Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk (Camb. 1890), p. 42. Ps.-Athanasius calls Lucian the seventh version: ebdome palin kai teleutaia hermeneia he tou hagiou Loukianou.

[148] According to Harnack-Preuschen (i. p. 340) the opposite is implied by Eusebius' use of enallattousas in reference to these versions: "d. h. die eine war nur für diese, die andere nur für jene Bücher vorhanden."

[149] On Quinta see Mercati, Studi e Testi 5, IV. p. 28; and Burkitt in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeology, June 1902.

[150] adv. Rufin.

[151] "Prodens manifestissime sacramentum," as Jerome himself remarks. No doubt the primary reference is to Joshua (Field), but the purport of the gloss is unmistakable.

[152] leg. fors. Iesou tou christou sou.

[153] Prolegg. pp. lxxv.--lxxxii. See also Lagarde, Ueber den Hebräer Ephraims von Edessa. On to Samareitikon see Field, p. lxxii. ff., and Nestle, Urtext, p. 206. For some ambiguous references to other(?) versions see Philostr. haer. cc. 143, 144.

[154] See Eichhorn, p. 421 ff.; De Wette-Schrader, p. 122 f.

[155] Graecus Venetus Pentateuchi &c. versio Graeca. Ex unico biblioth. S. Marci Venetae codice nunc primum uno volumine comprehensam atque apparatu critico et philologico instructam edidit O. G. Praefatus est Fr. Delitzsch.

[156] Gebhardt, p. lvii. ff.

[157] Ib. p. lxii.

[158] Ontotes, hontourgos, ousiotes are his usual renderings of yhvh.

chapter i
Top of Page
Top of Page