a

§ 44, b.

THEODOTION'S VERSION.

Theodotion did little but revise the version of the Seventy. The Christians used his translation of Daniel instead of the Alexandrian translation. Thus Jerome says, "The churches do not read Daniel the prophet,

Irenæus, iii. 24, calls him & 'Eqέoios Iovdaios agоσhvτos. Jerome, Ep. 89, ad August. Opp. iv. pt. ii. p. 626: Hominis Judæi atque blasphemi editio. See Præf. Com. in Dan.: Juxta Theodotionem, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit: licet eum quidam dicant Hebionitam, qui altero genere Judæus est. Præf. in Esram: Judæos et Hebionitas legis veteris interpretes, Aquilam videlicet et Symmachum et Theodotionem. Præf. in Job: Judæus Aquila et Symmachus et Theodotio Judaizantes hæretici, qui multa mysteria Salvatoris subdola interpretatione celarunt. Catal. Scriptt. Eccles. c. 54. Opp. iv. pt. ii. p. 116: Theodotionis Hebionai. Com. in Hab. iii.: Theodotio vere quasi pauper et Hebionita, sed et Symmachus ejusdem dogmatis, pauperem sensum secuti Judaice transtulerunt. Isti semichristiani Judaice transtulerunt: et Judæus Aquila interpretatus est, ut Christianus. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 8, merely repeats Irenæus. Epiphanius, l. c. ch. 17, says: Ποντικὸς ἀπὸ τῆς διαδοχῆς Μαρκίωνος, μηνιῶν καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ αὐτοῦ αἱρέσει καὶ εἰς ̓Ιουδαϊσμὸν ἀποκλίνας καὶ περιτμηθείς, 21. See these false statements as to the date, corrected, in Hody, p. 579, sq., and Stroth, in Eichhorn's Rep. vol. ii. p. 76, sq. Irenæus, l. c., and perhaps Justin, are acquainted with him. See Stroth, 1. c. p. 75.

• Jerome says, in Eccles. ii.: "The LXX. and Theodotion agree in this as well as in many places." Præf. in Evang.: “He takes a course midway between the new (Aquila and Symmachus) and the old (the LXX.)" Præf. in Psalt.: "In simplicity of style he did not disagree with the LXX." Præf. in Job: "Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, either express it word by word, or sense by sense, or use a kind of translation composed of both systems, corrected by one another," (vel verbum ex verbo, vel sensum ex sensu, vel ex utroque commixtum et medie temperatum genus translationis expresserunt.) Epiphanius says, 1. c. ch. 17: "He made the greatest part of his version in harmony with the LXX., for he adopted most of his habits of translation from the customs of the LXX." Jerome, in Jerem. xxix. 17, speaking of the bad figs, says: Theodotio interpretatus est sudrinas; secunda, pessima; Symmachus novissimas. Whence it might be thought there were two editions of Theodotion; but Hody, p. 584, [who was the first to notice this passage,] gives a conjectural reading, and inserts "Aquila prima editio"...... before "secunda." [Then the whole passage would read, Theodotion translated it sudrinas; the first edition of Aquila, &c. ; the second, pessima, &c.]

according to the Seventy, but use Theodotion's edition, and I know not why it happens. Either because the style is Chaldaic, and differs in some peculiarities from our style, and so the Seventy were unwilling to preserve these features of the language in their translation; or the book was published under their name, by some personI know not by whom-that was not sufficiently acquainted with the Chaldaic language, or for some other cause of which I am ignorant. This one thing I can affirm, -that it differs much from the truth, and ought justly to be rejected.""

[Theodotion, says Epiphanius, was born at Sinope, in Pontus. For a time he adhered to the party of Marcion the heretic, but afterwards deserted it, because he conceived himself injured by this party, and went over to the Jews. But Irenæus and other credible Fathers give a very different account. Irenæus calls him an Ephe

a

Jerome, Præf. in Vers. Danielis: Danielem prophetam juxta LXX. intt. ecclesiæ non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione; et hoc cur acciderit nescio. Sive quia sermo Chaldaicus est et quibusdam proprietatibus a nostro eloquio discrepat, noluerunt LXX. intt. easdem linguæ lineas in translatione servare; sive sub nomine eorum ab alio, nescio quo, non satis Chaldæam linguam sciente, editus est liber; sive aliud quid causæ extiterit ignorans : hoc unum affirmare possum, quod multum a veritate discordet et recto judicio repudiata sit. Compare Jerome, Proëm. Com. in Dan., Prolog. in Jos., Apol. cont. Rufin. ii. 33. Hody, p. 282. Bertholdt, Uebersetz des Dan. vol.

i. p. 142.

[Theodotion's version of Daniel is often found in MSS. of the LXX., and the Septuagint version of that book was so rarely transcribed that only one MS. of it is extant, from which it was printed at Rome in 1772, with the title Daniel secundum LXX. ex tetraplis Originis, nunc primum editus e singulari Codice chisiano, &c. fol. See an account of it in Le Long, Masch's ed. It consists entirely of fragments. Theodotion and Aquila, both, omitted the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Some have thought Theodotion was the first to translate the Apocrypha; but there is evidence to the contrary. Gesner and Grotius declared that the Greek version of the Chronicles in the MSS. of the LXX. proceeded from Theodotion. But this decision cannot be supported. See Hody, p. 583, sq.]

sian; Jerome, sometimes an Ebionite, sometimes a Jew. The authority of these worthy men is always superior to that of the fabulist Epiphanius.

Epiphanius places the date of this version in the time of the emperor Commodus the Second, and, to support this assertion, creates a new series of Roman emperors. This only is certain,— that he must have lived, and have made his version, a considerable time before the year 160 A. C.; for not only Irenæus uses it, about 177 or 178, in his book against heresies, but Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with the Jew Trypho, which was composed about 160 A. C. The style of his version holds a medium between the scrupulousness of Aquila and the freedom of Symmachus. For the most part, he followed the Seventy, and adhered to their text, where it was possible, word for word. His translation, therefore, may be regarded as little more than a new recension of the Alexandrian version, made with great freedom. But, to do this, he consulted the Hebrew text, and translated directly from it, especially where there were chasms in the Septuagint. In such places, he betrays his very slight acquaintance with the Hebrew language; for, even when there are great difficulties in the original, he often adheres to the very words. Therefore, since he came so close to the Septuagint, Origen, in his Hexapla, for the most part, supplied the chasms of the old version from this. On account of his dependence upon the Septuagint, the utility of his work in a critical recension of the original Hebrew is very much limited. For the most part, it is but a single voice. Notwithstanding this, all the fragments of it are valuable, especially for the restoration of the Alexandrian text.]"

" See Eichhorn, § 197–200.

§ 44, c.

VERSION OF SYMMACHUS.

Symmachus endeavored to obtain a pure Greek style, and translated more freely. [Our accounts of Symmachus are derived mainly from Epiphanius, who says he was a Samaritan. He was honored as a sage by his countrymen; but, not satisfied with this, he desired political supremacy among them. But, since they did not agree to his plans, he went over to the Jews, and, out of hatred to the Samaritans, continues this improbable story, made a new version of the Old Testament. From this we can only gather that he was a half-Jew, an Ebionite. This is confirmed by Eusebius and Jerome.

Epiphanius places him under the reign of Severus,

......

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 17. Demonst. Evang. vii. 1, calls him an Ebionite. Compare Jerome, as cited p. 157. His statement is confirmed by the Syriac accounts in Asseman, Bib. Orient. vol. ii. p. 278, sqq. vol. iii. pt. i. p. 17. Epiphanius, 1. c. ch. 16, says: Zauageling νοσήσας φιλαρχίαν προσηλυτεύει καὶ περιτέμνεται δεύτερον. That he was younger than Theodotion, follows from the silence of Irenæus, and from Jerome, on Isaiah Xxxviii. Symmachus in Theodotionis scita transiit. Yet see Stroth, 1. c. p. 126. See, also, Petavius, ad Epiphanius, p. 399, sqq.

.....

b Epiphanius, l. c. : πρὸς διαστροφὴν τῶν παρὰ Σαμαρείταις ἑρμηνειῶν ἑρμηνεύσας τὴν τρίτην ἐξέδωκεν ἑρμηνείαν. Jerome, Com. in Amos iii. ...... non solet verborum xaxoniav, sed intelligentiæ ordinem sequi. Com. in Jes. i.: Symmachus more suo manifestius. Compare chap. v. Hody, p. 588. Montfaucon, Hexapl. p. 54. Thieme, De Puritate Symmachi; Lips. 1735, 4to. There was a second edition of it, according to Jerome, Com. in Jer. xxxii. and on Nahum iii. See Hody, p. 586. [According to a catalogue of Greek manuscripts in the possession of Constantinus Barinus, there is a copy of the entire version in his library. Some think the Greek Psalter, now extant among us, and from which the Latin Vulgate is translated, is not from the LXX., but from Symmachus. But there is not sufficient ground for the position. Others, still more erroneously, maintain the entire Vulgate was translated from the version of Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion, and they are probably misled by the old Latin version of Symmachus, mentioned above. See Hody, p. 588.]

making him earlier than Theodotion, whom he places under an emperor known only to himself. But Jerome says, "Symmachus made use of Theodotion." The exact date of the version is still uncertain. Irenæus never mentions it in his book against heresies, and yet Stroth finds it often cited by Justin Martyr in the dialogue with Trypho, written about 160. It had a place in Origen's Hexapla.

The style of this is purer than that of any other Greek version; the author is more desirous of imparting the meaning of the original than of rendering its words literally; and from this peculiarity it has been called "the perspicuous, manifest, and admirable version." It has a very free course; here the translator exchanges the Hebraisms for corresponding Greek expressions, there he files them away; and if some hard expressions are still left in all, it must be excused, on consideration of the difficulty of translating the Hebrew text into pure Greek, or on the supposition that, in such places, the fragments of some other version have, perhaps, been attributed to Symmachus. The good tone of this version seems to have excited the ancients to translate it into Latin. Jerome has given us a short account of this

version.

There were two editions of Symmachus's translation; but it is impossible to determine whether the second comprised all the books of the Old Testament. This is as useful for philological purposes as the other Greek versions; but, on account of its free and sometimes paraphrastic style, greater caution is needed in applying it to the criticism of the Hebrew text.]"

All three of the above versions strive after greater