There would seem to have been two editions of Aquila's translation. In a few cases he may have altered his mind about the true reading of the Hebrew. Thus in Ps 89'" he appears to have read at first »'», afterwards e'n.
Specimens of passages in which the Latin Bible has been influenced by Atjuila's version are to be found in Field's Introduilwn (p. xxiv).
For the longer story told by Epiphanius concerning Aquila, his relationship to Hmlrian, and his conversion to Christianity, which he afterwards exchanged for Judaism, Epiphanius is our authority {de Men*, et Pmid. 14), but it seems a very improb- able tale, due perhaps in part to the view taken by Epiphanius of his translation. It is also to be found in the new ' Dialogue between Timothy and .\quila,* edited by F. 0. Conybeare in Anecdota Oxouie.n»ia (Class, ser. pt. viii.).
(2) Syinmachux' Versinn. — The tr. of Synimaehus occupied in the Ilexnpln the next column to that of Aquila. According to Epi]ihanius {de Mens, ct Pond. 16), he was a Samaritan wlio turned Jew and ,' hen translated the OT Scriptures into Greek as a means of refuting the Samaritan errors. Accord- ii g to Eusebius (//£ vi. 17) he was an Ebionite, and wrote a coiniiientary on St. Matthew's Gospel. It is worthy of note, however, that, in the early chapters of Genesis, Sj'mmachus seems to have followed the Samaritan chronology. The chief object ot hia version is to give a readable tr. of the Hebrew ToelVect this he paraphrases Hebrew with Greek idioms, e.g. he replaces the AvSpa alfiiruv of the LXX by ifopes /xiaiipifoi (Ps 25 [26J" 54 [55]'-" 138 [139]'"). Ho does not consider it neces- sary always to render the same Hebrew word by the same Greek word. In places his translation becomes more of a parajilirase. He constantly gives transhitions of proper names : thus Ararat becomes Armenia. Tlie inlluence of Symmachus, as of Aquila, is to be found in the Vulgate. In a few places mention is made of a second edition of this translation, but they are so few that little certainty exists that there actually was one. Like Aquila, Symmachus oscillates between Ki^ri ami Kithil)h, and very seldom deviates from the consonantal part of the MT. Like the LXX, ho explains away the bare anthropomorphic state- ment of the flebrew, see, e.g.. Ex 21'" lieb. 'they saw the God of Israel' (Aq. tUon rbv Of6»'lapa-fiK), for which L.XX substitutes tX&oy rbv Tbirov oJ «l<rri)«i 6 debi tou "L, and Symmachus tlSor Uinart tAv eeif '1. There is no reason why thi» Sym- machus should be identified with the one men- tioned in the Talmad (Bab. Erubin, 134). The date of the translation is quite uncertain, but it is
866
VERSIONS
VEX, VEXATION'
probably to be assigned to the latter half of the 2n(l cent. A.D. It shows an aci|uaintance with Aquila, but is thoroughly independent of it.
(3) Theodotion's Versiuii. — Theodotion was of Pontus, according to Epiphanius(rfe Mens, et Pond. 17), and a follower ot Mareion of Sinope, and afterwards became a Jewish proselyte. Irena'us also calls him a proselyte (adv. liter, iii. 24), but describes him as an Kphesian. Jerome says that some called him an Ebionite, others a Jew.
His version has more of the character of a revision of the LXX than of an independent translation. So valuable was it held that in some cases, notably in the Book of Daniel, of which we possess the LXX version in only one copy (cod. 87), Theo- dotion's version supplanted the LXX. He in- cluded in his worlc the apocryphal parts of Daniel, the addition at the end of Job, the Bk. of Baruch, and the sections of Jeremiah which the LXX omits. He indulges more freely in the translitera- tion of Hebrew words than the other translators, though occasionally he finds himself able to give translations where the others fail.
His translation was probably made about A.D. 185. Traces of a Greek version of Daniel very like that of Theodotion go back as far as the NT.* This would lead us to imagine that just as we still have traces in other books of the OT of two Greek versions existing side by side, e.g. in Judges and still more in the Books of Esdras, so it is quite possible that tliere may have been two versions of Daniel and of some other books — a literal trans- lation, and one which had more of the nature of a paraphrastic commentary.
(4) In addition to these translations there were at least three anonymous versions of at any rate parts of tlie Scriptures, known respectively as the Fifth. Sixth, and Seventh. According to Eusebius (HE vi. 16), Origen obtained the Fifth from Kicopolis near Actium. Epiphanius (de Mens. et Pond. 18), however, saj's tliat it was found hidden away in jars at Jericho, and assigns the Sixth version to Isicopolis. If we can depend upon the quotation of the Sixth version of Hab 3", the tr. must have been parajihrastic and made by a Christian. As to the Seventh translation, and even the certainty of its existence at all, there is much doubt. These three versions are most fre- quently quoted in the Psalms.
(5) l^he Graseo-Venetan tr., a very late Jewish production, of which only one MS exists, need only just be mentioned. It does not include the whole of the OT. The best edition is that of Gebhardt (Leipzig, 1875).