This, then, is a probable account of the origin of this version. Extreme literality and an occasional polem- ical bins appear to be its chief characteristics. The idiom of the Greek language is very often violated in order to produce what was intended should be a very literal version ; and thus not onlj' sense, but grammar even, was disregarded: a sufficient instance of this is found in the rendering of the Heb. particle TX liy avv, as in Gen. i, 1, cri'i' tov ovpavbv Kai avv ti)v yrjv, "quod Grajca et Latina lingua omnino non recipit," as Jerome says. Another instance is furnished by Gen. V, 5, ku\ it^rjcnv 'Aoofi TpiciKOVTa iTog Kcil irvuKu- aia tTOQ.
It is sufficiently attested that this version was formed for controversial purposes; a proof of which maj' be found in the rendering of particular passages, such as Isa. A'ii, 14, where tTCP", in the Sept. TrapOi- vog, is by Aquila translated vtcli'ig ; such renderings might be regarded perhaps rather as modes of avoid- ing an argument than as direct falsification. There certainly was room for a version which should express the Hebrew more accurately than was done by the Sept. ; but if this had been thoroughly carried out it would have been found that in manj' important points of doctrine — such, for instance, as in the divinity of the Messiah and the rejection of Israel, the true ren- dering of the Hebrew text would have been in far closer conformity with the teaching of the New Test, tiian was the Sept. itself. It is probable, therefore, that one polemical object was to make the citations in the New Test, from the Old appear to be inconclusive, by producing other renderings (often i)robably more literally exact) differing from the Sept., or even con- tradicting it. Thus Christianitj"- might seem to the Jewish mind to rest on a false basis. But a realb'
GREEK VERSIONS
989
GREEK VERSIONS
critical examiner would have found that in man}' points of important doctrine the New Testament detinitely rejects the reading of the Sept. (when utterly unsuited to the matter in hand), and adopts the reading of the Hebrew. The very circumstance tliat Aquila's version was adopted and valued by the Jews would tend to create a prejudice against it among the fathers, inde- pendently of all perversion of Messianic passages. Irenreus, the earliest writer who mentions Aquila, pro- nounces an unfavorable opinion respecting his transla- tion {Ado. Ifceres. iii, 2'1, p. 253, ed. Grabe). So also Eusebius {Ad Psalm, xc, 4) and Philastrius. Jerome speaks of liim in various parts of his writings, some- times disparagingly, and again in terms of commenda- tion : the former in allusion to his doctrinal preposses- sions, the latter in reference to his knowledge of the Hebrew language and exceeding carefulness in ren- dering. That this version was employed for centuries liy the Jews themselves is proved indirectly by the 14Gth Novella of Justinian.
It is mentioned (Jerome, in EzeJc. iii) that Aquila put forth a second edition (i. e. revision) of his ver- sion, in which the Hebrew was yet more servilely fol- lowed, but it is not known if this extended to the whole or only to three boolis, namely, Jeremiah, Eze- kiel, and Daniel, of which there are fragments.
Aquila often appears to have so closely sought to follow the etymologj' of the Hebrew words that not only does his version produce no definite idea, but it does not even suggest any meaning at all. If we pos- sessed it perfect it would have been of great value as to the criticism of the Hebrew text, tliough often it would be of no service as to its real understanding. (See Fiirst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i, 29.) See Aquila.
III. Theodotion. — The second version, of which wo have information as executed in the 2d century, is that of Theodotion. He is stated to have been an Ephesian, and a Jewish proselyte ; and he seems to Le most generally described as an Ebionite (Irenseus, Adv. Ilier. iii, 24) : if this is correct, his work was probably intended for those semi-Christians who may have de- sired to use a version of their own instead of emploj'- ing the Sept. with the Christians, or that of Aquila witii the Jews. But it ma}' be doubted if the name of translation can be rightly applied to the work of Theodotion : it is rather a revision of the Sept. with the Hebrew text, so as to bring some of the copies tlien in use into more conformity with the original. This he was able to do (with the aid probabh' of some in- structors), so as to eliminate portions which had been introduced into the Sept. without really being an in- tegral part of the version, and also so as to bring much into accordance with the Hebrew in other re- spects. But his own knowledge of Hebrew was evi- dently very limited ; and thus words and parts of sentences were left untranslated, the Hebrew being merely written with Greek letters.
Theodotion, as well as Aquila, was quoted b}' Ire- na3us, and against both there is the common charge laid of corrupting texts which relate to the Messiah : some polemical intention in such passages can hardly be doubted. The statement of Epiphanius that he made his translation in the reign of Commodus accords well with its having been quoted by Ireufeus ; but it cannot be correct if it is one of the translations referred to by Justin Martyr as giving interpretations contrary to the Christian doctrine of the New Testament. It appears from Jerome (in Jer. xxix, 17) that there were two editions of Theodotion's version.