(2) Tl1eodotion. The writer of this version belonged, according to one IICCOunt, to Ephesus; eccording to another, to Pontus, in Asia Minor. His object w11,11 not to mako B completely new translation, but rather to amend the extant version so as t., bring it into close agreement with the Hebrew text then prevalent. Dr. Gwynn, in hie arUclo in Smith and Wece's 'Dictionary of Christian Biography,' argues that th~ npproxirnato date of Theodotion is A.D. 180. Fritzsche (" Bibeliibersetzungeo," Herzog's 'Real-Encyclopmdia ') declares for o.n earlier date, thinking that the points in which Justin Martyr differs from the LXX. are all those which agree with Theodotion (which is scarcely the case), and that Justin, therefore, must have known 'fheodotion. The change may, however, be explained by the efforts of copyists to conform Justin to the version received by the Church. From these resemblances in the quota.tions from Daniel in Justin Martyr to Theodotion's version, Dr. Gwynn would argue that there was another version of Daniel which had an equal claim with that placed by Origen in the Hexapla to be reckoned that of the Seventy. This is, we think, confirmed by quotations in Irenreus, Clement of Rome, eto. On the other hand, Justin Martyr and the Latin Fathers of Africa quote, with slight variations, from the Septuagint.' If Theodotion's version were formed on a translation of Daniel current in Asia Minor, the phenomena would be explicable. Tradition declares Theodotion to have belonged to Asia Minor, and to Asia Minor Irenreus also belonged. The version of Theodotion is much closer to the present Massoretic text than the Septuagint version of Daniel. Yet there am several cases of very considerable divergence. These divergences cannot be explained by the influence of the old Septuagint, for the fact that there was another Greek version of D11,niel in use rendered it much less potent. The most natural supposition is that the Hebrew text to which Theodotion harmonized his Greek version was considerably removed from the present Massoretic. These divergences from the present received Hebrew text are noticed as they occur in the following commentary. (3) The Peshitta. The date of this version is doubtful, but we think that it cannot be placed later than the last quarter of the second century. It is universally recog- nized that the claim Ephrem Syrus makes for the version as a whole, that it is taken directly from the Hebrew, is true. That this is true of Daniel appears, on careful examination, to be thoroughly confirmed. It is yet closer to the Massoretic text than Theodotion, though even it varies at times very considerably from the present received Hebrew text. We have endeavoured to make use of this version throughout the ensuing commentary, and in some cases have been led to a different reading by consideration of its rendering. The fact that, althongh the Peshitta is nearly contemporary with the version of Theodotion, it presupposes a Hebrew text nearer the Massoretic, implies that the Massoretic activity bad already commenced in Babylon. (4) '!'he Vulgate. The Latin Version as revised by Jerome. As Jerome made his version under ·the guidance of Jewish rabbins, it is to be expected that his version would exhibit a close adherence to the Hebrew text as received among the Jews of the fifth century. While this is the case generally, he varies from the present Masso- retie text in a few places. These we have taken notice of M they occur. This proves that, even so late as the days of Jerome, the Massoretic text had not quite reached fixity. The other versions, the Coptic and the Arabic, we have not made use of, as they are too late to have any evidential value. The Massoretic text, we thus see, has no claim to antiquity in its present form. Throughout the Old Testament the relationship between the Q'ri and K'thib-" that 1 Clement of Alexandria quotes with such freedom that it is impossible to say from
which version ho quotes. 1NTROD1JCT1ON TO
which ia re&d" and "thnt which is written "-indicates in general the coalescence or two different schools of readings. In making this statement, we are putting on the one aide thOlle cases where the Q'ri is due to reasons of propriety or reverence. On the whole, the dilJerenoes between Q'ri and K'thib, in regard t,o the Aramaic of Daniel, indicate, as we have noticed above, that the K'thib is. the more Eastern of the two recenaion11. This variation between the Q'ri and the K'thib at once dissipates nny superstitious reverenoe for the Massoretic text that might linger in the mind oven after & consideration of the widely different text suggested by a study of the versions. It is obvious that & necess&ry preliminary to & commentary on Daniel is the fixation of the te:i:t on which the commentary is to be based. In the subsequent wo1·k we have endeavoured to form a text of each successive verse before we have interpreted it. In doing this we have placed great weight on the reading that appeared to be behind the Septuagint. As the Massoretic text cannot date earlier than the end of the fifth century, the Septuagint represents a text fully sil: hundred years older. Certainly there have been interpolators at work in the Septuagint, but the Septuagint is not the only field of their operations. We find almost certain e'ridence of their misdirected activity in the Maesoretic text.
IV. Co:U:MENTA.BIES ON DANIEL.