THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
permitted in the synagogue by Justinian, in the most literal ever produced, and enough has been preserved to judge of its value and character. Up to 1S97 all known of it went back to the Hexapla of Origen (cf. F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qucc supersunt, 2 vols., Oxford, 1867-75, and, on Field, J. H. Burn, Expository Times, Jan., 1897). In 1897 for the first time a continuous portion of his translation came to light in a palimpsest of the Cairo Synagogue, showing the tetragrammaton written in Old Hebrew letters. The statement of Jerome that Aquila made two versions, " a second edition, which the Hebrews call ' the accurate one,' " seems to be correct. Some new fragments to be added to Field are in J. B. Pitra, Analecta sacra (Paris, 1876); E. Klostermann, Analekta zur Septuaginta (Leipsic, 1895); Jerome, in Anecdota Maredsolana, iii, 1.
According to Epiphanius, Symmachus was a Samaritan, and lived not under Severus, but under " Verus " (i.e., Marcus Aurelius; cf. Lagarde, Symmicta, ii, Gottingen, 1880). Geiger identified the translator with Symmachus ben Joseph, diso a ciple of Rabbi Meir (Judische Zeit-
mach s schrift fur Wissenschaft und Leben, i, 1862, pp. 62-64). Origen got the manuscript of his translation from a certain Juliana of Cffisarea, who had received it with other works of Symmachus from Symmachus himself. Whether the Csesarea where she lived was that of Palestine or Cappadocia is in doubt. In the sixteenth century Symmachus's works were still in existence at Rodosto near Constantinople (cf. R. Forster, De antiquitatibus et libris manuscriptis Constantinopolitanis, Rostock, 1877; T. Zahn, TLB, 1893, p. 43). Symmachus wrote the most elegant Greek of all these translators. Jerome quotes in three passages a second translation.
Theodotion, according to Irenaeus, was from Ephesus; according to Epiphanius, from Pontus; he went over from Gnosticism to Judaism. His work is a revision of the Septuagint and has therefore been placed by Origen in his Hexapla next to the column of the Septuagint. For the same reason Origen made use chiefly of Theodotion to supply such passages as were missing in the Septuagint (cf. I Sam. xvii, 12 sqq.; Jer. xxxiii, 14-26; xxxix, 4-13). For the Book of Daniel his version came into general use in the Church, while the older Greek version has been preserved only in the one codex (Chisianus) discovered 1772. Readings similar to those of Theodotion are found before his time (on this question cf. E. Konig, Einleitung, ii, 108; TLB, 1897, 51; Stark, ZWT, 1895, 288). Howorth offers some unconventional views (PSBA, 1891-92) on the question whether Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah in our editions of the Septuagint are from Theodotion. That his name has the same meaning as that of the Targumist Jonathan seems accidental.
Besides these versions, which covered the whole Old Testament — note, however, that for Samuel we have no quotations from Aquila — Origen succeeded in finding, at least for certain parts, more translations: the one which he numbered five, in Nicopo-
3. Theodotion.
lis near Actium; the sixth with other Hebrew and Greek books in a clay jar near Jericho in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus.
Deserving of brief mention is a Greek translation which is 1,000 years younger than the preceding, the Grwcus Venetus, which first became known in 1740 through the catalogue of the library of San Marco. The complete and final edition is due to O. von Gebhardt (Grwcus Venetus, Pentateuchi, Proverbiorum, Ruth, Canlici, Ecclesiastcr, Threnorum, Danielis grccca versio, with preface by F. Delitzsch, Leipsic, 1875). Delitzsch is inclined to see in the translation the work of a Jew, Elisseus, who lived at the court of Murad I in Prusa and Adrianople; von Gebhardt, that of a proselyte. The rendering of " Yahweh" by ontourgos, ousictcs and the use of the Doric dialect for the Aramaic portions of Daniel are interesting. E. Nestle.
Bibliography: The following is only a selection out of the vast body of literature available. The critical Introductions and Commentaries on the Old Testament and on separate parts deal more or less fully with the subject. For the literature on Polyglots see Bibles, Polyglot; for that on Aristeas see Aristeas; and on printed editions of the Septuagint cf. H. B. Swete, Introduction, pp. 171-194, London, 1902. On the Septuagint in general consult besides the works mentioned in the text: J. H. Hottinger, Exercitationes Anti-M oriniance, Zurich, 1644; idem, Dissertationum fasciculus, Heidelberg, 1660;
A. Calovius, Criticus sacer, Leipsic, 1646; L. Cappellus, Critica sacra, Paris, 1650; J. Buxtorf, Anticritica, scu vindicice veritatis Hebraicw, Basel, 1653; J. Ussher, De Grceca septuaginta interpretum versione syntagma, London, 1655; J. Morinus, Exercitationes ecclesiasticce et biblicce, Paris, 1669; H. Hody, De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxford, 1705; J. E. Grabe, Epistola ad J. Millium, Oxford, 1705; idem, De vitiis septuaginta interpretum, ib. 1710; E. Leigh, Critica sacra, 5th ed., London, 1700; A. Trommius, Concordantice Grcecce versionis, Amsterdam, 1718; W. Whiston, Essay toward Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament, London, 1722,
and Supplement (to the same), 1723; J. G. Carpzov, Critica sacra, Leipsic, 1728; W. Wall, The Use of the Septuagint Translation, in his Brief Critical A otes, London, 1730; C. F. Houbigant, Prolegomena in scripturam sacram, Paris, 1746; B. Kennicott, The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1753; idem, a second Dissertation on the same subject 1759; J. D. Michaelis, Programma uber die 70 Doll-
matscher, Gottingen, 1767; H. Owen, Enquiry into the Present State of the Septuagint Version, London, 1769; idem, Critica sacra, 1774; idem, A Brief Account of
the Septuagint Version, 1787; J. C. Biel, Novus thesaurus philologicus, The Hague, 1779-80; J. F. Schleusner. Leiiri in interpretes greed Veteris Testamenti, Leipsic, 17S4-S6; C. A. Wahl, Clavis librorum Veteris Testamenti, Leipsic, 1853; G. Bickell, De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrince Jobi, Marburg, 1862; F. Delitzsch, Studien . der complutensischen Polyglotte, Leipsic, 1886; A. Scholz, Masorethischer Text und die LXX-U ebersetzung des . Jeremias, Regensburg, 1875; idem, Die alexandri nische Uebersetzung des Jesaias, Wiirzburg, 1880; E. Flecker,
Scripture Onomatology . . Critical Notes on the Septuagint, London, 1883; W. J. Deane, in The Expositor, 1884, pp. 139-157, 223-237; E. Nestle, Septuagintastudien, vols, i-v, Ulm, 1886-1907, Maulbronn, 1S99-1903; J. G. Carleton, The Bible of our Lord and his Apostles, London, 1888; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, London, 1889 (cf. criticism by Hort, in The Expositor, Feb., 1897); A. Schulte, De reslitutione . versionis
Grirciv . . Judicum, Leipsic, 1889; G. C. Workman, Text of Jeremiah Greek and Hebrew, Edinburgh.
1889; P. de Lagarde, Stichometrie, in Mittheilungen, iv, 205, Gottingen, 1891; F. C. Conybeare, on Philo's Text, in The Expositor, Dec, 1891, pp. 456-466; H. B Swete, on Grhtz's Theory, in Expository Times, June, 1891, J. Taylor, Massoretic Text and . . Versions of . . . ificah, London, 1891; Transactions of the Congress of Orientalists