easdem linguae lineas in translatione servare; sive sub nomine eorum ab alio nescio quo non satis Chaldaeam linguam sciente editus est liber; sive aliud quid causae extiterit ignorans : hoc unum affirmare possum, quod multum a veritate discordet, et recto iudicio repudiatus sit1.'

Cf. Contra Ruff. ii. 33 (ed. Bened. iv. 431; ed. Vallarsi, ii. 527): '...ecclesias Christi hunc prophetam iuxta Theodotionem legere, et non iuxta LXX translatores. Quorum si in isto libro editionem dixi multum a veritate distare et recto ecclesiarum Christi iudicio reprobatam, non est meae culpae qui dixi, sed eorum qui legunt.'

And in his Commentary on iv. 5 [A.V. 8] (ed. Bened. iii. 1088; ed. Vallarsi, v. 645, 646): donec collega ingressus est in conspectu meo Daniel, cui nomen Balthasar secundum nomen Dei mei [as in the Vulg.]. Exceptis LXX translatoribus, qui haec omnia [viz. vv. 3—6 (A.V. 6—9)] nescio qua ratione praeterierunt, tres reliqui [Aq. Theod. and Symm.] collegam interpretati sunt. Unde iudicio magistrorum Ecclesiae editio eorum in hoc volumine repudiata est; et Theodotionis legitur, quae et Hebraeo, et ceteris translationibus, congruit.'

:

Theodotion lived probably in the second century: he is mentioned by Irenaeus (iii. 21), who wrote about A.D. 180. The age was one in which a desire was felt to have a Greek version of the Old Testament more faithful than that of the LXX. and three scholars, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, came forward to supply the want. The principles upon which they worked were not entirely the same; while Aquila's ideal was, for example, a translation of extreme literalness, Theodotion sought merely to revise the LXX. version, by correcting its more serious deviations from the Hebrew3. None of these

1 Preface to Daniel, printed at the beginning of ordinary editions of the Vulgate (cf. in the Prologue to his Commentary on Daniel, ed. Bened. iii. 1074, ed. Vallarsi, v. 619 f.). There follows a curious passage, in which Jerome speaks of the 'anhelantia stridentiaque verba' of the 'Chaldee' language, and of the difficulty which he experienced in acquiring it.

2 This is an error, due apparently to repos, in the MS. used by Jerome, being written éraîpos.

3 See particulars in Dr Field's edition of the Hexapla, 1. pp. xxi ff., xxx ff., xxxix ff.; or the art. HEXAPLA in the Dict. of Christian Biography. It is remarkable that renderings differing from those of the

three 'revised versions' of the O.T. has, however, been preserved in its integrity: in most cases, they have been transmitted only in the form of glosses on the text of the LXX., which was placed by Origen (3rd cent. A.D.) in the fifth column of his 'Hexapla1,' and transcribed thence into other MSS. But in the case of Daniel, the version of Theodotion displaced the true Septuagintal version in MSS. of the LXX.; and the latter version remained actually unknown to scholars till the middle of the last century, when a MS. containing it, was published at Rome in 17722. This MS. belongs to the Library of the Chigi family, and is known as the Codex Chisianus. It contains Jer., Baruch, Lam., Ep. of Jeremiah, Daniel according to the LXX., Hippolytus on Daniel, Daniel according to Theodotion, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. It has been supposed to date from the ninth century, though it is very possibly later. In Tischendorf's edition of the LXX., the version of Daniel contained in the body of the work (ii. 480 ff.) is, in accordance with what has been just stated, that of Theodotion: the genuine 'Septuagint' version, as found in the Chisian MS., is given at the end of the volume (p. 589 ff.). In Dr Swete's edition of the LXX., to the great convenience of the reader, the two versions are printed side by side on opposite pages (vol. iii. p. 498 ff.).

The recension of the LXX. exhibited by the Chisian MS.,

LXX., but agreeing largely with those of Theod., occur in the N.T. (see esp. I Cor. xv. 54; John xix. 37, cf. Rev. i. 7), and writers of the early part of the second cent. A.D.; hence it has been conjectured that there was a 'Theodotion' before Theodotion, or in other words, that a revision of the LXX. had been begun before Theodotion, though Theodotion was the first to carry it through systematically (cf. Salmon, Introd. to the N.T.3, p. 586 ff.; Schürer, iii. 323 f.).

1 The five remaining columns contained, respectively, the Hebrew, the Hebrew in Greek characters, and the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.

Cf. Dr Field's Hexapla, 11. 904 ff. There are also other, more recent editions, the best being that of Cozza in his Sacrorum Bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta, vol. iii. (1877). It is true, in the colophon at the end of Dan. xii., the text of this MS. is said to have been taken from a copy based on the Tetrapla of Origen; but the Tetrapla was simply a subsequent edition of the Hexapla, with the first two columns omitted.

being based upon the text adopted by Origen for his Hexapla, is known as the 'Hexaplar' text; and it contains (though with many misplacements and omissions) the obelisks and asterisks by which this learned Father indicated, respectively, the passages which had nothing corresponding to them in the current Hebrew text, and those which, having something corresponding to them in the Hebrew, but being not represented in the genuine LXX., were supplied by him from some other version (usually that of Theod.). Of the 'Hexaplar' text of the LXX., now, a very literal Syriac translation was made at Alexandria in 616—7 by Paul, Bishop of Tella (in Mesopotamia); and a great part of this Syriac version of the LXX. has been preserved in a MS., now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, which was edited in facsimile by Ceriani in 18741. The text which formed the basis of this 'Syro-hexaplar' version of the LXX. (as it is commonly called) was in a purer state than that found in the Chisian MS.: it exhibits more completely the obelisks and asterisks, and it is not disfigured by the omissions, additions, and other clerical errors, which are manifest blots in the Chisian text. It is thus of importance for assisting scholars to restore the LXX. text of Daniel, at least approximately, to the state in which it was when it left Origen's hands; and the readings which it presupposes, when they differ from those of the Chisian MS., are accordingly appended at the foot of the LXX. text in Tischendorf's edition, and (after the more thorough collation of Dr Field in his Hexapla, II. 908 ff.) in that of Dr Swete (e.g. ii. 28, 29, a long passage which has dropped out of the Chisian text by inadvertence; vii. 27 iyiorov for the erroneous ὑψίστῳ).

For further particulars respecting the character of the LXX., and illustrations of its renderings, reference must be made to

1 The Book of Daniel in this version was published first by Bugati in 1788. See further Field, Hexapla, 1. lxvii ff.; and cf. Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, III. p. xiii.

2 The longer additions in the Greek versions of Dan. (both LXX. and Theod.), The Song of the Three Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, have been referred to above, p. xviii ff.

the Commentaries of Bevan, pp. 42-54, and Behrmann, pp. xxviii-xxx, xxxiv-xxxvii, and to the monograph of A. Bludau, De Alex. Interpr. Libri Danielis indole critica et hermeneutica (1881)1. Behrmann, also, describes briefly (p. xxxii f., cf. pp. xxxiv-xxxvi) the characteristics of Theodotion's version, of the Peshiṭtā, and of that of Jerome (the Vulgate). There is no Targum to Daniel, just as there is none to Ezra-Nehemiah.

As regards the Massoretic text of Daniel, though it contains, no doubt, a few corrupt or suspicious passages, there are no reasons for questioning that we possess it, on the whole, in a correct form. The LXX., though in isolated passages it may preserve a more original reading, as a whole has no claim whatever to consideration beside it: the liberties which the translator has manifestly taken with his text being such as to deprive the different readings which, if it were a reasonably faithful translation, it might be regarded as presupposing, of all pretensions to originality,-except, indeed, in a comparatively small number of instances, in which they are supported by strong grounds of intrinsic probability. The other versions (which deviate very much less widely from the Heb. and Aram. than the LXX. does) also occasionally preserve a reading better than that of the Massoretic text. The principal cases in which the existing text of Daniel may be corrected from the versions are mentioned in the notes; but it must not be inferred that there are no suspicious or doubtful passages beyond those on which corrections have been noted.

The principal commentaries on Daniel in modern times are those of Hävernick (1832), von Lengerke (1835), Hitzig (1850), Auberlen (1857), Ewald (in vol. iii. of his Propheten, ed. 2, 1868: in the translation, vol. v. 152 ff.), Keil (1869), Zöckler, in Lange's 'Bibelwerk' (1870), Reuss in La Bible, Traduction nouvelle, avec introductions et commentaires, O.T., Part vii. (1879), p. 205 ff., Meinhold, in Strack and

1 On the text of the LXX., both in itself, and in the light of the renderings of the Syro-Hex., see also Löhr's study in the ZATW. 1895, p. 75 ff., 1896, p. 33 ff. A synopsis of the very numerous variations from the Heb. is given (in English) by Dr Pusey, p. 606 ff. (ed. 2, p. 624 ff.).

Zöckler's 'Kurzgef. Komm.' 8th div. p. 257 ff. (1889), Bevan (1892), and Behrmann (1894): the older commentaries, however, including that of Keil (who identifies, for instance, Belshazzar with Evil-merodach), contain much that has been superseded, or shewn to be untenable, by the progress of archaeology. There are also Kamphausen's edition of the Heb. and Aram. text, with critical annotations, in Haupt's Sacred Books of the O.T.' (1896: the part containing the English translation, and exegetical notes, has not at present [May, 1911] appeared); and Marti's translation, with critical and exegetical notes, in Kautzsch's Die Heilige Schrift des AT.s, ed. 3, vol. ii. (1910), p. 416 ff. Dean Farrar's Commentary, in the 'Expositor's Bible' (1895), contains much that is helpful and suggestive. J. D. Prince's Commentary (London and New York, 1899) is especially rich in Assyriological information.

Among ancient commentaries, a special value attaches to that of Jerome. Porphyry, a learned and able neo-Platonist, the most distinguished pupil of Plotinus (see the art. PORPHYRY in the Dict. of Christian Biography), had written a treatise (not now extant) in which he sought to shew that the historical survey in Dan. xi. must have been written after the events referred to had taken place; and the information collected by him from Greek historians, whose works are now lost, and preserved to us by Jerome, often throws a welcome light on passages of this chapter, which must otherwise have remained obscure1. There are also many other points on which this, like the other commentaries of the same most learned and industrious Biblical scholar, contains much that is still valuable, and should not be neglected by the student.

On the question of the date of the Book of Daniel, the chief advocates of the traditional view have been Hengstenberg in vol. i. of his Beiträge zur Einl. ins alte Test., 1831 (cf. the discussion of ix. 24-27 in his Christologie des AT.s, 1854-7, iii. 83-235 in Clark's translation); Hävernick in his Comm. (1832), his Neue kritische Untersuchungen, 1838 (a reply to von Lengerke), and his Einleitung, II. ii. (1844), p. 435 ff.; Auberlen; Keil in his Comm. (1869), and his Einleitung, ed. 3, 1873, §§ 131-7; E. B. Pusey in the volume of lectures entitled Daniel the Prophet, 1864 (extremely learned and

1 Jerome, though he upheld himself the interpretation of Dan. xi. 36-45 current at the time (see below, p. 193), added, however, the notable and far-sighted words, Pone haec dici de Antiocho, quid nocet religioni nostrae?"