will be evident from the words quoted, are suggested by the descriptions in Dan. vii. 8, 20, 21, 25, viii. 24 [LXX. Theod. ToiŃσe], xi. 28 and 30 [πoińσei], 36, of Antiochus Epiphanes1. Many of the Fathers, also, drew afterwards pictures of Antichrist, formed by a combination of the representations in Dan. vii. and xi. 36-45 (according to the interpretation mentioned above) with those contained in the New Testament2; but it lies beyond the scope of the present introduction to pursue the history of the subject further.

§ 5. Versions, Commentaries, &c.

A detailed consideration of the Versions of Daniel does not fall within the scope of the present Commentary: but some general remarks must be made with reference to the Greek Versions. The Septuagint Version of the O.T., as is well known, was completed gradually, and is the work of different hands, the translations of the different books, or groups of books, varying in style, and exhibiting very different degrees of excellence and accuracy. The translation of Daniel is one of the most paraphrastic and unsatisfactory; and upon this ground, as it seems,-intensified perhaps by the difficulty which was practically experienced in appealing to it in controversy,— it was viewed with disfavour by the early Christian Church, and the more literal version of Theodotion took its place. Jerome mentions the fact, and though he owns that he does not know the precise explanation of it, he is evidently inclined to believe that it was that which has been just stated:—

'Danielem prophetam, iuxta LXX interpretes, Domini Salvatoris Ecclesiae non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione; et hoc cur acciderit, nescio. Sive enim quia sermo Chaldaicus est, et quibusdam .proprietatibus a nostro eloquio discrepat, noluerunt LXX interpretes

1 See further the article MAN OF SIN in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible, and (with fuller details) ANTICHRIST in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. See e.g. Iren. v. 25; Hippolytus (c. 220 A.D.), ed. Lagarde, pp. 101-114, &c.

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.] collegam2 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.

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

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 17728. 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. 1 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.; Schürer3, 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 ůiorov 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). Behrmann, also, describes briefly (p. xxxii f., cf. pp. xxxiv-xxxvi) the characteristics of Theodotion's version, of the Peshitta, 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.).