I. Translations Of The Holy Scriptures

I. TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
1. The Septuagint
The foundation of all Judaeo-Hellenistic culture is the ancient anonymous Greek translation of the Scriptures known by the name of the Septuagint (οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα septuaginta interpretes) and preserved entire by the tradition of the Christian Church; Hellenistic Judaism is as inconceivable without it as the evangelical Church of Germany without Luther’s translation of the Bible.[2415]
[2415] The name “Septuagint” referred in the first place to the translation of the Peritateuch but was afterwards transferred to the other books also.
The single name must not mislead us to the notion; that we have here to deal with a single work not only the work of different authors but the work also of different times being subsequently comprised under this name. The oldest part is the translation of the Pentateuch of the origin of which the so-called Epistle of Aristeas gives a detailed narrative. King Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (283-247 B.C.) was induced by his librarian Demetrius Phalereus to have the laws of the Jews also translated into Greek for his library. At his request the Jewish high priest Eleasar sent him seventy-two able men six out of each tribe by whose labours the whole was finished in seventy-two days (for particulars see No. VII). The historical nature of this account embellished as it is by a multitude of graphic details is now generally given up. The only question is whether the foundation of the fictitious embellishment may not perhaps be some historical tradition the essence of which was that the translation of the Jewish law into Greek was projected by Ptolemy Philadelphus at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus.[2416] This would in itself be very possible. For the learned and literary zeal of the Ptolemies and especially of Ptolemy Philadelphus would certainly make it conceivable that he should wish to incorporate the law of the Jews also in his library. In favour of this view may also be cited the circumstance that the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus in the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor relates just what we have designated as the possible essence of the tradition without betraying any acquaintance with the fictitious embellishments of the Epistle of Aristeas which seems to show that he was following some tradition quite independent of the said Epistle.[2417] It is however suspicious that according to a very trustworthy account Demetrius Phalereus did not live at the court of Ptolemy at all but had already been banished by him from Alexandria immediately after the death of Ptolemy Lagos.[2418] Thus the supposed essence of the tradition also falls and there remains merely a bare possibility that the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch owes its origin to the literary efforts of Ptolemy Philadephus. It is also as possible that it was called forth by the exigencies of the Jews themselves. For Jews who had at heart the maintenance of an acquaintance with the law even among the Dispersion observing that the knowledge of the sacred language was more and more decreasing and that the Jews of the Dispersion were appropriating Greek as their mother tongue might feel themselves induced to translate the law into Greek for the purpose of preserving the knowledge of it among Greek Jews also. This translation having been in the first place undertaken as a private labour gradually obtained official validity also. But obscure as is the origin of the translation it may be safely admitted on internal grounds that its locality was Alexandria and its date the third century before Christ for the Hellenist Demetrius who wrote in the time of Ptolemy IV. (222-205) certainly made use of it (see below No. III.).
[2416] So e.g. Wellhausen in his revision of Bleek’s Einleitung in das Alts Testament (4th ed. 1878) p. 571 sqq.
[2417] The passage from Aristobulus is given in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12 1-2 (ed. Gaisford). Aristobulus is here speaking of the fact that Plato was already acquainted with the Jewish legislation. To show the possibility of this be asserts that its virtual contents had been translated into Greek before Demetrius Phalereus. Then he continues: Ἡ δʼ ὅλη ἑρμηνεία τῶν διὰ τοῦ νόμου πάντων ἐπὶ τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως σοῦ δὲ προγόνου προσενεγκαμένου μείζονα φιλοτιμίαν Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως πραγματευσαμένου τὰ περὶ τούτων.
[2418] The authority for this is Hermippus Callimachus who lived under Ptolemy III. and IV. See the passage from Diogenes Laert. v. 78 in Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 47 and in the same work p. 48 the discussions on the credibility of the information.
The preceding remarks apply only to the translation of the Pentateuch to which alone the Aristeas legend refers. But after the sacred Thorah had once been made accessible to Hellenistic Jews the need of possessing the rest of the Scriptures in the Greek tongue was gradually experienced. Hence translations first of the prophets and afterwards of the Hagiographa followed. These too chiefly originated in Egypt. Some of the Hagiographa such as the Book of Daniel and some of the psalms not having been composed till the era of the Maccabees the Greek translations of these more recent Hagiographa cannot have been made earlier than about the middle of the second century before Christ. It seems however that in fact the translations into Greek of the. bulk of the Hagiographa together with the prophets were at about this time already in existence. Sirach the grandson of Jesus who came to Egypt in the year 132 excuses the defects of his translation by the fact that what is said in Hebrew does not retain the same meaning when translated into another language which is he says the case not only in his work but also in the Law and the Prophets and the other Scriptures (Wisdom Prolog.: οὐ γὰρ ἰσοδυναμεῖ αὐτὰ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑβραϊστὶ λεγόμενα καὶ ὅταν μεταχθῇ εἰς ἑτέραν γλῶσσαν· οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων οὐ μικρὰν ἔχει τὴν διαφορὰν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λεγόμενα). Hence he evidently was already acquainted with a translation of the Prophets and the “other Scriptures.” The Septuagint translation of Chronicles was certainly known to Eupolemus who wrote about the middle of the second century before Christ (see below paragraph 3 and Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor p. 119); that of the Book of Job to the historian Aristeas whose date it must be admitted is not exactly known but who being quoted by Alexander Polyhistor must have lived at latest in the first half of the first century before Christ (see below No. III. and Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor p. 139).[2419]
[2419] Grätz insists on utterly insufficient grounds on transposing the translation of Job to the first century after Christ (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums 1877 pp. 83-91).
After what has been said no further proof of all these translations being of Jewish origin is needed. The character of the translation differs widely in the different books being now tolerably free now helplessly verbal but chiefly the latter. As yet a precise investigation has been made only of individual books. A special difficulty in such investigation lies in the fact that it is often necessary to reconstruct the Hebrew text which must have been in the hands of the translators. In one point however all these works are alike viz. in the barbarous Greek produced under the influence of the Hebrew originals. Quite a new language swarming with such strong Hebraisms that a Greek could not understand it is here created. Not to mention the imitation of Hebrew constructions many Greek words which correspond to one meaning of a Hebrew word are without further ceremony made equivalent to the whole extent of the meanings comprised in the Hebrew word and thus significations are forced upon words which they do not at all possess in Greek (e.g. the words δόξα εἰρήνη and many others). How far colloquial intercourse with Hellenized Jews may have anticipated the labours of the translators cannot be determined. It is probable that an alternative action here took place. Much which the translators ventured upon was already found by them in colloquial language. But then the reaction upon the development of Judaic Greek exercised by a translation which came into general use would at the least be quite as great.
For the translations in question were not only combined into a whole but were also universally accepted by the Jews of the Dispersion as their text of Scripture. The oldest Hellenists Demetrius and Eupolemus in their compilations of Scripture history rely solely upon the Septuagint; Philo throughout assumes it Josephus does so for the most part. With Philo the text of the Septuagint is so far a sacred text that he argues from its casual details nay not only did this translation universally penetrate into private use but it was also used as Holy Scripture in the synagogue service (see ). It was then transferred from the hands of the Jews to the Christian Church and regarded by it as the authentic text of Scripture. But the very circumstance of the Christian Church taking possession of this translation and deriving thence its polemical weapons in its conflict with the Jews gradually co-operated in bringing the Septuagint into discredit with them and in giving rise to new Jewish translations especially that of Aquila which in the time of Origen stood in higher respect with the Jews than did the Septuagint.
The text of the Septuagint has come down to us solely by the tradition of the Christian Church. In its history the learned labours of Origen which finally—and not without his own fault—led to a base corruption of the text are epoch-making Origen on account of the uncertainty of the Septuagint text and its great deviations from the Hebrew prepared a large edition of the Bible in which were written in six adjacent columns: (1) The Hebrew text in Hebrew characters; (2) the Hebrew text in Greek characters; (3) the translation of Aquila; (4) that of Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; (6) the translation of Theodotion and indeed in this order (see Hieronymus Comment. in Tit. iii. 9 [Opp. ed. Vallarsi vii. 1. 734]; Epiphan. de mensuris et ponderibus § 19 and the other evidences in Field Origenis hexaplorum guae supersunt prolegom. p. 50). This was to lay a sure foundation for learned Scripture exegesis and especially for learned controversy against the Jews who often reproached Christians with their ignorance of the genuine text of Scripture (see on the motive and object of his undertaking Origen Comment. in Matth. vol. xv. c. xiv.; epist. ad African. § 5). The work affording a sixfold Scripture text was called the Hexapla. Origen also prepared another edition without the two Hebrew columns which was called the Tetrapla (Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 16). On the other hand it was also called Octapla because in certain books of the Old Testament two anonymous Greek translations were added to the above-named six texts (Epiphain. de mensuris et ponderibus § 19; Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 16. Comp. on the whole work the Prolegomena in Field Origenis Hexaplorum guae supersunt 2 vols. Oxonii 1875 and the Introductions to the Old Test of e.g. De Wette-Schrader § 56; Bleek-Wellhausen § 282). The fatal circumstance was that Origen was not content with placing the text of the Septuagint in juxtaposition with the others but to facilitate its use noted is the Septuagint text itself the deviations from tke Hebrew by (a) furnishing such words sentences or paragraphs as were missing in the Hebrew with an obelus (the sign of erasure) and (b) by interpolating with the addition of an asterisk from other translations and mostly from Theodotion those found in the Hebrew and missing in the Septuagint (see his own remarks in his Comment. in Matth vol. xv. c. xiv. [Lommatzsch iii. 357]: καί τινα αὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ έβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα οὐ τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν· τινὰ δὲ μετʼ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν. Hieronymus Praef. in vers. Paralipom. [ed. Vallarsi ix. 1407 sq.]: sed quod majoris audaciae est in editione Septuaginta Theodotionis editionem miscuit asteriscis designans quae minus ante fuerant et virgulis quae ex superfluo videbantur apposita). He often proceeded also in a similar manner with inaccurate translations of the LXX. “by adding with an asterisk behind the obelized reading of the LXX. the parallel passages corresponding with the Hebrew from another version” (Bleek-Wellhausen p. 586). This text then especially copied from the Hexapla and often showing very careless dealing with the critical marks being disseminated since Eusebius (see Field Proleg. p. 99) a mass of such “hexaplarian” readings was introduced into the traditional text of the Septuagint; the common text (κοινὴ ἔκδοσις) being corrected by this hexaplarian one. The exclusion of hexaplarian additions is therefore the chief task of Septuagint criticism; and this is still approximately attainable for most of the books of the Old Testament the critical notes of Origen being still extant partly in certain Greek manuscripts partly in the Syriac translation of the hexaplarian Septuagint text (see Bleek-Wellhausen Einl. in das A. T. pp. 593 588 sqq.). The inserted matter has been very completely collected in Field Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta 2 vols. Oxonii 1875. By the separation however from the hexaplarian text of the Septuagint of the passages marked with an asterisk the original text is by no means obtained. The MSS. already varied very much in the time of Origen (see Comment. in Matth. vol. xv. c. xiv. ed. Lommatzsch iii. 357). Origen first compiled from them a text for himself and then quietly altered according to the Hebrew many particulars in it which could not be made known by obelus or asterisk (Field p. 60 sqq.). Hence such a proceeding will only obtain the Recension of Origen.
Others besides Origen have occupied themselves with learned labours upon the text of the Septuagint. We know especially of two other recensions those of Hesychius and Lucianus; the former of these was disseminated in Egypt the latter from Antioch to Constantinople (Hieronymus praef. in vers. Paralipom. ed Vallarsi ix. 1405 sq.: Alexandria et Egypta in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provinciae Palestinos codices legunt quos ab Origine elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt; totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat). Hesychius is perhaps identical with the Egyptian bishop of this name who suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Maximinus 312 (Euseb. Hist. eccl. viii. 13. 7). No particulars are known concerning the nature of his recension. Lucianus was the noted presbyter of Antioch who also suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Maximinus 312 (Euseb. Hist. eccl. viii. 13.2 ix. 6.3). His recension was an emendation of the Septuagint according to the Hebrew with the help of other Greek translations (Suidas Lex. s.v.: Λουκιανὸς ὁ μάρτυς· αὐτὸς ἁπάσας [scil. τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους] ἀναλαβὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος αὐτὰς ἐπανενεώσατο γλώττης ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν ἠκριβωκὼς ἐς τὰ μάλιστα ἦν). Comp. Field Proleg. cap. ix. Harnack in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. viii. 767 sqq. on “Hesychius and Lucianus.” Also the Introductions to the Old Testament e.g. De Wette-Schrader § 57; Bleek-Wellhausen § 283. According to the recent investigations of Field and Lagarde (see Theol. Litztg. 1876 p. 605) the recension of Lucianus is still preserved in several MSS. Lagarde has edited the text according to these (one volume has as yet appeared Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars 1 graece edita Götting. 1883).
The labours however of Hesychius and Lucianus have but contributed to further confusion in the text of the Septuagint. For the text of the κοινή is now not only mixed up with the Hexapla text but also with those of Hesychius and Lucianus and the former having been even in the text of Origen very uncertain there is no longer any prospect of a certain recovery of the original text of the Septuagint. It is true that being still acquainted with the chief recensions we are in a position safely to pronounce judgment as to which of the MSS. is comparatively freest from the peculiarities of these recensions and therefore represents with the greatest comparative purity the original text. The old Latin texts also furnish important assistance.
Among those Greek manuscripts which contain the whole Old Testament or at least a great part of it the Vaticanus (1209) is acknowledged to hold the first rank with respect to the purity of the text. Its text has been ostensibly published by Mai (Vetus et Novum Testamentum ex antiquissimo codice Vaticano 5 vols. Rome 1857). His edition is however very untrustworthy. More accurate is the new Roman édition de luxe in facsimile type (Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus codex Vaticanus edd. Vercellone and Cozza 6 vols. Rom 1868-1881 price of each vol. £6; comp. also Theol. Litztg. 1882 p. 121). Next to the Vaticanus must be mentioned the Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf in the year 1859 of which about half of the Old Testament has been preserved. Edition de luxe Bibliorum Codex Sinaticus Petropolitanus ed. Tischendorf 4 vols. Petersburg 1862. Tischendorf had previously discovered a smaller portion of this manuscript and published it under the title of Frederico-Augustanus (Codex Frederico-Augustanus ed. Tischendorf Lips. 1846).—The Alexandrinus which is already much infected by hexaplarian readings ranks third among these great Bible manuscripts. It forms the foundation of Grabe’s edition of the Septuagint. The Vetus Testamentum Graecum e Codice MS. Alexandrino cura Henrici Herveii Baber 3 vols. London 1812-1826 gives the text of the MS. itself. Recently an edition has been prepared in photo-lithographic facsimile of which the portion comprising the New Testament has been first issued (Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus New Testament and Clementine Epistles published by order of the Trustees London 1879; comp. Theol. Litztg. 1880 p. 230).—The Old Testament appeared in 3 vols. 1881 sqq. Comp. also on the manuscripts the Prolegomena of the editions especially Holmes-Parsons and Tischendorf. The publications of Tischendorf (Monumenta sacra inedita) and Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana) contain much material.
Bibliographical information concerning the numerous editions of the Septuagint will be found in Le Long Bibliotheca sacra ed. Masch. vol. ii. 2 1781 pp. 262-304 Fabricius Bibliotheca graeca ed. Harles iii. 673 sqq. Rosenmüller Handbuch für die Literatur der bibl. Kritik und Exegese vol. ii. 1798 pp. 279-322. Winer Handbuch der Theol. Literatur i. 47 sq. Frankel Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta 1841 pp. 242-252. Tischendorf Prolegomena to his edition. De Wette-Schrader Einleitung in das A. T. § 58. All the editions fall back upon the following four chief editions: (1) The Complutensian Polyglot 6 vols. in Complutensi universitate 1514-1517. (2) The Aldina Sacrae Scripturae Veteris Novaeque omnia Venice 1518. (3) The Roman or Sixtine edition Vetus Testamentum juxta Septuaginta ex auctoritate Sixti V. Pont. Max. editum Rome 1587. The text of this edition is relatively the best among the printed texts conforming as it does frequently though by no means entirely to the Vaticanus 1209. Since the majority of the more recent editions reproduce this Sixtine text the printed common text is a relatively good one. (4) Grabe’s edition Septuaginta Interpretum vols. i.-iv. ed. Grabe Oxonii 1707-1720. It chiefly follows the Codex Alexandrinus. Of recent editions the most important is Vetus Testamentum Graecum edd. Holmes and Parsons 5 vols. Oxonii 1798-1827. The text is reproduced from the Sixtine edition but accompanied by an unusually copious collection of manuscript various readings. Though what is offered is not quite trustworthy and rather confuses than instructs by its copiousness still this edition has the merit of having for the first time brought forward the material furnished by the MSS. in general (comp. Bleek and Wellhausen Einl. in das A. T. p. 592 sq.). The manual edition of Tischendorf Vetus Testamontum Graece juxta LXX. interpretes 2 vols. Lips. 1850 2nd ed. 1880 also gives the Sixtine text with only unimportant corrections. Nestle has added to the sixth edition a collatios of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as well as of the Alexandrinus already collated by Tischendorf (Veteris Testamenti Graeci codices Vaticanus et Sinaiticus cum textu recepto collati ab E. Nestle Lips. 1880).
The literature on the Septuagint is almost unbounded (comp. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. iii. 658 sqq. Rosenmüller Handb. für die Literatur der bibl. Kritik und Exegese ii. 395 sqq. De Wette-Schrader Einl. in das A. T. § 51 sqq. Fritzsche in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2 vols. i. 280 sqq.). The chief work of earlier date is: Hody De bibliorum textibus originalibus versionibus Graecis et Latina vulgata Oxon. 1705. Of recent times may be mentioned: (1) On single books Thierseh De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina Erlang. 1841. Hollenberg Der Charakter der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung des Buches Josua und ihr textkritischer Werth Moers 1876 (Gymnasialprogr.). Wichelhaus De Jeremiae versione Alexandrina Halis 1847. Vollers Das Dodekapropheten der Alexandriner 1st half Berlin 1880. The same in Stade’s Zeitschr. für die alttestamentl. Wissensch. vol. iii. 1883 pp. 219-272 vol. iv. 1884 pp. 1-20. Lagarde Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien Leipzig 1863. Bickell De indole ac ratione versionis Alex. in interpretando libro Jobi Marb. 1863. (2) On the whole: Frankel Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta Leipzig 1841. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 465 sqq. 534-556. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 322 sqq. Gfrörer Philo ii. 8-18. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religions-Philosophie ii. 1-72. Fritzsche art. “Alexandrinische Uebersetzung des A. T.” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 280-290. The Introductions to the Old Testament of Eichhorn Bertholdt Hävernick Keil and others especially De Wette Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einl. in die kanon und apokr. Bücher des A. T. viii. edited by Schrader (1869) § 51-58. Bleek Einleitung in das Alte Testament 4th ed. superintended by Wellhausen (1878) pp. 571-598. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 436-439.
2. Aquila and Theodotion
The Septuagint translation was indisputably regarded as the sacred text of the Scriptures by Hellenistic Jews down to the beginning of the second century after Christ. The period of its ascendancy is at the same time that of the prime of Hellenistic Judaism. Subsequently to the second century the latter entered upon a slow but continuous course of retrogression which—to leave out of consideration the limits prescribed to the encroachments of Judaism by political legislation—was mainly brought about by the co-operation of two factors viz. the increased power of Rabbinic Judaism and the victorious advance of Christianity. A significant symptom in this movement was the new Greek translations of the Bible the object of which was to place in the hand of Greek-speaking Jews a text in conformity with the authorized Hebrew one. It is true that on the one hand the undertaking of such translations was a proof of the still existing strength and importance of Hellenistic Judaism. On the other hand however they show that Hebrew authority had now attained acceptance and acknowledgment in a far stricter sense than formerly in the region of Hellenistic Judaism. The Jews of the Dispersion were renouncing their own culture and placing themselves under the guardianship of the Rabbins. These translations are at the same time a monument in the history of the struggle between Judaism and Christianity. They were to place in the hands of the Jews a polemical weapon in their contest with Christian theologians who were making the most of the very uncertain Septuagint text in their own cause (comp. especially Justin Dial. c. Tryph. c. 68 s. fin. 71 and elsewhere).
Of the three Greek translations of the Bible which Origen placed in his Hexapla of the Septuagint (Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion see above p. 164) only Aquila and Theodotion will here engage our notice; for Symmachus was according to Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 17 an Ebionite and therefore a Christian. Of Theodotion too it is not certain whether he was a Jew. Aquila on the contrary is unanimously designated as such and indeed as a proselyte.
According to Irenaeus who is the first to mention Aquila he was a Jewish proselyte of Pontus. The statement with respect to his native land is by reason of its striking parallel with Acts 18:2 somewhat suspicious though Epiphanius more precisely names Sinope in Pontus as his home. On the other hand it seems certain—notwithstanding his thorough Knowledge of Hebrew—that Aquila was a proselyts. For he is designated as such (עקילס הַגֵּר) not only by all the Fathers but also in the Jerusalem Talmud and in Rabbinic literature in general. Of the fables related of him by Epiphanius—that he was a relation (πενθερίδης) of the Emperor Hadrian that he at first turned Christian then was excluded from the Christian Church on account of his inclination to astrology and became a Jew—thus much is credible that he lived in the time of Hadrian. Rabbinical tradition also places him in the time of R. Elieser R. Joshua and R. Akiba and thus in the first decades of the second century after Christ. The aim of his translation was to imitate the Hebrew text as exactly as possible so that he not only ventured upon the bold formation of a multitude of new words for the purpose of obtaining Greek terms which should exactly correspond with Hebrew ones but he slavishly rendered Hebrew particles by Greek particles even when their meaning did not allow it (for proof of this see Field and others). A noted example ridiculed by Jerome is that in the very first sentence of Genesis he rendered the sign of the accusative אֵת by σύν (σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν). This attention to the most trifling detail may perhaps be referred to the influence of Akiba whose pupil Aquila is said to have been. Jerome often mentions a prima and secunda editio of Aquila. And the numerous passages in which two different translations are referred to Aquila (collected in Field) confirm the existence of two different editions of the work. On account of its close accordance with the Hebrew text the work was at its first appearance favoured by R. Elieser and R. Joshua the eminent Rabbinical authorities and was as testified by Origen and also indirectly confirmed by Justinian’s 146th Novella soon much preferred to the LXX. by Hellenistic Jews. About a dozen passages are quoted from it in Rabbinic literature. The work as a whole perished with Rabbinic Judaism. For what remains of it we are indebted to its admission into Origen’s Hexapla. Numerous notices of Aquila’s translation are preserved from the latter work some by quotations in Eusebius Jerome and other Fathers who still made use of the original Hexapla in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea (Hieron. comment. in Tit. iii. 9 ed. Vallarsi vii. 1. 734) some in marginal notes in the MSS. of the Hexaplarian Septuagint text.
Irenaeus iii. 21. 1 (in Greek in Eusebius H. E. v. 8. 10): ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοί φασι τῶν νῦν τολμώντων μεθερμηνεύειν τὴν γραφήν· “ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν” ὡς Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος καὶ Ἀκύλας ὁ Ποντικὸς ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι. Eusebius Demonstr. evang. vii. 1. 32 ed. Gaisford (p. 316 ed. Paris): προσήλυτος δὲ ὁ Ἀκύλας ἦν οὐ φύσει Ἰουδαῖος. Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus § 14 15.
Hieronymus Epist. 57 ad Pammachium c. 11 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi i. 316): Aquila autem proselytus et contentiosus interpres qui non solum verba sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est jure projicitur a nobis. Quis enim pro frumento et vino et oleo possit vel legere vel intelligere χεῦμα ὀπωρισμόν σιλπνότητα quod nos possumus dicere fusionem pomationem et splendentiam. Aut quia Hebraei non solum habent ἄρθρα sed et πρόαρθρα ille κακοζήλως et syllabas interpretatur et literas dicitque σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν quod Graeca et Latina lingua omnino non recipit. Jerome generally gives a very favourable opinion of the accuracy and trustworthiness of Aquila. See Epist. 32 ad Marcellam (Vallarsi i. 152) Comm. in Jesaj. xlix. 5 6 (Vallarsi iv. 564) Comm. in Hoseam ii. 16 17 (Vallarsi vi. 656). See the passages of Jerome in which he mentions the prima and secunda editio of Aquila in Field Origenis Hexaplae quae supersunt proleg. p. xxv. sq.
Talmud jer. Megilla i. 11 fol. 71c: תירגם עקילס הגר התורה לפני ר׳ אליעזר ולנפי ר׳ יהושע וקילסו אותו ואמרו לו יָפיָפִיתָ מבני אדם “Aquila the proselyte translated the Thorah in the time of R. Elieser and R. Joshua; and they praised him and said to him ‘Thou art the fairest among the children of men’ ”(Psalms 45:3 with an allusion to the translation of the Thorah into the Japhetic). Jer. Kiddushin i. 1 fol. 59a: תירגם עקילס הגר לפני ר׳ עקיבה “Aquila the proselyte translated in the time of Akiba” etc. Hieronymus Comment. in Jes. viii. 11 sqq. (Vallarsi iv. 122 sq.): Akibas quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant. (Comp. .) A collection of Rabbinical passages in which the translation of Aquila is quoted is already given by Asariah de Rossi Meor Enajim c. 45; comp. also Wolf Biblioth. Hebraea i. 958-960 iii. 890-894; Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden p. 82 sq.; and most exhaustively by Anger De Akila pp. 12-25. The name of Aquila is in Rabbinical literature often distorted into אונקלוס (Onkelos); so also e.g. in all the passages of the Tosefta see Zuckermandel’s edition Index s.v. אונקלס.
Origenes epist. ad African. c. 2: Ἀκύλας … φιλοτιμότερον πεπιστευμένος παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ἡρμηνευκέναι τὴν γραφήν· ᾧ μάλιστα εἰώθασιν οἱ ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν Ἑβραίων διάλεκτον χρῆσθαι ὡς πάντων μᾶλλον ἐπιτετευγμένῳ. It is mentioned in Justinian’s Novella 146 that it was disputed among the Jews themselves whether the Scriptures were to be read in Hebrew or Greek in the synagogue service. Justinian directs that the latter shall not be hindered and as a Christian emperor recommends in the first place the use of the Septuagint but permits also the use of Aquila’s translation (which was thus manifestly preferred by the Jews).
The fragments are very completely collected in Field Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt 2 vols. Oxonii 1875. The chief work formerly was Montfaucon Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt 2 vols. Paris 1713. Freudenthal regards the Septuagint translation of Ecclesiastes as the work of Aquila see Alexander Polyhistor p. 65 note.
The Literature: Hody De bibliorum textibus (1705) pp. 573-578. Montfaucon Hexapl. Orig. praelim. pp. 46-51. Fabricius Biolioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 690-692. Anger De Onkelo Chaldaico quem ferunt Pentateuchi paraphraste et quid ei rationis intercedat cum Akila Graeco Veteris Testamenti interprete Part I.: De Akila Lips. 1845. Field Proleg. pp. xvi.-xxvii. Arnold art. “Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. ii. 187 sq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 386-390. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 62-64. Grätz Gesch. der Juden iv. 2nd ed. p. 437 sqq. Lagarde Clementina (1865) p. 12 sqq. Joel Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte (1880) p. 43 sqq. Die Einleitungen in’s Alte Testament von Eichhorn (4th ed.) i. 521-531; Bertholdt ii. 534-537; Herbst i. 155-157; Keil (3rd ed.) p. 557 sq.; De Wette-Schrader § 55; Bleek-Wellhausen § 281.
It might appear questionable whether Theodotion who as well as Symmachus is as a rule called an Ebionite by Jerome should be named here at all. But Jerome elsewhere calls him a Jew and in a passage in which he expresses himself most precisely states the former as only the opinion of some. The other opinion viz. that Theodotion was a Jew and indeed a Jewish proselyte is evidenced by Irenaeus and also by Epiphanius whose fictions (that Theodotion was at first a Marcionite and then went over to Judaism) are not deserving of credit. According to Irenaeus Theodotion was a native of Ephesus. Epiphanius makes him a Marcionite and a native of Pontus. With regard to his date Epiphanius who places him under Commodus (A.D. 180-192) is generally credited. But the statements of Epiphanius are here untrustworthy. Nor must the circumstance that Origen places Theodotion in the last place in his Hexapla mislead us to the notion of his being the most recent of these translators of Scripture.[2420] He is at all events a predecessor of Irenaeus and very probably not more recent than Aquila for the use of his translation in the Shepherd of Hermas has lately been raised to almost a certainty. The work of Theodotion pursues in general the same object as that of Aquila viz. that of furnishing a translation which should render the Hebrew text more accurately than is done by the LXX. Theodotion however bases his work upon the LXX. correcting the latter according to the Hebrew so that it can only be called a thorough revision of this translation with which it is however in very close accordance. One peculiarity of his work is that he transcribes Hebrew words into Greek without translating them even more frequently than Aquila and Symmachus (Field gives a list of all the known cases Proleg. p. 40 sq.). We have no evidence of the use of this translation among the Jews. His translation of Daniel having been received by the Christian Church and having therefore supplanted the original Septuagint translation of Daniel in the Septuagint manuscripts has come down to us complete (the latter is preserved in only one MS. a codex Chisianus).[2421] For the rest numerous fragments of Theodotion have been preserved in the same manner as those of Aquila.
[2420] The order in the Hexapla is arranged simply from the view-point of matter. Origen gives first the Hebrew text then Aquila and Symmachus as most closely conforming to the Hebrew text then the LXX. and after this Theodotion because his work was properly but a revision of the LXX.
[2421] In Theodotion’s version of Daniel the apocryphal additions are also retained. From this Jerome translated them (see Opp. ed. Vallarsi. ix 1376. 1399).
Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. liv. (Vallarsi ii. 893): Aquilae scilicet Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionei et Symmachi ejusdem dogmatis. Idem Comment. in Habak. iii. 11-13 (Vallarsi vi. 656): Theodotio autem vere quasi pauper et Ebionita sed et Symmachus ejusdem dogmatis. pauperem sensum secuti Judaice transtulerunt.… Isti Semichristiani Judaice transtulerunt et Judaeus Aquila interpretatus est ut Christianus. Idem praef. in vers. Iob (Vallarsi ix. 1100): Judaeus Aquila Symmachus et Theodotio judaizantes haeretici. Elsewhere however Jerome calls Theodotion simply a Jew see Epist. 112 ad Augustin. c. 19 (Vallarsi i. 752): hominis Judaei atque blasphemi. Jerome expresses himself most precisely in the praef. comment. in Daniel (Vallarsi v. 619 sq.): Illud quoque lectorem admoneo Danielem non juxta LXX. interpretes sed juxta Theodotionem ecclesias legere qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit licet eum quidam dicant Ebionitam qui altero genere Judaeus est.
Irenaeus iii. 21. 1 (= Euseb. H. E. v. 8. 10); see the passage above p. 171. Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus § 17 18.
As for the chronology the circumstance which is chiefly decisive is that Theodotion was certainly the predecessor of Irenaeus. For the latter not only expressly mentions him but also makes use of his translation of Daniel (see Zahn art. “Irenaeus” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vii. 131). The relation of Justin Martyr to Theodotion is doubtful. The text of the long portion which he quotes from Daniel Dial. c. Tryph. c. xxxi. agrees indeed in many minutiae with Theodotion in opposition to the Septuagint of the cod. Chisianus and yet the use of the former cannot be inferred because the agreement with the latter preponderates. See Credner Beiträge zur Einl. in die biblischen Schriften vol. ii. (1838) pp. 253-274. In the Shepherd of Hermas Vis. iv. 2. 4 however use is freely made of Daniel 6:23 and that in a form which strikingly agrees with Theodotion in opposition to the LXX. (see Hort in John Hopkins’ University Circular December 1884 and Harnack Theol. Litztg. 1885 p. 146). Hence it can scarcely be doubted that he preceded Hermas. But perhaps he was also a predecessor of Aquila for after the acceptance of Aquila’s translation by the Hellenistic Jews forming as it does the first halting-place on the way to the formation of a Greek translation of the Bible in strict conformity with the Hebrew his would have been tolerably superfluous. This assumption will also explain his disappearance from Jewish tradition. It is also worthy of remark that Irenaeus names him before Aquila. Finally it may also be mentioned that in the Revelation of St. John sentences and expressions from Daniel are used in a form which accords more with Theodotion than the Septuagint (9:20 10:5 13:7 20:4. Comp. Salmon Introduction to the Study of the Books of the Old Testament 1885 pp. 654-668; and in accordance with it Harnack Theol. Litztg. 1885 p. 267). It must however be confessed that the accordances are not of a kind to allow us to infer with certainty an acquaintance with Theodotion’s work on the part of the writer of the Apocalypse.
On the relation of Theodotion to the Septuagint Jerome says in his Comment. in Ecclesiastes ii. (Vallarsi iii. 396): Septuaginta vero et Theodotio sicut in pluribus locis ita et in hoc quoque concordant (i.e. in opposition to Aquila and Symmachus).
The acceptance of Theodotion’s version of Daniel by the Christian Church in place of the Septuagint is repeatedly testified by Jerome see Contra Rufin. ii. 33 (Vallarsi ii. 527); praef. comment. in Daniel (Vallarsi v. 619 sq.); praef. in version. Daniel (Vallarsi ix. 1361 sq.).
The Literature: Hody De bibliorum textibus (1705) pp. 579-585. Montfaucon Hexapl. Orig. praelim. pp. 56 57. Fabricius Bibliotheca graec. ed. Harles iii. 692-695. Field Orig. Hexapl. proleg. pp. xxxviii-xlii. Arnold art. “Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. ii. 188. Fürst in the Literaturbl. des Orients 1848 p. 793. Credner as above. Zahn as above. Supernatural Religion (complete edition 1879) ii. 210 sq. The Introductions to the Old Testament of Eichhorn Bertholdt Herbst Keil De Wette-Schrader Bleek-Well-hausen and others. The older literature in Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 420-422.