« PreviousContinue »
volctable authorshipwn of the origem, but it may be
a place among books claiming to be inspired. It has every mark of being a fable, and is wholly unworthy a place in any volume claiming to be of divine origin, or any volume of res
(e) Little is known of the origin of these books, and little importance can be attached to them, but it may be of some use to know the place which they have commonly occupied in the Bible by those who have received them as a part of the canon, and the place where they are commonly found in the version of the Scriptures.
“The Song of the Three Children” is placed in the Greek version of Daniel, and also in the Latin Vulgate, between the twenty-third and twenty-fourth verses of the third chapter. “ It has always been admired,” says Horne, (Intro. iv. 217, 218), “ for the piety of its sentiments, but it was never admitted to be canonical, until it was recognised by the Council of Trent. The fifteenth verse ['Neither is there at this time prince, or prophet, or leader, or burnt-offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, or place to sacrifice before thee, and to find mercy'], contains a direct falsehood; for it asserts that there was no prophet at that time, when it is well known that Daniel and Ezekiel both exercised the prophetic ministry in Babylon. This Apocryphal fragment is, therefore, most probably the production of a Hellenistic Jew. The Hymn (vs. 20, seq.) resembles the hundred and forty-eighth Psalm, and was so approved of by the compilers of the Liturgy, that in the first Common Prayer Book of Edward VI. they appointed it to be used instead of the Te Deum during Lent.”
“The History of Susanna has always been treated with some respect, but has never been considered as canonical, though the Council of Trent admitted it into the number of the sacred books. It is evidently the work of some Hellenistic Jew, and in the Vulgate version it forms the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Daniel. In the Septuagint version it is placed at the beginning of that book.” Horne, iv. 218.
The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, was always rejected by the Jewish Church; it is not extant either in the Hebrew or the Chaldee language. Jerome gives it no better title than The Fable of Bel and the Dragon; nor has it obtained more credit with posterity, except with the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who determined it to be a part of the canonical Scriptures. This book forms the fourteenth chapter of the Book of Daniel, in the Latin Vulgate; in the
Greek, it was called the Prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi. There are two Greek texts of this fragment, that of the Septuagint, and that found in Theodotion's Greek version of Daniel. The former is the most ancient, and has been translated into Syriac. The Latin and Arabic versions, together with another translation, have been made from the text of Theodotion.” Horne, iv. 218. These additions to Daniel may be found in Greek, Arabic, Syriac, and Latin, in Walton's Polyglott, tom. iv.
$ 6. THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. (1.) Of these the oldest, of course, is the Septuagint. Of the author of that portion of the Septuagint version which comprised the Book of Daniel—for no one can doubt that the Septuagint was the work of different authors—we have now no information. The translation of Daniel was among the least faithful, and was the most erroneous, of the whole collection; and, indeed, it was so imperfect that its use in the church was early superseded by the version of Theodotion—that which is now found in the editions of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint translation of the Book of Daniel was for a long time supposed to be lost, and it is only at a comparatively recent period that it has been recovered and published. For a considerable period before the time of Jerome, the version by the Lxx. had been superseded by that of Theodotion, doubtless on account of the great imperfection of the former, though it is probable that its disuse was gradual. Jerome, in his Preface to the Book of Daniel, says, indeed, that it was not known to him on what ground this happened—“Danielem prophetam juxta Lxx. interpretes ecclesiæ non legunt, et hoc cur acciderit, nescio,”—but it is in every way probable that it was on account of the great imperfection of the translation, for Jerome himself says, “Hoc unum affirmare, quod multum a veritate discordet et recto judicio repudiata sit.” He adds, therefore, that though Theodotion was understood to be an unbeliever—"post adventem Christi incredulus fuit"—yet that his translation was preferred to that of the Lxx. “Illud quoque lectorem admoneo, Danielem non juxta Lxx. interpretes, sed juxta Theodotionem ecclesias legere, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit. Unde judicio magistrorum ecclesiæ editio eorum in hoc volumine repudiata est, et Theodotionis vulgo legitur, quæ et Hebraeo et ceteris translatoribus congruit.”
From this cause it happened that the translation of Daniel by the Lxx. went into entire disuse, and was for a long time
vered as of the Sept the old version single manusein the yea
dotio Chisian und was pub Daniel singul
supposed to have been destroyed. It has, however, been recovered and published, though it has not been substituted in the editions of the Septuagint in the place of the version by Theodotion. A copy of the old version by the Lxx. was found in the Chisian library at Rome, in a single manuscript (Codex Chisianus), and was published in Rome, in folio, in the year 1772, under the title, Daniel Secundum Lxx. ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus e singulari Chisiano Codice annorum supra dccc. Romæ, 1772, fol. This was republished at Goettinburg in 1773, and again in 1774. These editions were prepared by J. D. Michaelis, the former containing the text only, the latter with the text of the Lxx., the version of Theodotion, the interpretation of Hippolytus, a Latin version, and the annotations of the Roman editor.
These editions were published from one manuscript, and with out any attempt to correct the text by a comparison with other versions. The text is supposed to have been corrupted, so that, as Hahn says, no one can believe that this codex exhibits it as it was when the version was made. “This corruption,” says he,“ exists not only in particular words and phrases, but in the general disarrangement and disorder of the whole text, so that those parts are separated which ought to be united, and those parts united which ought to be kept distinct. Besides this, there was entire inattention to the signs which Origen had used in his edition of the Septuagint.” Pref. to Daniel, xata Tous Eßdounzovta. As there was but one manuscript, all hope of correcting the text in the way in which it has been done in the other parts of the Septuagint, and in other versions, by a comparison of manuscripts, was, of course, out of the question.
After four editions of the work had been published, it happened that, in the Ambrosian Library at Mailand, Cajetan Bugati discovered a Syriac Hexaplar manuscript, written in the year 616 or 617 after Christ, which embraced the Hagiography, and the prophetic books, and, among others, “Daniel, according to the Septuagint Translation.” The title of this Syriac version, as translated by Hahn, is as follows: “Explicit liber Danielis prophetæ, qui conversus est ex traditione râv Septuaginta duorum, qui in diebus Ptolemæi regis Ægypti ante adventum Christi annis centum plus minus verterunt libros sanctos de lingua Hebræorum, in Græcum, in Alexandria civitate magna. Versus est autem liber iste etiam de Græco in Syriacum, in Alexandria civitate mense Canun posteriori anni nongentesimi vicesimi octavi Alexandri indictione quinta (i. e.
a 617, p. ch.)"This professes, therefore, to be a Syriac translation of the Septuagint version of Daniel. This version was found to be in good preservation, and the signs adopted by Origen to determine the value of the text were preserved, and a new edition of the Greek translation was published, corrected by this, under the title: Daniel Secundum editionem Lxx. interpretum ex tetraplis desumptum. Rom., 1788. This Syriac version enabled the editor to correct many places that were defective, and to do much towards furnishing a more perfect text. Still the work was, in many respects, imperfect; and, from all the aids within his reach, and probably all that can now be hoped for, Hahn published a new edition of the work, corrected in many more places (see them enumerated in his Preface, p. ix.), under the following title: AANIHA xata tous E38ounxovta, E Codice Chisiano post Segaarium edidit secundum versionem Syriaco-Hexaplarem recognivit annotationibus criticis et phi. lologicis illustravit Henricus Augustus Hahn, Philosophiæ Doctor et Theologiæ candidatus. Lipsiæ, ciɔlɔcccxLv. This is now the most perfect edition of the Septuagint version of Daniel, but still it cannot be regarded as of great critical value in the interpretation of the book. An account of the instances in which it departs from the Hebrew and Chaldee original may be seen at length in Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, Einleitung, pp. cix.-cxiv. It has the Prayer of the Three Children, inserted in the usual place (ch. iii. 23, 24), and the History of Susanna, and the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, as separate pieces, at the end.
(2.) The translation of Theodotion. This is that which has been substituted in the Septuagint for the version above referred to, and which is found in the various editions of the Septuagint, and in the Polyglott Bibles. Theodotion was a native of Ephesus, and is termed by Eusebius an Ebionite, or SemiChristian. Jerome, as we have seen above, regarded him as an unbeliever-post adventum Christi incredulus fuit: that is, he remained an unbeliever after the coming of Christ; probably meaning that he was a Jew by birth, and remained unconvinced that Jesus was the Messiah. He was nearly contemporary with Aquila, who was the author of a Greek translation of the Old Testament, and who was also of Jewish descent. The Jews were dissatisfied with the Septuagint version as being too paraphrastic, and Aquila undertook to make a literal version, but without any regard to the genius of the Greek language. We
usual pt has the gerke, Drew and count orient criticas
He ad remainchrist; pthat is,
have only some fragments of the version by Aquila. The version of Theodotion is less literal than that of Aquila, holding a middle rank between the servile closeness of Aquila, and the freedom of Symmachus. This version is cited by Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Tryphon, the Jew, which was composed about the year 160. The version of Theodotion is a kind of revision of the Septuagint, and supplies some deficiencies in it, but the author shows that he was indifferently skilled in Hebrew. It is evident, that in his translation of Theodotion he made great use of both the previous versions, that by the Lxx., and that of Aquila ; that he followed sometimes the diction of the one, and sometimes that of the other; that he often mingled them together in the compass of the same verse ; and that he adapted the quotations from the two versions to his own style. As his style was similar to that of the Lxx., Origen, in his Hexapla, perhaps for the sake of uniformity, supplied the additions which he inserted in his work chiefly from this version. There are but few fragments of these versions now remaining. See Horne, Intro. iv. 171-176. Lengerke supposes that Theodotion was a Christian, p. cxv. From this translation of Theodotion, a version was made in Arabic, in the tenth century. Lengerke, p. cxv.
(3.) The Syriac versions. There is nothing remarkable in these versions of Daniel. For an account of a later Syriac version of the Septuagint, see the remarks above. “As Daniel has no Targum or Chaldee version, the Syriac version performs a valuable service in the explanation of Hebrew words.” Prof. Stuart, p. 491.
(4.) The Latin Vulgate. As this contains the Apocryphal portions, the Prayer of the Three Children, the History of Susanna, and the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, and as the Latin Vulgate was declared canonical by the Council of Trent, of course those fragments have received the sanction of the Roman Catholic Church as a part of the inspired records. This version, as a whole, is superior to any of the other ancient versions, and shows a more thorough knowledge than any of them of the tenor and nature of the book. “An invaluable service has Jerome done, by the translation of Daniel, and by his commentary on the book.” Prof. Stuart, p. 491.
(5.) The Arabic version. There is nothing peculiar in the Arabic version of Daniel.
§ 7. EXEGETICAL HELPS TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL.—Besides the versions above referred to, the following exegetical helps to
has nuable ser.
Vulgate.. Three and then the
whole, 18 thorough knok.
them ons, and as a who Church.ents hamnonical the