Versions, greek

It Avould seem from >\ hat has come down to us that many persons took in hand to make translations, if not of the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, yet certainly of some books, and, as was natuial, particularly of the Psalms. But, unfortunately, little renuiins except detached fragments. The longest passages of a continuous text still extant and already published are two passages from 1,2 (3, 4) Kings (21 [23]'-" 23""") and one from 1 (3) Kings (14'-*'), all attributed to Aquila.

The former have been edited by F. C. Burkitt, the latter ia quoted in its due order in Field's Hexnpla. Unfortunately, very few fragments of Origen's Hexnpla in its original form liave been found ; a considerable portion of the i'salter is, however, shortly to be edited by Dr. Mercati of the Vatican from a p.alimp.sest in the Ambrosian Library at Milan.

It is nmeh to be wished that, amongst the treasures still perhai>s remaining to be un- earthed in Egypt and elsewhere, a i»py of at least some portions of Origen's work migdit be dis- covered. For the present we are indebted for the most part to the marginal notes of SeptuagintaJ MSS for the fragments which we do possess, tlie chief editors of which have been Montfaucon and Field. Fresh fragments are, however, being coi>- • Church Quarterly Review, l.c. pp. 219, 22ft. i li.cii.p. 3661.

VERSIONS, GREEK VERSIONS, GREEK 865 stanlly brought to liglit. A number are to be found in tlie third volume of Pitra's Analecta Sacra, and also in the 3rd volume of Swete's OT in Greek. The last fragments which have been pub- lished are the greater part of two verses of Gu 1, which is to be found in part i. of Grenfell and Hunt's Amiierst Greek Paj)i/ri, and a fragment of Ps 21 (22) in Dr. Taylor's Cairo Geniiah Palimp- sests (Cambridge Press).

Considerable diftlculties beset the student in his considera- tion of lliose fra^oiienUj that sliU remain. (1) lu variuiia MSS the same wortls are ascribed in one c:i£e to one translator, in another to another; whilst in other coses, and sometimes very questionably, the same translation is attributed to all in common. (2) Owin^ to Ori^'eu's well-meant but unfortunate editing of the text of the LX.

\, ami the loss of or confusion in the diacritical marks which he inserted in his text ; and owinj also tot he \*ariou80tiier recensions and re-editiri[is which the text of the Septuo^nt has sutfered fnjni, we ore quite in the dark as to how much of these other Greek versions may be embedded in our present Greek texts of the L.KX. To take an inst.ince.

If with our present limited sources of information we examine the two chapters of the Book of Ju<lKes which relate the history of i>boruh, and compare the Vatican text of the Cambridge edition with the fraguients printed by Field, we shall tlnd at least thirteen expressions (4" [two] '■'- 21 .'il. U 16.21.26 [three] 23 [twoD attributed to versions other than the Septuagrint.

This may perhaps be an extreme cose, taken as it is from a book in which the forms of the text vary so much, and as to which ques- tions may be raised conceminR the date of the sjiecial text, but it will at any rate serve as an ilh-.

stralion of how complicated the phenomena of the present Urcek texta of the OT are In other ca^es, where a double or even triple rendering ot the Hebrew occurs, we shall probabl> not '^o wTong in assipning, at least in some cases, one or more (^f these alternative transla- tions to other versions than the LX.\. Orih'en 8 great work itself seems to have taken various iorms besides the most prevalent Uexaplaric one.

We find mention of (a) a Trtrajtla, containing the four Greek versions; (6) a P^ntapta of doubtful content ; (c, d) a Ueptapla and an Octapla, which apparently contained the fifth and sixth anonymous Greek versions. Specimens of the way in which these were respectively arranged are to be found in F'ield's Prolegomena 1pp. xiv, xv) : while Mercati fives an actual extract from a Ifexapla SIS in his * Vn palimpsesto Ambrosiano' in Atti di R. Aecaaetttia di Scienza dt Torino, April 10.

Ib06(see also T.iylor's frai^nient of I's 21 [22] from the Cairo Palimpsest, printed on p. 444 of the present volume). AVe piu>s to the separate translations and their authors. (1) Aquila's Verxion. — Tliere seems to be no good reason for doubting that this was certainly the oldest of these Greek versions. It most prob- ably had its origin in a desire for a faithful and literal translation of the OT by an orthodo.\ person holding the Jewish faitli.

The name Aquila is one familiar to us in the pages of the NT. The Acjuila of our present notice, like his Scripture namesake, was a native of Pontus, and is said to h.ave belonged to Sinope. He is called a proselyte, and the story goes that he nitde his translation in the reign of Hadrian (c. I'M) a.d.) after the return of the Christians from Pella to that city. He is said to have been a rmpil of the famous Rabbi Al^iba.

Attempts have lieen made to identify him with the OnVelos of the Targum of Onl^elos, but they have not at present met with general acceptance. In translating the OT, Aquila seems to have ajiproachcd his task from the point of view of an orlliodo.v Jew holding the plenary inspiration of every ' jot and tittle.' Accordingly, his aim was so lo translate that for every Hebrew word or particle there should always be an equivalent. The results of his method sometimes become grotesque.

Thus having translated 03 by the Greek Koi-ye, when the conjunction is pretixed to CJ and the word becomes OJi, Aquila translates xai Ktdyt. The particle hk being identical with the prejiosition n« is also translated avp, so that we have such an extra- ordinary solecism as ai/v followed by the accusa- tive case. How far Aquila is controversial against the Christians in any of his renderings is a matter of dispute. Tregelles considers tiiis to be proved against him, whilst Field absolves him.

The only passage which really seems to support Tregelles' view is Aquila's translation of Is 7'*, where for the ■wapdivoi of the LXX he substitutes veans, a much less dehnite word than irapO^voi — a translation which would have the support of many modern Christian critics. His translation shows few traces of any reading's dill'ering from the unpointed Hebrew te.xt now in existence. In a few cases his division of Hebrew words is not the same.

His vocalization, how- ever, dili'ers in a considerable number of instances from the Massorete.s. As between J^irS and Killiihh, he more often follows I^cre. It is to bo noted also that he, together with Synimaehus, follows the euphemism of the Hebrew margin in Is 36". In his choice of words to represent the Hebrew, Aquila goes far afield. He attempts to indicate! the literal meaning of words bv correspond- ing Greek words, e.g. iTiaTrnjLovl^ety.

He draws, as other Greek writers of the period do, a certain portion of his vocabulary from the old Greek epic poetry. He also uses Greek words of similar sound to the Hebrew, instead of actually trans- literating. He transliterates the totr.-igraminaton by the archaic form of the four Hebrew letters, a form which ajipears in Hexaplaric Greek JISS as Ilini (PIPI). There would seem to have been two editions of Aquila's translation.

In a few cases he may have altered his mind about the true reading of the Hebrew. Thus in Ps 89'" he appears to have read at first »'», afterwards e'n. Specimens of passages in which the Latin Bible has been influenced by Atjuila's version are to be found in Field's Introduilwn (p. xxiv).

For the longer story told by Epiphanius concerning Aquila, his relationship to Hmlrian, and his conversion to Christianity, which he afterwards exchanged for Judaism, Epiphanius is our authority {de Men, et Pmid. 14), but it seems a very improb- able tale, due perhaps in part to the view taken by Epiphanius of his translation. It is also to be found in the new ' Dialogue between Timothy and .\quila, edited by F. 0. Conybeare in Anecdota Oxouie.n»ia (Class, ser. pt. viii.)

(2) Syinmachux' Versinn. — The tr. of Synimaehus occupied in the Ilexnpln the next column to that of Aquila. According to Epi]ihanius {de Mens, ct Pond. 16), he was a Samaritan wlio turned Jew and ,' hen translated the OT Scriptures into Greek as a means of refuting the Samaritan errors. Accord- ii g to Eusebius (//£ vi. 17) he was an Ebionite, and wrote a coiniiientary on St. Matthew's Gospel.

It is worthy of note, however, that, in the early chapters of Genesis, Sj'mmachus seems to have followed the Samaritan chronology. The chief object ot hia version is to give a readable tr. of the Hebrew ToelVect this he paraphrases Hebrew with Greek idioms, e.g. he replaces the AvSpa alfiiruv of the LXX by ifopes /xiaiipifoi (Ps 25 [26J" 54 [55]'-" 138 [139]'"). Ho does not consider it neces- sary always to render the same Hebrew word by the same Greek word.

In places his translation becomes more of a parajilirase. He constantly gives transhitions of proper names : thus Ararat becomes Armenia. Tlie inlluence of Symmachus, as of Aquila, is to be found in the Vulgate. In a few places mention is made of a second edition of this translation, but they are so few that little certainty exists that there actually was one. Like Aquila, Symmachus oscillates between Ki^ri ami Kithil)h, and very seldom deviates from the consonantal part of the MT.

Like the LXX, ho explains away the bare anthropomorphic state- ment of the flebrew, see, e.g.. Ex 21'" lieb. 'they saw the God of Israel' (Aq. tUon rbv Of6»'lapa-fiK), for which L.XX substitutes tX&oy rbv Tbirov oJ «l<rri)«i 6 debi tou "L, and Symmachus tlSor Uinart tAv eeif '1. There is no reason why thi» Sym- machus should be identified with the one men- tioned in the Talmad (Bab. Erubin, 134).

The date of the translation is quite uncertain, but it is 866 VERSIONS VEX, VEXATION' probably to be assigned to the latter half of the 2n(l cent. A.D. It shows an aci|uaintance with Aquila, but is thoroughly independent of it. (3) Theodotion's Versiuii. — Theodotion was of Pontus, according to Epiphanius(rfe Mens, et Pond. 17), and a follower ot Mareion of Sinope, and afterwards became a Jewish proselyte. Irena'us also calls him a proselyte (adv. liter, iii.

24), but describes him as an Kphesian. Jerome says that some called him an Ebionite, others a Jew. His version has more of the character of a revision of the LXX than of an independent translation. So valuable was it held that in some cases, notably in the Book of Daniel, of which we possess the LXX version in only one copy (cod. 87), Theo- dotion's version supplanted the LXX. He in- cluded in his worlc the apocryphal parts of Daniel, the addition at the end of Job, the Bk.

of Baruch, and the sections of Jeremiah which the LXX omits. He indulges more freely in the translitera- tion of Hebrew words than the other translators, though occasionally he finds himself able to give translations where the others fail. His translation was probably made about A.D. 185. Traces of a Greek version of Daniel very like that of Theodotion go back as far as the NT.

* This would lead us to imagine that just as we still have traces in other books of the OT of two Greek versions existing side by side, e.g. in Judges and still more in the Books of Esdras, so it is quite possible that tliere may have been two versions of Daniel and of some other books — a literal trans- lation, and one which had more of the nature of a paraphrastic commentary.

(4) In addition to these translations there were at least three anonymous versions of at any rate parts of tlie Scriptures, known respectively as the Fifth. Sixth, and Seventh. According to Eusebius (HE vi. 16), Origen obtained the Fifth from Kicopolis near Actium. Epiphanius (de Mens. et Pond. 18), however, saj's tliat it was found hidden away in jars at Jericho, and assigns the Sixth version to Isicopolis. If we can depend upon the quotation of the Sixth version of Hab 3", the tr.

must have been parajihrastic and made by a Christian. As to the Seventh translation, and even the certainty of its existence at all, there is much doubt. These three versions are most fre- quently quoted in the Psalms. (5) l^he Graseo-Venetan tr., a very late Jewish production, of which only one MS exists, need only just be mentioned. It does not include the whole of the OT. The best edition is that of Gebhardt (Leipzig, 1875).

For further information concerning the Hexapla and these versions see art. Septuagint. LrrERATURE.— Montfaucon, Origcnie Hexaplorrtm qua super- tunt (1723) ; Field, Orifjenis Uexaptontm ijiue i^uper.'ntTit (IbTo) : Salmon, Introil. to iVr (last edition); Swcte, Introd. to OT in Greek (1900). For Aquila (fra^iiuents), Ang:er, de Qnkdo Chatdaico; liiiT\dtt, Fraf/mentso/ Aquiia; Taylor, ' Fragments' In Saj/iufis 0/ the Jetvieh Fathers^ (1897), and* Fragments of Pa. xxii. (1900), art.

'Hexapla' in Diet, of Christian BiO'irnphy. For Symtnachua and Theodotion see artt. $.vo. in Vict, oj Chruit. Biog. by Dr. Owynn. U. A. ReDPATH.