Commentary On Daniel Volume 2

Those of the Septuagint are of most importance. Dr. WELLS has compared the Alexandrian and Roman MSS., and arranged in parallel columns their various readings, adding also the Hebrew original. We have remarked in the Preface, p.49, that early in the second century Theodotion's version was substituted for that of the Septuagint. Rosenmuller has remarked its variations from the original Hebrew and Chaldee text, particularly in chaps.3, 4, 5, and 6. He cites various examples, and refers us to. Eichhorn and Bertholdt for details. Jerome followed Origen, who used a mark to denote any difference between his copy of the Alexandrian version and the Hebrew text. Hengstenberg, p.234 and following, English Translation, has answered some objections of the Neologians concerning this point. Daniel juxta LXX. was first edited at Rome by the Society for Propagating the Faith, in the year A.D.1772, fol., from a codex discovered in the Chisian Library. It is accompanied with a Latin version, with the Septuagint chronology, with the Greek and Latin of Hippolytus, and with the Greek and Latin of Theodotion's version. It was reprinted at Gottingen, A.D.1774, and again at Trajectum ad Rhen., A.D.1775, by Ch. Segaar, (Utrecht.) See Masch's Bibl. Sac., part 2. vol.2, pp.320-322. Various other collations of these two codexes have been made. Dr. Holmes, formerly Dean of Winchester, published in A.D.1805, the

Book of Daniel according to the texts of Theodotion and the Septuagint. For this edition 311 MSS. were collated, and their variations marked. The Sixtine or Roman edition of 1587 has been adopted, while the Complutensian and Aldine variations, as well as those of Dr. Grabe, have all been noticed.

Versions.

There are three chief versions made from the Septuagint text: viz., the Syriac, the old Latin or Italic, and the Arabic. They are useful in determining the original Greek phrases used by the Alexandrine translators, the Vulgate Latin forms a fourth and later version, and their differences and agreements have been carefully noticed by Dr. Wells. The Syriac version was edited, translated into Latin, and illustrated by a preface and critical notes by Cajetanus Buggatus, Mediolani, (Milan,) A.D.1788, with the following title, -- Daniel secundum editionem LXX. interpretum ex Tetraplis desumptam. Ex codice Syro-Estranghelo Bibliothecae Ambrosianae Syriace. Wintle in his notes makes good use of the variations of these versions as well as Rosenmuller in his elaborate expositions of the text. We are informed by Jerome that Theodotion's Greek version of Daniel was universally used in the Greek and Eastern Churches.

Another Greek version of Daniel occurs in an edition of a codex in the Library of St. Mark's at Venice, first published and illustrated with notes by Jo. Bapt. Caspare D'Ansse de Villoison. Argentorati, A.D.1784.

A codex rescriptus, containing fragments of Daniel in a Latin version made before the time of Jerome, was discovered in the University Library at Wurtzburg by Dr. Feder. The fragments were published by Dr. Munter, Hafniae, A.D.1821, 8VO. The codex is supposed to be as old as the sixth or seventh century.