[12] 1 Kings xx. 7-17; 2 Kings xxiii. 12-17, ed. by Mr (now Professor) F.C. Burkitt in Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila (Cambridge, 1897), and Ps. xc. 6-13; xci. 4-10, and parts of Ps. xxiii. by Dr C. Taylor in Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (2nd ed., 1897).
[13] On the question of Theodotion’s date, Schürer (Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Bd. iii. p. 324) argues very plausibly for his priority to Aquila on the grounds, (1) that Irenaeus mentions him before Aquila, and (2) that, after Aquila’s version had been adopted by the Greek Jews, a work such as that of Theodotion would have been somewhat superfluous. Theodotion’s work, he suggests, formed the first stage towards the establishment of a Greek version which should correspond more closely with the Hebrew. Moreover, this theory affords the simplest explanation of its disappearance from Jewish tradition.
[14] Only one MS. of the Septuagint version of Daniel has survived, the Codex Chisianus.
[15] Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 51.
[16] Hence the name Hexapla. In some books, especially the poetical, the columns were increased to eight by the addition of the Quinta and Sexta, but the Octapla, as the enlarged work was called, was not apparently a distinct work. The Tetrapla, on the other hand, was a separate edition which did not contain the first two columns of the Hexapla.
[17] Lagarde’s projected edition of the Lucianic recension was unfortunately never completed; the existing volume contains Genesis-2 Esdras, Esther. It may be noted here that the Complutensian Polyglott represents a Lucianic text.
[18] Hastings’s Dict. of the Bible, iii. pp. 54 ff.
[19] The Old Testament in Greek, by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, vol. i. pt. 1 (1906)
[20] His arguments are stated briefly (and in order to be refuted) by Jerome in his commentary on Daniel.
[21] In what follows the actual quotations are from his English work; some of the summaries take account of the brief expansions in his later Latin version.