The only natural object which may be regarded as telling in the opposite direction is κήτη (v. 79), which might be thought to point to knowledge of the Mediterranean Sea (see Child Chaplin, Benedicite, 1879, p. 324).
The birthplace of the LXX text is surely Alexandria. The character of this, as of the other additions, indicates, according to Westcott (D.B. ed. 2, I. 1714a) and Wordsworth (on Dan. iii. 23), the hand of an Alexandrian writer.
It is well, however, to notice that this, with its companion pieces, has as few indications of Greek philosophy and habits of thought as any part of the Apocrypha; and in common with most Alexandrian writers it has little or nothing of purely Egyptian character. Still, Dereser's idea that "Daniel may have written his book in Greek at Babylon with all the additions" (quoted by Bissell, p. 444) seems most unlikely, and could hardly have been advanced except under the necessity of supporting the Roman view of the book.
Theodotion's version, so far as concerns the locality where it originated, shares the obscurity which hangs over much of Theodotion's personal life. Ephesus may be suggested, for Irenæus (III. xxiii.) styles him ὁ Ἑφέσιος; though Epiphanius calls him Ποντικός (D.C.B. art. Hexapla, p. 22a). The latter author is, for the most part, the less accurate of the two. In De Mensuris, etc., XVII. he states that Θ's version was issued in the second Commodus' reign, 180-192, "obviously too late."[[14]] The pre-Theodotionic version which Θ is thought to have used may of course have been an Alexandrian production; but at present little is known of it.
[14] Swete, Introd. to Greek O.T., p. 43.
That Theodotion had some earlier rendering, besides the LXX as his basis, the quotations in Rev. ix. 20, etc., and St. Matt. xii. 18, coinciding with his version,[[15]] render highly probable, inasmuch as he wrote subsequently to any likely date for those books. Possibly he may have used Aquila's version, or that of some unknown translator. Professor Gwynn's idea (D.C.B. art. Theodotion, 977a) of "two rival Septuagintal Daniels"[[16]] seems to have more "inherent improbability" than he is inclined to admit. But where this ground text, circulated apparently in Palestine and Asia Minor, was made, who can say? But if we take St. John as the author of Revelation, his connection with Ephesus, and the probable publication of his work there, give some little support to the theory of an Ephesian origin of Theodotion's translation.
[15] Op. cit., pp. 48, 396, 403.
[16] Cf. Ewald in 'Date,' p. 29.
It is strange that a version supposed to be made by one who was not an orthodox Christian, if Christian at all, should have been preferred, as far as concerns Daniel, by the Christian Church for ordinary use.[[17]] Jerome (Præf. in Dan.) says, as if he felt that some explanation was needed, "et hoc cur acciderit nescio," though he proceeds to suggest some possible reasons why the version of one "qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit" should have been so much honoured. The religious work of a Jew, who lived before Christ, and that of one who refused to acknowledge his advent after it had taken place, stand obviously, for Christians, on a different footing.
[17] Some slight warrant, or at least precedent, for using our R.V., in which dissenters had a hand, might perhaps be found in this fact.