Theodotion - Brill Reference
The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Modern Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible. in Let Us Go Up to Zion. Author: Alison. Theodotion (Th) version. Not only is it considered to be the younger version ( dating from the 2nd. century) but . to read online. Page 2 of 9. a mine of information on Κοινή Greek, the lingua franca of the new era dating from . Septuaginta LXX Project aims to produce an online edition of the Septuagint English translation for the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
Antiochus Epiphanes, against Egypt, the Jews, the Temple, etc. The conclusion of the vision xii declares how Michael the guardian angel of Israel will deliver the people. Mention is made of a resurrection of the dead, followed by rewards and punishments. For days, or about three and one half years, the daily sacrifice will cease and the abomination of desolation will be set up.
Blessed is he who continues steadfast till days. From the same contents it can also be readily seen that the object of that sacred writing is not to record in substance prophetical addresses similar to those which make up the works ascribed to distinct prophets in the Old Testament literature.
In respect to both matter and form, the contents of the Prophecy of Daniel are of a peculiar kind which has no exact parallel in the Bible, except in the Apocalypse of St. In Daniel, as in this last book of the Bible, one is in presence of contents whose general purpose is undoubtedly to comfort God's people under the ordeal of a cruel persecution, chiefly by means of symbolical visions bearing on "the time of the end".
This is the obvious purpose of the four visions recorded in the second part of the Book of Daniel chaps. Nor have the narratives in chapters iii-vi a different general purpose: This apocalyptic object of the Book of Daniel is admitted by most scholars of the present day, and is in harmony with the place assigned to that sacred writing in the Hebrew Bible, where it appears not among "the Prophets", or second great division of the original text, but among "the Writings", or third main division of that text.
As apocalyptic writings usually bear the impress of compilation, one might naturally be tempted to regard the Book of Daniel -- whose apocalyptic character has just been described -- as a compilatory work. In fact, many scholars of the last century -- some of whom were Catholic -- have set forth positive grounds to prove that the author of the book has actually put together such documents as could make for his general purpose.
Catholic Encyclopedia ()/Book of Daniel - Wikisource, the free online library
At the present day, however, the opposite view, which maintains the literary unity of the Prophecy of Daniel, is practically universal. It is felt that the uniform plan of the book, the studied arrangement of its subject-matter, the strong similarity in language of its two main parts, etc. Is this sole writer the Prophet Daniel who composed the work during the Exile B.Daniel 9:24-27 - 70 WEEKS PROPHECY - Steve Gregg
The traditional view, in vigour chiefly among Catholics, is to the effect that the whole work, as found in the Hebrew Bible, should be directly referred to Daniel, whose name it bears. It admits, indeed, that numerous alterations have been introduced into the primitive text of the book in the course of ages. It maintains, nevertheless, that both the narratives chaps. Such difference in the use of persons is regarded as arising naturally from the respective contents of the two parts of the book: Daniel employed the third person in recording events, for the event is its own witness; and the first person in relating prophetical visions, for such communications from above need the personal attestation of those to whom they are imparted.
Over against this time-honoured position which ascribes to Daniel the authorship of the book which bears his name, and admits B. Chiefly on the basis of historical and linguistic grounds, this rival theory refers the origin of the Book of Daniel, in its present form, to a later writer and period.
It regards that apocalyptic writing as the work of an unknown author who composed it during the period of the Machabees, and more precisely in the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes B. The following are the extrinsic testimonies which conservative scholars usually and confidently set forth as proving that the Book of Daniel must be referred to the well-known Prophet of that name and consequently to a much earlier date than that advocated by their opponents.
Christian tradition, both in the East and in the West, has been practically unanimous from Christ's time to the present day in admitting the genuineness of the Book of Daniel. Its testimony is chiefly based on Matthew, xxiv, In so doing, it is argued, Christ endorsed and confirmed by His authority the view which was then received among the Jews, and which regarded Daniel as the author of the book which bears his name.
Jewish tradition, both during and before Christ's time, bears also distinct witness to the genuineness of the Prophecy of Daniel. In his "Antiquities of the Jews" Bk. Again, the Sibylline Oracles Bk. III, verses sqq. More particularly still, the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, made about B. To strengthen the inference drawn from these external testimonies, conservative scholars appeal to the following direct and indirect intrinsic grounds. Throughout the second part of his book Daniel speaks in the first person and thereby gives himself implicitly as the writer of chapters vii-xii.
Even more, in the words: Now, if the visions described in the second part of the book were recorded by Daniel himself, the same thing must be admitted in regard to narratives which make up the first part of the book chaps. And in this way direct intrinsic evidence is considered as making for the Danielic authorship.
The indirect intrinsic grounds point in the same direction, inasmuch as they tend to show that the author of the Book of Daniel was a resident in Babylon one who wrote in the period to which the Prophet Daniel belonged, and one who is best identified with that Prophet himself. The first of these positions, it is said, is borne out by the close acquaintance which the author evinces in the historical portion of the work chaps. It is likewise borne out by a comparison of the form of Daniel's prophecies in chapters vii-xii with the general surroundings of one living in Babylon and with the Babylonian monuments in particular; the imagery of Daniel's vision in the seventh chapter, for instance, is nearly the same as that found on monuments in the ruins of Ninive; and in chapters viii, 2 Heb.
While thus very familiar with Babylonia, the author of the Book of Daniel betrays no such special knowledge of Persia and Greece as would be natural to expect if, instead of living in the sixth century B. This absence of distinct knowledge of the times subsequent to the Babylonian period has sometimes been urged to prove the second position: More often, however, and more strongly, the linguistic features of the Book of Daniel have been brought forth to establish that second position.
- Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Book of Daniel
- The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Modern Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible
- The book of Daniel.
It has been affirmed, on the one hand, that the Hebrew of Daniel with its numerous Aramaisms, bears a close affinity to that of Ezechiel, and is therefore that of the period of the Exile; and, on the other hand, that the Aramaic portions of Daniel ii, 4-vii are in wonderful agreement with those of Esdras, while they are distinguished by many Hebrew idioms from the language of the earliest Aramaic Paraphrases of the Old Testament.
In particular, the easy transition from the Hebrew to the Aramaic ii, 4and the reverse viii, 1 sqq. The intrinsic grounds making for the last position that the author of the Book of Daniel is best identified with the Prophet of that namemay be summed up in this simple statement: Scholars who have examined this evidence, closely and without bias, have concluded that rationalistic critics are decidedly wrong in denying totally the historical character of the Book of Daniel.
At the same time, many among them still question the absolute cogency of the extrinsic and intrinsic grounds set forth to prove the Danielic authorship.
These latter scholars rightly reject as untrue the statement of Josephus, which refers the close of the Old Testament Canon to the time of Esdras; and in the well-known bias of the same Jewish historian for magnifying whatever concerns his nation they have a valid reason for doubting his assertion that the prophecies of Daniel were shown to Alexander the Great when this prince passed through Palestine.
Regarding the former, N. This conclusion, of course, is consonant with Matthew in 3: What is astounding about this observation, of course, is the overall context. Paul is commenting on the status of Gentile churches and he is saying that they are elect in Christ, that is, incorporated into the people of God, for whom the Messiah stands.
By being incorporated into Christ, the Gentiles have become members of the people of God. We have truly been blessed with every spiritual blessing Gen The question is whether the LXX is the fundamental contextual influence on Paul in this text and others. If we had the original Septuagint before us we could restore the Hebrew text from which it was made with comparatively certainty.
Thayer elucidates many words by giving the corresponding Hebrew word for which they were used in the Septuagint. It was the Bible of the early Church fathers and the Jews of the Dispersion. The original text of these Jewish prayers for vengeance, found at Rheneia and now preserved at Athens and Bucharest shows us the Jews of Delos, about the year B.
This single picture is typical. The Old Testament, as you know, had been translated from Hebrew into Greek at different times and by different persons in Egypt, beginning in the third century B. We see then that by B. We seek to collate all extant ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint and make them available at this website. A new critical text of the Septuagint that is as close as possible to the Hebrew text Samaritan Pentateuch or Masoretic Text.
A comprehensive critical apparatus.