Nov.6] PROCEEDINGS. [1894.dialect must haveexisted,and thatthis wasused by Theodotion
whenhe undertook to amend the LXX version.
I do not think that onecan lay great stresson the suggestion
thrown out by Lengerke,* that these apocryphal additions have
been interpolated at a later time from the LXX intoTheodotion,
as this wouldlead to a far more complicatedquestion,viz.,how
to explain thesedifferencesin those two texts.
First,as to the " Song of the Three Children." Manya scholar
has thought thathe could detecttracesof such an ancient Semitic
originalin peculiarities of the language. De Wette-Schradert has
collectedall these peculiarities of the Greek which would point
to such an original. Theycan bestbe explained by comparing
themwithwordsor forms thatmayhavebeenmisunderstoodby the
translator,or by his being influenced by the forms of that language,
which mayhavebeenan Aramaic dialectakinto that of Daniel—
and yet does De Wette doubtthe existence of such an original.
Schuerer,whodevotesa whole chapterto the study of these additions
to Daniel, J sums up his judgment in these words: "There is no
reason to believe in a Hebrew original for any of these texts."
It is doubtful whether he meant a purely Hebrew or an original
writtenin any Semitic dialect,since,properlyspeaking,one could say
that thereis no Hebrew originalfor the greater partof the Book of
Daniel,as it contains so many chapterswritten in Aramaic. Much
more decided is De Wette in his opinion about the origin of
the other additions, suchas the historyof Bel and thatof the
Dragon. He, as well as Fritzsche,§ say that there is not the
slightestfoundationfor the idea thattherewas a Hebrew, or, as the
latteradds,an Aramaic original for these. Thedifferencesbetween
Theodotionand the LXX are, however, muchmorepronouncedin
these other portionsthan in the Song, and,as far as I have been
able to see, no theory has hitherto been vouchsafed by any of
thesescholars that couli give a satisfactory explanation of these
discrepancies. If they are not to be explained by a difference of
translation, how, and for what reason should Theodotion have
goneoutof his way to alter the old-established version; and why
- Das Buch Daniel; Konigsberg, 1835,p. 108.
t Lehrbuch d. histor.-Kritischen Einleitung,8th ed. ; Berlin, 1869,p. 509.
- Geschichte des juedischen Volkesim Zeitalter Jesu,2d ed., ii, pp. 716-720.
§ Kurzgefasstes ExegetischesHandbuchzu den Apokryphen ; Leipzig, 1851,
p. 121, § 12.
28l