Nov.6] PROCEEDINGS. [1894.childrenfor the exponents of his views, corroboratesthe idea that
he must haveoccupiedhimselfmorespeciallywiththeseincidents
recordedin the book of Daniel. Thereis in the whole of Hebrew
literature,as far as I am aware of, no other reference to a biblical
passagerecordedin his name.
If we return nowto the starting pointof this inquiry, we shall
findthatJerahmeel has preservedalso the date whenTheodotion
lived. He places himunder Commodus,and is thus in perfect
agreementwiththe tradition of Epiphanius, whoplaceshimexactly
underthe same reign. Nor is this date contradictedby the quota
tionsandreferences in the Talmudic literature. Accordingto all
these independent witnesses, Theodotion flourished during the
secondhalf of the second centuryafterthe common era.
The remainingportion of Jerahmeel's introduction is no less
interesting. We havethere so faint an echo of Aristeas' famous
letterthat it is scarcely recognisable. Accordingto Jerahmeel, the
Greektranslationof the LXX datesfromthe first half of the second
centurybeforeChrist,as he lets the High PriestEleazar,whotakes
part in it, die in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes(circa. 170 b.C.).
Thismaymean to signify the latest date when all the booksof
the Biblewere translated, as Jes. Sirach (130b.c.)alludes to the
existence of that translation,whether in whole or parts is not
perfectly clear. The time of Antiochus may be the terminus
ad quern.
As far as Akilas and Symmachus are concerned, the date assigned
to them by Jerahmeel —the time of Hadrian —seems to be per
fectlycorrect,althoughsomewouldlike to place Symmachusafter
Theodotion.
Fromthe preliminary matterwe pass nowto the text itself. We
firststudythe language in which it is written. It is a remarkable
fact that it is more like unto the Aramaic of the Bookof Daniel
than to that of the Targumim. The onlydifficultywe have to
contendwithin this connectionis that we have onlyone copy, no
otherMS.beingknownto exist ; the writing of this MS. is also not
perfectlyclearthroughout. But in spite of these drawbacksthe
characterof the text stands out clear enough,andwe find in it all
the peculiarities of the Biblical Aramaic* On the other hand,it
is very remotefrom the Syriac formof the fragment of the legend
* Cf. Driver, "Introductionto the Old Testament," 3rd ed., pp. 471-473.
287