With regard to the OLD VERSIONS of the book of Daniel, we must in the first place observe that there is not extant, or even known ever to have existed, any Chaldman paraphrase (Targum) of Daniel, any more than of Ezra. The reason of this lies, no doubt, in the scrupulosity of the later Jews, who believed that the Chaldman version of the two books might afterwards easily be con founded with the original texts, and thus prove in jurious to the pure preservation of the latter. There is something peculiar and remarkable in the Alexandrian version of the canonical book of Daniel. Not only has it taken liberties with re gard to single expressions and sentences, but has actually dared to remodel the text altogether in ch. iii.-vi., either by numerous additions (as iii. 24, sq., the prayer of Azariali ; iii. 51, the song of the Three Children), or by omissions and devia tions. There are, besides, two great supplements to that version—the story of Susannah (xiii.), and of Bel and the Dragon in Babel (xiv.) Both apocryphal stories were originally written in Greek, a conclusion drawn already by Porphyry from the quibbles in xiii. 54, 55, 58, 59, who at the same time derided the Christians for considering those stories as genuine writings of Daniel. The authen ticity of the two stories was, however, already be fore him questioned by the fathers of the church, and a very interesting discussion took place be. tween Origen and Julius Africanus regarding the authenticity of the story of Susannah. Jerome condemns the two stories in plain terms as fables, and as additions not belonging to the Hebrew text. Some erroneously assume that, besides our canonical text, there also existed a sort of critical revision of the former in the Chaldxan language, which the Seventy had consulted in their transla tion. But the mistakes in the translation, which are brought forward in favour of that view, cannot stand a strict criticism, while the above-named pe culiarities may be satisfactorily explained from the character of that translation itself. It plainly shews that the writers had endeavoured themselves to furnish a collection of legends, and a peculiar recast of the book, in accordance with the spirit of the age, and the taste of Judceism then prevailing at Alexandria. The wonderful character of the book, and the many obscure and enigmatic ac counts in it were the rocks on which the fanciful, speculative, and refining minds of the Alexandrians ran foul. No book was ever more favourable to the intermixture of legends, disfigurations, and misconceptions of all sorts than Daniel, while the period of the exile was generally a favourite topic for the fantastical embellishments of the Alexan drian Jews. In like manner may also be explained the mutilations which the books of Esther and Jeremiah have received at the hands of the Alexan drians, to whom hermeneutic scruples were of but little moment. The more important the book of Daniel was to the Christian church, and the more arbitrary the remodelled Sept. version of it was, the more conceivable is it why, in the old church, the version of Theodotion became more general than that of the Sept. It is true that some of the
fathers still made use of the Alexandrian version ; but, in the time of Jerome, Theodotion was already read in nearly all the churches, and that this cus tom had been introduced long before him, is evi dent from the circumstance that Jerome was ignorant of the historical principles by which the church was guided in adopting that version. For a long time it was believed that the version of the Seventy had been lost, until it was discovered at Rome in the latter half of the last century, in the codex Chisianus. It was published at Rome, 1772, in folio, from the MS. copy of Blanchini, with a translation by P. de Magistris, which edition is, however, very defective and incorrect, though it was afterwards repeatedly republished. The ver sion of Theodotion, generally published together with that of the Septuagint, of which it is a re vision, is upon the whole literal and correct. In the present copies of Theodotion, however, are already found the apocryphal interpolations and additions of the Sept. This is owing to the fact that Theodotion's version has in later times been remodelled, interpolated, and falsified after that of the Seventy, so that it would now be altogether an idle task to attempt to restore the original text of Theodotion. A very useful guide for the criticism of the Greek versions is the Syriac Hexaplarian version, published by Buggati, at Milan, in 1758. The Arabic Polyglott version is an offspring of Theodotion's, which it follows with literal exact ness.
The Syriac version in the Peshito does some good service in explaining the words in Daniel, but is, nevertheless, not free from gross mistakes. The apocryphal parts it has copied from the later inter polated Theodotion. The Vulgate also has these additions translated after Theodotion.
The most important commentators on Daniel are, among the fathers, Ephr-xm Syrtis, Jerome, Theodoret ; among the rabbins, Jarchi, Kimchi, Abenezra, Joseph Jacchiades ; among the Protest. ant theologians, Melancthon, Calvin, Martin Geier, de Dieu, Venema, Chr. Bened. Michaelis, J. D. Michaelis. [Auberlen refers to the work of Mag nus Fr. Roos (1771, translated by Henderson, Edin. 1), as constituting an epoch in the in terpretation of Daniel. In more recent times criti cal works on Daniel have appeared by Bertholdt (1806), Rosenmiiller (1832), Havernick (183z), Lengerke (1835), Maurer (1836), Hitzig (r85o), Auberlen (1854, translated into English 1856). On the literary history and claims of the book, see, be sides the introductions, Hengstenberg, Die azdhen tie des D. etc. (1851), translated by Ryland (1847), Haveniick, IVeue. Krit. Untersuchungen, fib d. buds. D. (1838). In English may be mentioned the commentaries of Willet (1610), Broughton (161I), Wintle (1807), and Stuart (IS5o), and the ex planations of the prophetic parts by Irving (1826), Birks (1844, 1846), Tregelles (1852)].—H. A. C. H.