II. AQUILA. Aquila was a Jew of Pontus, vvho lived in the reign of Adrian, and undertook a Greek version of the O. T. about A.D. 16o. It appears from Jerome (in Ezek. iii.) that there were two edi tions of this version, the second more literal than the first. It was very highly prized by the Jews, and much preferred to the Septuagint, because the latter was einployed as an authorized and- genuine document by the early Christians in their disputa tions with the Hebrew opponents of the new reli gion. The very circumstance of its being adopted and valued by the Jews would tend to create a prejudice against it among the Fathers,. indepen dently of all perversion of Messianic passages. Iremcus, the earliest writer who mentions Aquila, pronounces an unfavourable opinion respecting his translation (Advers. Ifteres. iii. p. 253, ed. Grabe). So also Eusebius (Ad Psalm xc. 4). and Philastrius. Jerome speaks of him in various parts of his writings, sometimes disparagingly, and again in terms of commendation : the former, in allusion to his doctrinal prepossessions ; the latter, in refer ence to his knowledge of the Hebrew language and exceeding carefulness in rendering one word by another. He was early accused of distorting seve ral passages relating to the Messiah; and Kennicott, in modern times, has re-echoed the censuie. There
is some ground for the charge, but certainly not so much as Kennicott imagines. A polemic tendency may be detected in the work, yet not to a greater degree than in most translations. [AQun.A.] The version before us is extremely, and even unintelligibly, literal. It adheres most rigidly to the original. So highly did the Jews esteem it that they called it the Hebrezv verity. Its use in criti cism is considerable, but in interpretation itis com paratively worthless.
III. SvmmAcHus. Symmachus appears to have been an Ebionite (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 17 ; De monstr, Evang. vii. r, Jerome, Prqf. in Ezram ; Assemeni, Bibl. Orient. ii. 273; iii. 1, 17). IIis Greek version of the O. T. was made after that of Theodotion, as may be inferred from the silence of hem:ens, and the language of Jerome in his com mentary on the 3Sth. chapter of Isaiah. The style of the work is good, and the diction perspicuous, pure, and elegant (Thieme, De puritate Symmachi; Hody, De Bibl. text. Original). It is of less benefit in criticism than. that of Aquila, but of greater advantage in interpretation. It would seem from Jerome, that there was a second edition of it (Comment in yerenz. xxxii. ; in Nah. iii.)