disappointed ambition, became a proselyte to Judaism, and set to work to compose his Greek version of the Scriptures with a specific anti-Samaritan bias.

The version of Symmachus was distinguished by the purity of its Greek and its freedom from Hebraisms. Jerome (following Eusebius) several times remarks: "Symmachus more suo apertius," or "manifestius"; and he praises him as an interpreter, "qui non solet verborum κакonλíav sed intelligentiae ordinem sequi" (Comment. on Amos, III. 11, Vol. VI. 258). In his preface to Lib. II. of the Chronic. Euseb. (Vol. VIII. 223-4), he writes: "Quamobrem Aquila et Symmachus et Theodotio incitati diversum paene opus in eodem opere prodiderunt; alio nitente verbum de verbo exprimere, alio sensum potius sequi, tertio non multum a veteribus discrepare." Jerome not only commends Symmachus as above, but frequently adopts his renderings, as may be shown by a comparison of their versions.

Symmachus shows his command over the Greek language by his use of compounds, where the Hebrew can only represent the same ideas by a combination of separate words; and no less by his free use of particles to bring out subtle distinctions of relation which the Hebrew cannot adequately express. In like manner, his rendering of the name of Eve by Zwoyóvos preserves the word-play in Gen. III. 20; but other names are less happily rendered.

Another marked characteristic of Symmachus is his tendency to adopt more or less paraphrastic and inaccurate renderings under the influence of dogmatic prepossession.

This is especially discernible where he endeavors to avoid anthropomorphisms.

The last column of Origen's Hexapla contained the version of Theodotion. St. Epiphanius states that Theodotion was of Pontus, of the sect of the Marcionites, which he abandoned to embrace Judaism. St. Irenaeus affirms that he was an Ephesian, who became a proselyte to Judaism. His epoch is very probably the second half of the second century.

Jerome writes of Theodotion: "Qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit, licet eum quidam dicant Ebionitam, qui altero genere Judaeus est"; but elsewhere he seems to adopt the tradition of his Ebionism. Montfaucon argues from his rendering of Dan. IX. 26 that he was a Jew. His aim as a translator being (again in the words of Jerome) "non multum a veteribus discrepare," not so much to make a new translation as to revise the old, correcting its errors and supplying its

defects, it not unnaturally came to pass that Origen made free use of his version in constructing the Hexaplar recension of the LXX; and that, in the case of the Book of Daniel, even the recension of Origen was popularly discarded in favor of Theodotion's version in its entirety. His style does not present such marked peculiarities as those of Aquila and Symmachus. Suffice it to notice that he is more addicted to transliteration than they or the LXX; and that, on account of the number of the words which he thus leaves untranslated, he has been regarded as an ignorant interpreter. The charge, however, cannot be sustained.

Besides the aforesaid versions, three others were in existence of which but little is known. They are designated as Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh, from the position which they occupied in Origen's Hexapla. It is probable that they did not contain all the books. The old writers so differ in describing where they were found that nothing definite can be known of them. Of the seventh no trace remains, and we only know of its existence from the fact that Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. VI. 16) declares, that Origen added it to the other in the edition of the Psalms, thereby making the edition Enneapla.

The great use which had been made of the Septuagint by the Jews previously to their rejection of it, and the constant use of it by the Christians, naturally caused a multiplication of copies, in which numerous errors became introduced, in the course of time, from the negligence or inaccuracy of transcribers, and from glosses or marginal notes, which had been added for the explanation of difficult words, being suffered to creep into the text. In order to remedy this growing evil, Origen, in the early part of the third century, undertook the laborious task of collating the Greek text, then in use, with the original Hebrew, and with other Greek translations then extant, and from the whole to produce a new recension or revisal. Twentyeight years were devoted to the preparation of this arduous work, in the course of which he collected manuscripts from every possible quarter, aided (it is said) by the pecuniary liberality of Ambrose, an opulent man, whom he had converted from the Valentinian heresy, and with the assistance of seven copyists and several persons skilled in calligraphy, or the art of beautiful writing. Origen commenced his labor at Cæsarea, A. D. 231, and, it appears, finished his Polyglott at Tyre, but in what year is not precisely known.

This noble critical work is designated by various names among ancient writers, as Tetrapla, Hexapla, Octapla, and Enneapla.

The Tetrapla contained the four Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion, disposed in four columns; to these he added two columns more, containing the Hebrew text in its original characters, and also in Greek letters. These six columns, according to Epiphanius, formed the Hexapla. Having subsequently discovered two other Greek versions of some parts of the Scriptures, usually called the fifth and sixth, he added them to the preceding, inserting them in their respective places, and thus composed the Octapla; and a separate translation of the Psalms, usually called the seventh version, being afterwards added, the entire work has by some been termed the Enneapla. This appellation, however, was never generally adopted. But, as the two editions generally made by Origen generally bore the name of the Tetrapla, and Hexapla, Bauer, after Montfaucon, is of opinion that Origen edited only the Tetrapla and Hexapla; and this appears to be the real fact.

The accompanying plates will give some concept of Origen's great work.

Aquila's version is placed next to the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew text; that of Symmachus occupies the fourth column; the Septuagint, the fifth; and Theodotion's, the sixth. The other three anonymous translations, not containing the entire books of the Old Testament, were placed in the three last columns of the Enneapla. Where the same words occurred in all the other Greek versions, without being particularly specified, Origen designated them by A or AO, AoTo, the rest;-O T, or the three, denoted Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion ;—O A, or the four, signified Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion; and II, IIaνTES, all the interpreters.

Where any passages appeared in the Septuagint, that were not found in the Hebrew, he designated them by an obelus ÷ with two bold points (:) also annexed. This mark was a so used to denote words not extant in the Hebrew, but added by the Septuagint translators, either for the sake of elegance, or for the purpose of illustrating the sense.

To passages wanting in the copies of the Septuagint, and supplied by himself from the other Greek versions, he prefixed an asterisk X. with two bold points (:) also annexed, in order that his additions might be immediately perceived. These supplementary passages, we are informed by Jerome, were for the most part taken from Theodotion's translation; not unfrequently from that of Aquila; sometimes, though rarely, from