Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:54:50.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aquila's Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

Jenny R. Labendz
Jenny R. Labendz*
Affiliation:
Jewish Theological Seminary, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the early or mid-second century c.e., a Jewish proselyte named Aquila1 translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek.2 The translation survives today only in fragments, but both Jewish and Christian sources from Late Antiquity offer perspectives on and information about Aquila as well as citations of his translation. To fully understand the role his legacy played in Jewish and Christian communities requires careful analysis of each of the sources. I believe that prior scholarship, especially regarding ancient perspectives on Aquila and his translation, as well as the popularity of his translation in various communities, has drawn conclusions based on overall impressions of texts that may appear quite differently when examined closely and in context. My goal in the following pages is to develop a more nuanced understanding of the history of Aquila's Bible translation in Late Antiquity.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 353 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Greek: Ἀκύλαϛ; Hebrew: . The English usage “Aquila” corresponds to the Latin.

2 For bibliography on this subject, see Giuseppe Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and “Canonic” Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2006) 164 n. 42.

3 Alec Eli Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1931). But as Leon Leibrich points out in his review of Aquila and Onkelos (JQR 27 [1937] 287–91), Silverstone was not by any means the first to discuss the relationship between Aquila and Onkelos.

4 See previous note. Moreover, already in the sixteenth century, the Italian scholar Azariah de Rossi set out to clear up this confusion and prove that the two were not the same. Sefer me—or eynayim (ed. David Cassel; Vilna: 1866) 383–93 (Imre vinah, ch. 45); English translation in The Light of the Eyes: Azariah de' Rossi (ed. Joanna Weinberg; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001) 571–85.

5 This excludes a number of traditions about Aquila, most notably a lengthy story in Tanḥuma Mishpatim 5 (Buber edition, Mishpatim 3). For a discussion of this text, see Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts, 170–72. See ibid., ch. 3, for other later rabbinic sources, as well as Hermann L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) for the dating and summary of scholarship about each book.

6 See Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 164–89, 276–90.

7 See ibid., 194–97.

8 The amoraic midrash on Genesis. See Midrash Bereshit Rabba (ed. J. Theodor and Chanoch Albeck; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965; repr., Jerusalem: Shalem, 1996) for introduction and critical edition. I cite the text according to ms Vat. Ebr. 30.

9 In the Bible the word means “stranger, sojourner” (See Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1951] 158 s.v. ). However, in rabbinic parlance it almost always means “proselyte,” and that is the sense in which Aquila uses it here.

10 Marcus Jastrow defines talit as follows: “Tallith, the cloak of honor, the scholar's or officer's distinction.” A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Press, 1971; repr., New York: Judaica Press, 1996) 537 s.v. . See also the comment of Chanoch Albeck, Bereshit Rabba 2:802, who notes the tannaitic midrash Sifre Devarim 343, which says: (Scholars are recognized by their utterances, and by their [manner of] walking, [and] by their wrapping themselves [in a tallit] in the market) (Hebrew text from M. Kahana, Qeta'e midrashe halakhah min ha-genizah [Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005] 320).

11 Thus ms Vat. Ebr. 30, the best manuscript for Genesis Rabbah. A marginal note there and the main text of several other manuscripts reads “he obtains the mitzvot (commandments).” See Theodor and Albeck, Midrash bereshit rabba, 802.

12

All translations not otherwise marked are my own.

13 Similarly, in many rabbinic texts the Roman emperor Antoninus is portrayed asking questions of Rabbi Judah the Prince, among the most prominent sages of his day, and there are even several texts suggesting that Antoninus converted to Judaism. But we would certainly not conclude therefore that Antoninus was a disciple of the Jewish sages, much less a sage himself. See Ofrah Meir, “Ha-terumah ha-historit shel aggadot Ḥazal le-'or aggadot Rabbi ve-Antoninus,” Ma anayyi 7 (1994) 8–25, and Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Conversion of Antoninus,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture (ed. Peter Schäfer; 3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 1:141–71.

14 Tanhuma Bereshit 5 provides a later parallel which is clearly reworked and fleshed out (and translated into Hebrew).

15 Hadrian does not specify the particular group to which he perceives Aquila belonging. While theoretically there are a variety of options (e.g., Jewish or Christian Bible readers, thinkers from the Roman East, philosophers, etc.), given the context, it is most likely that the author intended Jews, and possibly rabbis.

16

17 As Veltri also does (Libraries, Translations, and “Canonic” Texts, 173).

18 For a discussion of this phenomenon in general and numerous examples, see Moshe David Herr, “The Historical Significance of the Dialogues between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries,” in Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature (ed. Joseph Heinemann and Dov Noy; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971) 123–50.

19 Gen. Rab. 10:3, 78:1, Lev. Rab. 18:1, Lam. Rab. (Buber) 3.

20 See the story of Gaviha ben Pasisa approaching Alexander the Great: Megilat Ta'anit, 25 Sivan (Vered Noam, Megilat Ta'anit: Ha-nusaḥim, pesharam, toldotehem [Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003] 198–99), b. Sanh. 91a, and Gen. Rab. 61:7.

21 On this translation see Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Feldheim, 1965; repr., New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1994) 17. “Took out” implies that he rendered it. As for “the Latin,” Lieberman takes this to be the definitive translation of , which usually means “Aramaic,” based on a parallel text in the later Midrash Esther. While emending the Yerushalmi based on a later parallel should be done only with great caution, in this case the context indicates Latin () and Aramaic makes little sense. Lieberman takes this to refer to the Vetus Latina. Even if Lieberman's reading is potentially questionable, I follow it here since it makes sense, and since the meaning of this line has no bearing on my arguments below.

22 Strictly speaking this could mean either Scripture in its entirety, or the Pentateuch. We should not rule out the latter possibility merely because the Talmud cites Aquila's translations from the Prophets and Writings as well as the Pentateuch, since this tradition only describes what he translated before these two sages, not necessarily the entirety of his translation.

23 This is a pun on the word (you are fairer), since the rabbis identify the biblical Japeth () as Greece (see Gen 10:2). The comment also resonates with traditions such as y. Meg. 1:9, 71b (and parallels): (“May God dwell in the tents of Japeth” [Gen 9:27]—[meaning] that they shall speak the language of Japeth in the tent of Shem [=Jews]).

24

25 The opposite is often either claimed in passing or explicitly stated as a conclusion based on this passage of Yerushalmi, even by formidable scholars, but I respectfully disagree with this position, as I will explain below. For previous scholarship on this particular issue, see: Francis Crawford Burkitt, “Aquila,” in JE 2:34; Louis Ginzberg, “Aquila,” in JE 2:36; Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila. Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précedée d'une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l'influence du rabbinat palestinien (Leiden: Brill, 1963); Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, “Onkelos and Aquila,” in Encyclopedia Judaica (ed. Cecil Roth; 16 vols.; Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972) 12:1406. Nicholas de Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third Century Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 51, states, “it was a ‘rabbinic’ translation, produced, so tradition has it, at the instance of the Rabbis and approved of by them.” Lester Grabbe, “Aquila's Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,” JJS 33 (1982) 528, notes based on this text that Aquila “supposedly [used] their aid in doing his translation.” Philip S. Alexander, “How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?” in Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (ed. William Horbury; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) 84, says, “There are no serious grounds for questioning the Rabbinic tradition that Aquila was prepared under Rabbinic auspices in Palestine in the early second century c.e., possibly in the school of Aqiva.” Arie van der Kooij, “The Origin and Purpose of Bible Translations in Ancient Judaism: Some Comments,” ARG 1 (1999) 210, commenting on our passage writes, “This implies that the translation was made on the authority of these two scholars.” I will show that despite these scholars' other important contributions to our understanding of Aquila and his translation, there is good reason to reject the idea that the translation was produced specifically under the auspices of the sages.

26 Various scholars have summarized our passage or concluded from it a general Jewish appreciation of Aquila's translation. Whether or not that was the reality, it is not expressed in this text. The significance of this point will become clear below, as I contrast the implications of the rabbinic texts with those of the relevant early Christian texts.

27 Cf. van der Kooij, “Origin and Purpose of Bible Translations,” 210.

28 For the etymology of and its usage in rabbinic literature, see Shemuel Safrai, “The Targum as Part of Rabbinic Literature,” in The Literature of the Sages: Second Part (ed. Shemuel Safrai et al.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006) 244. See also Chaim Rabin, “Cultural Aspects of Bible Translation,” in Armenian and Biblical Studies (ed. Michael E. Stone; Jerusalem: St. James, 1976) 44. For lexical translations see Sefer arukh ha-shalem (ed. Alexander Kohut; 8 vols.; Vienna: Hotza—at Menorah, 1926) 8:274, s.v. ; Wilhelm Bacher, Erkhe midrash (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Karmi'el, 1969) 2:320–21, s.v. ; Jacob Lewy, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim (4 vols.; Berlin: Benjamin Harz, 1924) 4:668, s.v. ; Jastrow, Dictionary, 1695–96; Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002) 591, s.v. .

29 In order to communicate that he presented a written work, or that he studied and created a written work, the text would require words like or or and some verb to represent the handing over of a physical object. For example, when the Mishnah describes the composition of the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 27, it states: (And then they brought the stones and built the altar and plastered it with plaster, and they wrote on it all the words of the Torah in seventy languages) (m. Sotah 7:5). Similarly, regarding the book of Esther, the Yerushalmi states: (What did Mordechai and Esther do? They wrote a letter and sent it to our sages) (y. Meg. 1:5, 70d). Another example is the frequent reference in m. Git. to the writing and giving of bills of divorce: … ([If] he said … to three people: “Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife”) (m. Git. 6:7).

30 See, e.g., y. Bik. 3:3, 65d, and y. Sanh. 2:6, 70c.

31 See, e.g., Gen. Rab. 61:5, where we find the phrase (we translate, saying).

32 In fact, where Gen. Rab. 80:1 (not in connection with Aquila) employs the verb , its parallel in the later collection Midrash ha-Gadol (Gen 34:1) reads .

33 The Babylonian Talmud's use of or has the added valence of “explain,” but this is a uniquely Babylonian usage.

34 For example y. Sanh. 2:6, 20c, where a certain sage is said to utter a translation specifically in the synagogue of Tiberias. For the most recent scholarship on the practice of Targum in synagogues, see the literature cited in Steven D. Fraade, “Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy,” BIOSCS 39 (2006) 69–91.

35 A number of recent studies have focused on additional non-liturgical aspects of Aramaic Targum. Fraade, “Locating Targum,” seeks mainly to draw attention to the midrashic (as opposed to liturgical) function of interlinear synagogal translations, but see pp. 79–84 where he deals specifically with the interpretive, explanatory, or instructive nature of Targum, and see the literature he cites there as having overlooked this important aspect of Targum. See also Veltri's comments, Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts, 159–60, as well as the rest of his chapter three. Another useful study (with extensive bibliography) is Steven Fine, “ ‘Their Faces Shine with the Brightness of the Firmament’: Study Houses and Synagogues in the Targumim to the Pentateuch,” in Biblical Translation in Context (ed. Frederick W. Knobloch; Bethesda, Md.: University Press of Maryland, 2002) 63–92, esp. 63–67, though Fine adopts a perspective on Targum as “rewritten Bible,” which is in stark contrast to Fraade's portrayal. Van der Kooij, “Origin and Purpose of Bible Translations,” 207, 213, and passim, argues for “a scholarly milieu as the primary setting where the Bible translations, either in Greek or in Aramaic, were produced.” While I do not believe the evidence indicates the setting of the translations' origins, van der Kooij does succeed, like Fraade and Fine, in highlighting ways in which Targum functioned as midrash. Other important studies in this area are: Avigdor Shinan, “The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations,” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (ed. Derek R. G. Beattie and Martin J. McNamara; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 203–17; Rimon Kasher, “The Aramic Targumim and their Sitz im Leben,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Panel Sessions, Bible Studies and Ancient Near East (ed. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein and David Assaf; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 74–85; Anthony York, “The Targum in the Synagogue and School,” JSJ 10 (1979) 74–86.

36 Sifre Deuteronomy 161. Saul Lieberman has written, “But the first rudiment of the interpretation of a text is the ἑρμηνεία, the literal and exact equivalent of the Hebrew , which means both translation and interpretation. … The elementary task of the interpreter of the Bible was to explain the realia and to render the rare and difficult terms in a simpler Hebrew, or, sometimes, in Aramaic. The Tanaaitic Midrashim swarm with such translations. … These translations are sometimes quite instructive.” Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950; repr., New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1994) 48–49. Immediately following these statements Lieberman provides several examples, including rabbinic citations of Aquila's translations.

37 In our text about Aquila's recitation of his own translation, he is portrayed translating the entire Torah: . Nevertheless, no use of the extended translation is mentioned.

38 E.g., y. Ma'as. Sh. 1:3, 53a; y. Yoma 3:5, 40c; y. Yeb. 15:4, 15a; y. Nid. 3:4, 40d. In y. Ned. 9:10, 41c, R. Ishmael is eulogized as having praised sages when they would offer (an explanation or reason for a legal ruling).

39 E.g., the explicit statement in y. Sotah 5:2, 20a (see also y. B. Bat. 10:10, 17d) that in a certain case, R. Joshua's praise of R. Akiva was only for his midrash (his exegesis), even though the legal ruling does not accord with that midrash.

40 E.g., y. Ber. 6:1, 10a; 7:5, 11d.

41 I have not found this expression used quite this way in Tannaitic sources, which is notable since in our passage the two sages who praise Aquila are Tannaim. It is possible therefore that R. Hiyya bar Ba is not quoting a baraita (Tannaitic source), but rather is formulating the content of an older tradition in the parlance of his own day. It is even possible that the only authentic element of the tradition is the notion that R. Eliezer and R. Joshua heard Aquila's translation. However, I do not see fit to dismiss R. Hiyya bar Ba's tradition without further evidence simply because his locution is amoraic. If the reader would in fact dismiss it for this reason, I submit that the tradition is still useful simply as an indication of how a slightly later rabbi (R. Hiyya bar Ba) viewed Aquila's entrance into rabbinic circles. On this term, see Saul Lieberman, Keles kilusin, in Meḥqarim be-torat Erets Yisra'el (ed. David Rosenthal; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991) 433–39.

42 E.g., y. Kil. 8:1, 31b and parallels.

43 E.g., y. Sukkah 5:3, 55b; 5:5, 55c (=y. Shek. 5:1, 48c); Gen. Rab. 70:16.

44 Most scholars have assumed Akiva to have been his teacher according to y. Qid. 1:1, 59a, which says that Aquila translated a certain verse “before R. Akiva.”

45 Jerome, Comm. Isa. 8:11: “Akibas quem magistrem Aquilae proselyti autumant.” For bibliography on R. Akiva as Aquila's supposed teacher, see Grabbe, “Aquila's Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,” 527, and Ginzberg, “Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern VI. Der Kommentar des Hieronymus zu Jesaja,” in Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut (ed. S. W. Baron and A. Marx; New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1935) 291, where already seventy years ago he doubts, based on both Jerome and the Talmud, that R. Akiva was Aquila's teacher. See also Grabbe, “Aquila's Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,” 528 n. 9.

46 For example, in y. Ber. 6:1, 10a, after recording a disagreement between R. Nahman and the other sages () as to the specific formula of the blessing over bread, the Talmud records that R. Jeremiah uttered the blessing in accordance with R. Nahman's formula, whereupon R. Zeira, before whom he did so, praised him () for this—using the same verb as did R. Joshua and R. Eliezer for Aquila. In that case neither R. Nahman's behavior nor R. Zeira's praise reflected the general consensus of the sages.

47 In fact, Azariah de Rossi suggested the possibility that at least one sage specifically opposed Aquila's translation, namely R. Judah, who said (t. Meg. 3:41): “Anyone who translates a verse literally ()—he is a liar.” De Rossi writes, after noting Christian criticism of Aquila's literalism (see below): “In my opinion, this is one of the meanings of their [the Sages'] statement … ‘Anyone who translates …’ ” (Me'or Einayim, ch. 45). In addition, while there is evidence that R. Eliezer and R. Joshua were proficient in Greek, it is also the case that many other rabbis were not, and therefore might have no opinion or interest whatsoever in Aquila's translation. See Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 15–28.

48 This is corroborated by the fact that elsewhere in rabbinic literature, sages who live well after Aquila's lifetime cite him with the same active verb: (Aquila the proselyte translated).

49 On Palestinian rabbinic contact with non-rabbis, see Richard Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (New York: Routledge, 1999) 27–50, and Lee I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1985) 192–95.

50 Libraries, Translations, and “Canonic” Texts, 176–85.

51 Only two of the citations of Aquila are transmitted by rabbinic tradents, namely R. Yohanan (third century) and R. Tanhuma (late-fourth century).

52 Not including parallels. That is, some of these citations appear more than once within the same or contemporaneous rabbinic compilations.

53 Lamentations Rabbah exists in two recensions; see Paul Mandel, “Between Byzantium and Islam: The Transmission of a Jewish Book in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” in Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion (ed. Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000) 74–106. In the Buber edition, the text reads (correctly), “Aquila translated,” exactly as all the other attributions to Aquila read, whereas in the standard edition, the text reads (erroneously), “Onkelos translated,” which is surely a mistake (and the only extant example of its kind).

54 Jerusalem: Koren, 1997. English text revised and edited by Harold Fisch.

55 See Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 19–20, for explanations of these two cases.

56 Isa 3:20, Lev 23:40, Ps 48:15, Prov 18:21.

57 Ezek 23:43.

58 Gen 17:1 (one of the two words of the translation indeed corresponds to Greek Aquila), Lev 23:24, Isa 3:20, and Ezek 23:43, about which Veltri, Libraries, Translations and “Canonic” Texts, 180, notes: “The Hexaplarian fragment … reads quite differently in lexical terms, though semantically very similar.”

59 Unless there were different recensions of the translation.

60 See Ginzberg, Seride ha-Yerushalmi, 80. The geniza fragment reads: , while ms Leiden reads: . Both R. Yohanan and R. Yehudah are mentioned in the previous line, and R. Yehudah is mentioned after the translations, so either name could be an inadvertant addition. Due to chronology, it is impossible for R. Yohanan to be quoting R. Yehudah. R. Yohanan would make more sense if it is he who cites Aquila, but that citation may also be an interpolation.

61 Though the word is explained with two options, each introduced as “there are those who say.”

62 Veltri also points this out but differs in his explanation.

63 Perhaps it is presented in Hebrew because of the legal context, since only the legal valence of the verse is of interest, regardless of its lexical rendering or the precise definition of the verse. Lieberman suggests that it is Hebrew due to R. Akiva's lack of proficiency in Greek (Greek in Jewish Palestine, 20).

64 The text reads as follows:

It is possible that R. Hiyya, who introduces this last statement of R. Yohanan, intends to contradict the previously cited version of R. Yohanan's statement, pointing out that it was not Aquila whom R. Yohanan cited, but actually R. Lazar. However, it is more likely that if this were the case the Talmud or R. Hiyya himself would point out the contradiction more explicitly. Rather, I see R. Hiyya's statement as an attempt to buttress the halakhic point made via Aquila's translation.

65 For the slight manuscript variants, see Midrash Vayyiqra Rabbah (ed. Mordecai Margulies; Jerusalem: Ararat, 1953; repr., New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993) 242.

66 See also Veltri's brief discussion in Libraries, Translations and “Canonic” Texts, 183. The construction is difficult to render in English, since usually means “do not,” but is a noun.

67 A contrast may be helpful. As noted above there are a few examples of a Hebrew or Aramaic explanation being appended to Aquila's translation (see above nn. 56 and 57). A simple example is y. Sukkah 3:5, 53d (and its parallel), where Aquila translates the biblical , referring to a certain type of tree as , obviously a transliteration of the Greek ὕδωρ meaning “water.” The Talmud then anonymously explains (in Hebrew): “a tree that grows near [literally: on] water.” The explanation is necessary for anyone who does not understand Greek, though the midrash depends on the phonetic similarity of and ὕδωρ.

68 See the baraita in b. Meg. 15a and parallels (also in m. Avot 6:6, which is a later addition to that tractate), and Sifre Numbers 157; Sifre de-ve Rav (ed. Hayyim Saul Horovitz; Leipzig, 1917; repr., Jerusalem: Shalem, 1992) 213.

69 See Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006); Eugene Ulrich, “The Notion and Definition of Canon,” and James A. Sanders, “The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process,” both in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004) 21–35 and 252–63; Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardian of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995).

70 “The Birth (Gestations) of the Canon: From Scriptures to ‘THE Scripture’ in Early Judaism and Early Christianity” (lecture, University of Toronto, 12 April 2007; http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/temp/toronto2/jpgs/toronto2-2007.html).

71 See the sample of 48 double readings from various witnesses given by Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. Sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875) xxv-xxvii; English version: Frederick Field's Prolegomena to Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. Sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (trans. Gérard J. Norton; Paris: J. Gabalda, 2005) 54–56.

72 Kraft states, “The process of transmission in such an unregulatable world of individual small units created problems that usually must have gone unnoticed, except by very textually aware scholars such as Origen. The production of Origen's famous ‘hexapla’ was in part fueled by such issues.” “The Birth (Gestations) of the Canon.”

73 Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914) 60.

74 This is not a criticism; see below at n. 107.

75 Οὕτω γὰρ Ἀκύλαϛ δουλεύων τῇ Ἑβραίων λέξει ἐκδέδωκεν εἰπών· ϕιλοτιμότερον πεπιστευμένοϛ παρὰ ἱουδαίοιϛ ἠρμηνευκέναι τὴν Φραπήν· ῷ μάλιστα εἰώθασιν οἱ ἀγνοοῦντεϛ τὴν Ἑβραίων διάλεκτον χρῆσθαι, ὡϛ πάντων μᾶλλον ἐπιτετευγμένῳ. PG 11:52. Translation based on Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 10 vols.; New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1885; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994) 4:386 (henceforth ANF), with some changes. For “slave to the Hebrew language,” they provide, “following the Hebrew reading,” but this is not the literal translation.

76 Swete, Introduction, 33.

77 Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and “Canonic” Texts, 165–66.

78 For recent scholarship on the question of the knowledge and use of Hebrew among Jews in third-century Palestine, see Seth Schwartz, “Hebrew and Imperialism in Jewish Palestine,” in Ancient Judaism in Its Hellenistic Context (ed. Carol Bakhos; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 81–83 and the literature cited there.

79 “Et septuaginta quidem interpretes et angelos Dei dixerunt istos et filios Dei. Quod quidem non omnes codices habent, nam quidam nisi filios Dei non habent. Aquila autem, quem interpretem Iudaei ceteris anteponunt, non angelos Dei nec filios Dei sed filios deorum interpretatus est. Utrumque autem verum est.” Text and translation from Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans (ed. and trans. Philip Levine; LCL 414; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966) 4:555–57.

80 The most recent scholarship on this topic (to my knowledge) is Franklin T. Harkins, “Nuancing Augustine's Hermeneutical Jew: Allegory and Actual Jews in the Bishop's Sermons,” JSJ 36 (2005) 41–64. For prior scholarship see ibid., 43 nn. 1 and 2, and the literature cited throughout the article.

81 Greek with English translation and commentary in Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987) 402–11. See also Albert I. Baumgarten, “Justinian and the Jews,” in Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (ed. Leo Landman; New York: Ktav, 1980) 37–44.

82 Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, 408.

83 For a brief discussion of this question, see Nicolas de Lange, “Can We Speak of Jewish Orthodoxy in Byzantium?” in Byzantine Orthodoxies (ed. Andrew Louth and Augustine Casidy; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2006) 170–72.

84 Leonard Rutgers, “Justinian's Novella 146: Between Jews and Christians,” in Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire (ed. Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz; Leuven: Peeters, 2003) 385–407.

85 Literally, “that of Aquila.”

86 In this context “gentile” clearly means non-Christian.

87 πλὴν ἀλλʼ ώϛ ἄν μὴ τὰϛ λοιπὰϛ αὐτοῖϛ ἀποκλείειν νομισθείημεν ἑρμηνείαϛ, ἄδειαν δίδομεν καὶ τῇ Ἀκύλου κεχρῆσθαι, κἄν εἰ ἀλλόϕυλοϛ, ἐκεῖνοϛ καὶ οὐ μετρίαν ἐπί τινων λέξεων ἔχῃ πρὸϛ τοὺϛ ἐβδομήκοντα τὴν διαϕωνίαν (Novella Justiniani 146).

88 See Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and “Canonic” Texts, 167, for his suggestion.

89 Rutgers, “Justinian's Novella 146,” 394–95.

90 Rutgers suggests that the reason Justinian permits Aquila is as follows: “In Justinian's view, any translation of the Bible, including that of Aquila, was better than the original text in Hebrew. In fact, one could even go so far as to argue that Justinian's willingness to permit even Aquila's translation serves as yet another piece of evidence in support of the interpretation I have already put forward. In Novella 146 Justinian was only outwardly concerned with promoting the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. What Novella 146 really aimed at accomplishing was the total elimination of one thing only: the Hebrew language” (“Justinian's Novella 146,” 395). My claim dovetails that of Rutgers, in that I believe Justinian's permission to use Aquila was a cover for his attempt to eliminate something else, be it the Hebrew language or the Jewish interpretations of Scripture; since Aquila was a Jewish translator, as Justinian points out, he assumes the Jews who hesitated to abandon the Hebrew would be more likely to adopt this version of the Greek.

91 See for example the revised edition of Emil Schürer's History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973) 497: “Justinian … also permits Aquila's translation (which was therefore evidently preferred by at least some of the Jews).” The cautious “some of the Jews” is commendable, but it should be pointed out that while this is possible, it is by no means indicated that Justinian either knew or cared about what was preferred. He specifically states that his intention in permitting Aquila's version is so as not to appear too forbidding.

92 The nature of the Greek text in the early Christian centuries is not a simple matter, but is not our concern here. See Eugene Ulrich, “Origen's Old Testament Text: The Transmission History of the Septuagint to the Third Century, c.e.,” in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy (ed. Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988) 3–20.

93 Natalio Fernàndez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 200) 338. For an account of the specific comments of Church Fathers from Justin Martyr to Epiphanius on the authority of the Septuagint, see Mogens Müller, The First Bible of the Church (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 68–78.

94 See Field, Frederick Field's Prolegomena, 41. If we trust even approximately the historical accuracy of the rabbinic texts, this terminus ante quem is unnecessary, but it is nevertheless useful to know how early the translation reached Christian circles, though we should be cautious. Alison Salvesen points out: “since [Irenaeus] only cites their rendering of Isaiah 7.14, we cannot be sure that these revisions were circulating among Christians in their entirety, rather than as individual readings pertinent to Christian theological concerns.” “A Convergence of the Ways? The Judaizing of Christian Scriptures by Origen and Jerome,” in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ed. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 246.

95 “Deus igitur homo factus est, et ipse Dominus salvabit nos, ipse dans Virginis signum. Non ergo vera est quorumdam interpretatio, qui it audent interpretari Scripturam: Ecce adolescentula in ventre habebit, et pariet filium; quemadmodum Theodotion Ephesius est interpretatus, et Aqula Ponticus, utrique Judaei proselyti.” ὉΟ θεὸϛ οὖν ἄνθρωποϛ ἐγένετο, καὶ αὐτὸϛ κύριοϛ ἔσωσεν σημεῖον … Ἀλλʼ ούχ ὡϛ ἔνιοί πασιν τῶν νῦν τολμώντων μεθερμηνεύειν τὴν γραϕήν· ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνιϛ ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, ὡϛ θεοδοτίων ἡρμένευσεν ὁ ʼΕϕέσιοϛ καὶ Ἀκύλαϛ ὁ Ποντικόϛ, ἀμπότεροι ʼIουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι. Adversus haereses 3.21.1; Greek from Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.10. PG 7:946. Translation from ANF 1:451.

96 See previous note. The word ἑρμηνεύω is commonly used in the texts I have examined to indicate translations, so too much should not be read into that particular usage, though it is noteworthy that etymologically it bears the sense of interpretation. Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1843) 690, provide for the various forms a number of meanings: “interpretation, explanation … translation … interpreter, esp. of foreign tongues … expound … put into words, express.” G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) 549, gives “translate” as a second or third definition of some of its forms, including the form used here (ἑρμηνεία, ἑρμηνευτήϛ, ἑρμηνεύω), while other forms are restricted to the realm of interpretation (ἑρμηνεύϛ, ἑρνηνευτέον, ἑρμηνευτικόϛ). Lampe gives “translate” as the first and “interpret” as the second meaning of μεθερμηνεύω, citing its use regarding Theodotion and Aquila, while he gives “interpreter” as the translation of μεθερμηνευτήϛ (Patristic Greek Lexicon, 838). While the Hebrew and Aramaic in its Babylonian usage has the sense of explanation, far more commonly in the Bavli, and always in Palestinian texts, it means simply “translate,” and in fact we saw a few instances where it is used specifically as opposed to (explained) and (said). Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 591, gives only “translate,” not “interpret.” Jastrow, Dictionary, 1695–96, gives for the various entries related to both “interpret” and “translate,” as well as other definitions, but his definitions include Babylonian valences. In Sokoloff's A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002) 1231–32, he includes “interpret” and related definitions in his entries for forms of . The Greek words here for translation, it seems to me, have a stronger valence of interpretation. See also Müller's disccussion, First Bible of the Church, 107–9.

97 It is possible that Ireneaus was using these words in their classical sense, which does not distinguish words for translation and interpretation. The fact that he does not go out of his way to use a word that means strictly “translate” does not mean that he intended his word to be understood otherwise. (I am grateful to Prof. Eleanor Dickey for her assistance on this matter; any mistakes are my own.) Therefore I do not mean to overstate this point. I merely note that the rabbis did use a word that means strictly to translate, and that Ireneaus's choice of words, whether or not it in and of itself indicates much, does agree with a difference in attitude attested in other ways, as I will show below.

98 Justin Martyr, though not referring to Aquila, also criticizes Jews for altering the Greek text of various biblical passages on theological grounds. For a discussion and sources, see Robert A. Kraft, “Christian Transmission of Jewish Greek Scriptures,” in Paganisme, judaïsme, christianism. Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique. Mélanges offerts à Marcel Simon (ed. A. Benoit et al.; Paris: de Boccard, 1978) 208–9.

99 “Vere impudorati et audaces ostenduntur, qui nune volunt aliter interpretationes facere.” PG 7:949. Translation from ANF 1:452.

100 But see Norman R. M. de Lange, “The Letter to Africanus: Origen's Recantation?” StPatr 15 (1985) 247: “[Origen] did not dare, like Jerome, to assert publicly the primacy of the Hebrew over the Septuagint, but he believed in it.”

101 See Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 11.14, on Matt 15:14. Origen also speaks of an apologetic aim in his undertaking (Letter to Africanus 2.2), but that is not our concern here. See Norman R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 50, and idem, “Letter to Africanus,” 242–47.

102 Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodition's translations. Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 102–3, writes of Origin's Hexapla: “His ultimate object was the discovery of the ‘true’ text of the LXX, and to this end he brings to his aid other Greek versions known to him which might be of help in elucidating the Hebrew.” Jellicoe goes on to quote Samuel R. Driver: “He assumed that the original Septuagint was that which agreed most closely with the Hebrew text as he knew it: he was guided partly by this, partly by the other Versions (Aq. Theod. Symm.), which were based substantially upon it” (italics his). Cf., however, de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 50–51, who states: “It is not true to say that Origen fully recognised the primacy of the Hebrew over the Greek versions” (see also Swete, Introduction, 68), and goes on to assert that Origen's interest in the Hebrew and his relationship to the Septuagint are somewhat more complex than often appreciated. See Swete, Introduction, 58–60, as well as Sebastian P. Brock, “Origen's Aims as a Textual Critic of the Old Testament,” StPatr 10 (1970) 215–18; John Wright, “Origen in the Scholar's Den: A Rationale for the Hexapla,” in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy (ed. Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988) 48–62; and Joachim Schaper, “The Origin and Purpose of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla,” in Origen's Hexapla and Fragments (ed. Alison Salvesen; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 3–15. Most recently, see the discussion of Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 117–28. It is not my intention to assume any specific answer to the complex question of Origen's motivations in producing the Hexapla; I merely rely on this aspect of the project that is particularly relevant to our discussion, and that numerous scholars have asserted and defended.

103 After delineating his understanding of the word “law”: Εὗρον γὰρ τὰ ἰσοδυναμοῦντα τῇ λέξει ταύτῃ ἐν τῇ τοῦ Ἀκύλου ἑρμηνείᾳ κείμενα. (And this is in effect what I found in Aquila's interpretation.) Philocalia 9.2 (trans. George Lewis; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911) 49.

104 Philocalia 14.1: Τὸ γὰρ τεταγμένωϛ < καὶ;> ἀκουλούθωϛ τῷ τεχνολογουμένῳ κατὰ τὸν τόπον προτετάχθαι τὰϛ προσηγορίαϛ, εἶτʼ ἐπιϕέρεσθαι τὰ κατηγορήματα, κεκίνηκεν ἡμᾶϛ μήποτε τὸ πρᾶμα καὶ παρὰ τῷ θεράποντι νενόηται οὕτωϛ ἔχον, καὶ μάλιστα ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ κυριώτατα ἑρμηνεύειν πιλοτιμούμενοϛ Ἀκύλαϛ οὐχ ἄλλο πεποίηκε παρὰ τὴν προσηγορίαν καὶ τὸ κατηγόρημα. (“The orderly and systematic arrangement of the passage, the names coming first and then the predicates, roused our suspicions that the matter was so understood by the servants of God, and all the more because Aquila, who strove to interpret most literally, has only distinguished the name from the predicate;” Lewis, 60).

105 This follows Swete's reading, Introduction, 33. For a general discussion of Origen's complex attitude towards literalism, see Charles J. Scalise, “Origen and the Sensus Litteralis,” in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy (ed. Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988) 117–29.

106 See Epiphanius' Treatise on Weights and Measures: The Syriac Version (ed. James Elmer Dean; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935) 2. Only the Syriac survives in full. Dean's translation notes slight differences between the extant Greek fragements, none of which are significant for our purposes, so I provide only the English translation.

107 See Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and “Canonic” Texts, 166, and Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 111.

108 As Dean notes (Epiphanius' Treatise, 1), “Among the Greek Fathers of the Christian church Epiphanius holds an important place. This is not because of his literary ability or his constructive achievements, but rather because of his great and far-reaching influence, in the main reactionary.”

109 Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures 15–16; translation from Dean, Epiphanius' Treatise, 31–32.

110 Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures 17; Dean, Epiphanius' Treatise, 33–34.

111 Dean, Epiphanius' Treatise, 33–34.

112 However, Irenaeus raises issues that Epiphanius does not. Note in particular that Epiphanius says nothing about the New Testament being based on the Septuagint, but only that the Septuagint is an inspired text.

113 There has been much scholarship on this topic. See Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Significance of Yavneh,” HUCA 55 (1984) 27–53; Lawrence H. Schiffman, Who Was a Jew: Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, Ltd., 1985) 41–49; Catherine Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 240–54; Daniel Boyarin, “The Diadoche of the Rabbis; Or, Judah the Patriarch at Yavneh,” in Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire (ed. Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz; Leuven: Peeters, 2003) 285–318; de Lange, “Can We Speak of Jewish Orthodoxy?” 168–72; Alain Le Boulluec, La notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque des IIe-IIIesiècles (2 vols; Paris: àtudes Augustiniennes, 1985). This is not to say that the rabbis, or other types of Jewish communities for that matter, were limitlessly pluralistic; far from it. But they did not seek uniformity of scriptural interpretation to anywhere near the degree that the Church Fathers did.

114 See Müller's discussion, First Bible of the Church, 113–23, and Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators,” HUCA 46 (1975) 89–114.

115 See Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 346, and Rabin, “Cultural Aspects of Bible Translation,” 43, though they perhaps overstate the matter in apparently extending this to all Christian and all Jewish communities. I, on the other hand, see this phenonemon as just one of the dynamics at play.

116

117 Gen 1:1, .

118 “Et tamen jure Septuaginta editio obtinuit in ecclesiis, vel quia prima est, et ante Christi facta adventum, vel quia ab apostolis (in quibis tamen ab Hebraico non discrepat) usurpata. Aquila autem proselytus et contentiosus interpres, qui non solum verba, sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est, jure projicitur a nobis. Quis enim pro frumento et vino et oleo possit vel legere vel intelligere χεῦμα, ὀπωρισμόν, στιλπνότητα, quod nos possumus dicere “fusionem,” “pomationemque” que et “splendentiam.” Aut, quia Hebraei non solum habent ἄρθρα, sed et πρόαρθρα, ille κακοζήλωϛ et syllabas interpretatur et litteras dicitque σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν, quod Graeca et Latina lingua omnino non recipit. Epistle 57, PL 22:577–78. Translation from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (ed. and trans. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace; New York: Christian Literature, 1893; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994) 6:118 (henceforth, NPNF).

119 On traditionalism with regard to the Septuagint's authority, see Müller, First Bible of the Church, 87–94.

120 On the complex topic of Jerome's relationship to the Septuagint and to biblical translators in general—Jewish and Christian'see Sarah Kamin, “The Theological Significance of the Hebraica Veritas in Jerome's Thought,” in Shaarei Talmon: Studies in Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 243–53, and Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Questiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 41–72.

121 Hillel Newman, Heyronimus ve-ha-Yehudim (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1997) 75. For citations and discussions of Jerome's citations of Aquila, as well as his citations of Symmachus and Theodotion, and how they figure into his own exegesis and his Latin translation, see Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible.

122 “Jam pridem cum voluminibis Hebraeorum editionem Aquilae confero, ne quid forsitan propter odium Christi Synagoga mutaverit: et ut amicae menti fatear, quae ad nostram fidem pertineant roborandam, plura reperio.” PL 22:446. Translation from NPNF 6:46.

123 See Swete, Introduction, 34, and the texts he cites there.

124 On Jerome and the Jews in general, see Newman, Jerome and the Jews, and the extensive bibliography he cites.

125 Kamin, “Theological Significance,” 252.

126 See ibid., 247, citing Jerome's preface to his translation of Genesis.

127 See ibid., 252 and n. 31 there, citing Jerome's Apologia contra Rufinum. See also Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible, 69 and n. 112 there.

128 Sciens ergo et prudens in flammam mitto manum: et nihilominus hoc a fastidiosis lectoribus precor, ut quomodo Graeci post Septuaginta translatores, Aquilam et Symmachum et Theodotionem legunt, vel ob studium doctrinae suae, vel ut Septuaginta magis ex collatione eorum intelligant: sic et isti saltem unum post priores habere dignentur interpretem. Legant prius, et postea despiiant: ne videantur, non ex judicio, sed ex odii praesumptione ignorata damnare. PL 28:826–27. Kevin P. Edgecomb's translation: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_isaiah.htm.

129 For an in-depth discussion of Jerome's arguments of this sort, see Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible, 58–72.