stephan huller

Any Christian sect that embraced Aquila necessarily would have to give up using Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophesy to prove that Jesus was the Christ.

tanya

Yes, "anoint" represents mistranslation, for Jesus is no longer living.

No, "smear" is not more convincing, for in Mark 16:1, the human body is dead.

The closest translation of ἀλείψωσιν, Strong 218, in this context, is "embalm".

Can you please elaborate this point? Is there a specific passage from the Torah/tanakh that Aquila translates as ἀλείψωσιν, while Symmachus, and the other versions of Origen's Hexapla translate as χρίω? For that passage, then, what is the correct translation, and do all of our extant Hebrew versions, employ the same Hebrew word, or, is it possible that Aquila's starting material differed from that employed by Symmachus and the others? Does Hebrew preserve the same distinction in meaning, as is found in Greek and English (light touch offered in reverence, versus vigorous application of the oil, in a quasi medical fashion)?

a. how do we know that Clement's version is "older"?
b. how do we know that Clement has not simply revised Matthew?
c. Is there a similar concept (the importance of preserving intimacy with god, i.e. privacy, regarding intentions, instead of seeking public recognition for charitable works...) expressed anywhere else, in Greek or Hebrew literature?

Finally, is it mere coincidence, that Marcion, and Aquila both lived about the same time, and both lived in the same region, Pontus, Northeastern Turkey, i.e. far from the madding crowd, certainly not mainstream headquarters for either Judaism, or Christianity?

:huh:

maryhelena

All roads lead to Marcion...........(85 c.e. - 160 c.e.)

The synoptic trail might well lead to Marcion - as the holder of a copy of an ur-Luke. And if that is so, then Marcion is not guilty of mutilating gLuke (i.e a finished product.....) If anything, this idea, that Marcion had a copy of an ur-Luke, might well suggest that ur-Luke was the first of the synoptic gospels: A version of the JC story without a birth narrative and without the Herodias/Herod/JtB story. (actually, that would make an u-Luke an update on gJohn - the update being the 15th year of Tiberius setting)

This would not date the gospel writing to the time of Marcion - it simply suggests that, somehow, he found an earlier copy - and with that earlier ur-Luke was able to shout out that some others had been adding to ur-Luke - transforming into gLuke. That, to my mind, is all the Marcion problem is - an issue of an early ur-Luke - and what that would mean for the synoptic problem - and the historicity of the gospel JC.

And, of course, that does not mean Marcion was the originator, the author, of an ur-Luke. The JC story was long in the cooking pot...an ur-Luke being only a link in the chain of it's development. A link in the synoptic chain dated prior to Antiquities: gLuke (a final version)has no mention of the marriage of Herodias to Philip - dating itself post Antiquities - and possibly early 2nd century. gMark, with mention of this marriage - dates itself to pre Antiquities.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....04#post7284304

sotto voce

So it has to be conceded, in the face of inconvenient facts, that the Church of Rapacious Crime is way off authenticity with its cautious little χρίω dab that magically forgives sins; but don't forget that three gods are better than one, folks.

stephan huller

The first question of course is what does Aquila mean in his choice of ἀλεῖψαι in 9:26? Is his word choice more 'literal' than christos? Then what did the Marcionites (= Lactantius's Christian group which called Jesus 'chrestos' rather than christos) seize upon with respect to Aquila's translation? I can see a compelling argument that the Marcionites were just using the most authoritative translation available to them of Daniel. In other words, their rejection of christos was 'innocent.' Maybe Aquila's was the first Greek translation of Daniel. Remember Origen calls Theodotion's translation 'the LXX.' Perhaps no Greek translation existed until Aquila.

stephan huller

I wish I could find an English translation of the relevant sections of Philastrius. My Latin is not sufficient to get the underlying sense of the material.

stephan huller

The reference to Septuaginta enim duo dixerunt: Adversum dominum, et advenus Christum eius" Aquila autem, "Adversus Dominum, et adversus Enctuin ejus" is the same point made by Lactantius against the Marcionites. The reference to the rejection of the translation 'virgin' goes back to Justin and Irenaeus. There is a pattern in literature related to Justin of the material being directed at both Jews and Marcionites (cf. parts of Tertullian's Against Marcion Book 3, 4 and 5 as well as the obvious reuse of material in Against Marcion 3 and Tertullian's Against the Jews.

The unmistakable sense again is that the followers of Marcion - no less than Aquila himself - were some sort of Jewish sect which held that the god referenced in the Pentateuch was not the most high God but a subordinate power (hence Aquila's translation of El Shaddai as 'the sufficient God'). Eusebius confirms this interpretation of El Shaddai with specific reference to Aquila in Demonstration of the Gospel. He says that the Jewish Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) never saw the Christian god. The original sense however was that the Patriarchs never saw the Father - a belief which later became heretical in the late second century Catholic Church.

I remember reading in the earliest Roman legal texts that the Roman state in the late fourth century required that Jews using a Greek text could only use 'the LXX' authorized by the government (not the original LXX of course; the Christianized version).

sotto voce

Et in terra, terror.

stephan huller

but think about it. if there was an existing "Christianity" before Marcion there would have to be a standardized Greek edition of Daniel. Where is that before Aquila? it doesn't exist. i think a compelling case can be made that Christianity didn't exist before Aquila and therefore Hadrian. i am starting to go back to the idea that Marcion simply means the lesser Mark - ie that the Catholics identified him as "the Mark who came after our Mark" the alleged disciple of Peter being a wholly fictitious Mark. it would be interesting to see if Hadrian had any close associates named Marcus who spoke Aramaic or were Jewish

stephan huller

i have never seen daniel 9:24 - 27 used as a proof for bar Kochba which is odd. he is always "the star out of Jacob."