Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-27-2012, 01:40 PM

From an abridgment of the Justinian code:

Quote:

The Hebrews should read the Scriptures in the synagogues and in the other places or assemblies not only in the Hebrew language but also in the language common to each place. If they should read in Greek, however, they shall use only the translation of the Septuagint or the other by Aquilas. [Linder p. 32]

A surviving fragment of Aquila's translation used in a synagogue service c. end fifth century/beginning of the sixth century CE has survived from the Cairo Geniza http://books.google.com/books?id=I-x...ing%22&f=false

stephan huller · 10-27-2012, 01:50 PM

However, Aquila, a proselyte and contentious translator, who has attempted to translate not only words (uerba) but also the etymologies (etymologias) of the words (uerborum), is rightly rejected (proicitur) by us. For who is able to read and to understand χευμα (that which is poured), οπωρισμον (vintage), στιλπνοτητα (brightness) [words from Deut 7:13], for grain and wine and oil [Deut. 7:13], in so far as we are able to read “pouring” (fusionem) and “harvesting of fruit” (pomationem) and “shining,” (splendentiam)? Or because the Hebrews not only have αρθρα (connecting word, the article), but also προαρθρα (prefixes), so that he κακοζηλως (in bad style) may interpret both syllables and letters and he may say συν τον ουρανον και συν την γην [Gen. 1:1; Aquila renders the marker of the direct object in Hebrew with συν, even though this rendering has no acceptance in Greek or Latin], which no Greek and Latin dialect accepts? We are able to take his precedent of the matter from our discussion. For how many words are spoken well among the Greeks, which, if we translate according to the word, do not resound in Latin, and from a region, where they are pleasing among us, if equally the words are altered with respect to the arrangement, then among the Greeks they will displease. [Epistula LVII, 11]

stephan huller · 10-27-2012, 02:37 PM

Just something odd that I have noticed mentioned over and over again. Jerome says repeatedly that Aquila had two editions of his translation much like I suppose like Clement references two editions that Mark made of Peter's original gospel.

Quote:

"and he will make them like “bad figs,” which Theodotion translated as sudrinas, the second edition of Aquila as “very bad” and symmachus as “very recent.” in hebrew they are called suarim" [Jerome Commentary on Jeremiah trans. Christopher Hall p. 179]

in place of“Terror,” which in Hebrew is magur, the LXX and Theodotion translated metoikon, that is, “migrating,” the second edition of Aquila put “foreigner,” the first edition of Aquila put “looking around,” and Symmachus translated “carried off” or "gathered together" or "collected." [ibid p. 121]

in place of“sor,” Symmachus translated “rock,” Theodotion put “enclosed,” the first edition of Aquila translated “firm,” and his second edition put “Tyre.” For sor or sur in the Hebrew language can mean “Tyre,” “stone” or “constrained.” [ibid p. 128]

For the Hebrew word nebel,49 the first edition of Aquila put “flask,” his second edition put the word nebel itself, Symmachus put “bowl,” the LXX put “wineskin” and Theodotion put “vessel.” all of them are filled not with oil, water, honey, milk or any [p. 83]

stephan huller · 10-27-2012, 10:24 PM

Clement of Alexandria's version of Daniel 9:24 - 27:

Quote:

ἑβδομήκοντα ἑβδομάδες συνετμήθησαν ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν σου καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ συντελεσθῆναι ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦ σφραγίσαι ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀδικίας, καὶ τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι καὶ τοῦ ἀγαγεῖν δικαιοσύνην αἰώνιον, καὶ τοῦ σφραγίσαι ὅρασιν καὶ προφήτην, καὶ τοῦ χρῖσαι ἅγιον ἁγίων. καὶ γνώσῃ καὶ συνήσεις ἀπὸ ἐξόδου λόγου τοῦ ἀποκρίνασθαι καὶ τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἕως χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου ἑβδομάδες ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομάδες ἑξήκοντα δύο, καὶ ἐπιστρέψει καὶ οἰκοδομηθήσεται πλατεία καὶ τεῖχος, καὶ κενωθήσονται οἱ καιροί. καὶ μετὰ τὰς ἑξήκοντα δύο ἑβδομάδας ἐξολοθρευθήσεται χρῖσμα (the smearing shall be overthrown), καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῷ. καὶ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον διαφθερεῖ σὺν τῷ ἡγουμένῳ τῷ ἐρχομένῳ· ἐκκοπήσονται ἐν κατακλυσμῷ· καὶ ἡμίσει τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἀρθήσεταί μου θυσία καὶ σπονδή· καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων, καὶ ἕως συντελείας καιροῦ συντέλεια δοθήσεται ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν. καὶ ἥμισυ τῆς ἑβδομάδος καταπαύσει θυμίαμα θυσίας καὶ πτερυγίου ἀφανισμοῦ ἕως συντελείας καὶ σπουδῆς τάξιν ἀφανισμοῦ. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐν ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάσιν ᾠκοδομήθη ὁ ναός, τοῦτο φανερόν ἐστι [Strom 1.21]

stephan huller · 10-28-2012, 12:38 AM

I have to admit I am quite confused by all of this. There is no way that what passes as 'the LXX of Daniel' is actually the LXX:

a) ever since the late second century Christianity the understanding was accepted that Jesus was the Christ of Daniel 9:26
b) the LXX has always been the preferred text (or so I thought)
c) yet our 'LXX' has χρῖσμα (smearing) rather than Christ
d) also Origen cites Theodotion as 'the LXX' (i.e. another LXX other than our LXX of Daniel
e) also Philastrius's citation of Aquila's supposed translation of Dan 9:26 - 'unctum Dei' - appears in none of the known translations.

Moreover, Clement of Alexandria clearly assumes that the first anointed (Dan 9:24) is not Cyrus the Great but another Cyrus called Ochus (http://books.google.com/books?id=QXs...iel%22&f=false)

Quote:

In this (Strom 1.21) the last three Persian kings are : Darius, eight years : Artaxerxes, forty-two years: Ochus, three years. If, therefore, we correct Tertullian's (Against the Jews) nineteen years of Darius to eight, we get just forty-nine years or seven weeks of years from Darius' first year to Ochus, ' qui et Cyrus

So Clement, Tertullian (Justin) and the author of a later dialogue called Athanasius and Zacchaeus share the same system. As Conybeare notes the critical passage here in the Stromata is:

Quote:

At that time Zorobabel, having by his wisdom overcome his opponents, and obtained leave from Darius for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, returned with Esdras to his native land; and by him the redemption of the people and the revisal and restoration of the inspired oracles were effected; and the passover of deliverance celebrated, and marriage with aliens dissolved. Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. And his promise being accomplished in the time of Darius, the feast of the dedication was held, as also the feast of tabernacles.

So the first seven weeks ends with the rise of this Cyrus Ochus:

Quote:

147 Darius II Ochus The Great King, King of Kings ? – 404 BC 423 BC 404 BC Son of Artaxerxes I
148 Artaxerxes II Arsaces The Great King, King of Kings 436 BC – 358 BC 404 BC 358 BC Son of Darius II
149 Artaxerxes III Ochus The Great King, King of Kings ? – 338 BC 358 BC 338 BC Son of Artaxerxes II Killed

It would seem that DCH's identification of Artaxerxes is correct albeit with one important distinction - sixty two weeks or 434 years elapse before the next 'event' in the narrative.

Since the reign of this 'Ochus' is from 358 - 338 CE the sixty two week period end anywhere from 76 - 96 CE. The 'smearing' is ended then and then another 7 years the prophesy comes to completion.

I don't see how Clement makes this square with history but it is clear that is relying on another chronographer for his information.

stephan huller · 10-28-2012, 01:13 AM

The point again is that there are only two Greek translations - Symmachus and Theodotion - which actually render 9:26 as christos. One would think that the authoritative texts of Christianity would support this reading. Yet the only two accepted texts are the LXX and Aquila and both of these do not support any identification of this figure as the messiah let alone Jesus. WTF is going on here?

stephan huller · 10-28-2012, 11:15 AM

i think the interpretation which developed from Aquila and the LXX was that the priestly line was cut off in the 69th week. this is the minority position in rabbinic Judaism.

if this interpretation arose from the Greek translations (Aquila, LXX) the early Christians who used these texts must have seen Jesus as the god who established a new priesthood through a new oil rite

stephan huller · 10-29-2012, 12:06 AM

Of course, the unnoticed inference from this application of the Seventy Weeks prophesy is that all the Jewish claims that Samaritanism is a schism from their Jerusalem-based is complete bullshit. They can't have it both ways. Either Jerusalem was established after the reign of 'Cyrus the Great' or - as the Seventy Weeks interpretation demands it - the 'restoration' of Jerusalem happened during the reign of Artaxerxes III and rabbinic exegesis sort of makes sense (although it is still off by a few years).

I have never understood how anyone could possibly believe that the Samaritans are an offshoot of a Jerusalem cultus. Everything points to a late Jewish schism from Samaritanism. Now Clement's placing of Ezra at the reign of Artaxerxes III finally makes sense. Jerusalem is not a holy city. It isn't even mentioned by name in the Pentateuch. WTF is the matter with people? Can't they read?

stephan huller · 10-29-2012, 10:27 AM

According to Jerome Origen, in his lost Stromata, announced his intention of using Theodotion's Daniel in preference to the LXX . — an objective which certainly reached fruition, as, in the words of Gwynn, 'the result of an examination of all to suppose the LXX of the book to be an early draft of his translation. Very few people realize that there is a general obscurity about the text of Daniel used by early Christian witnesses from the Epistle to the Hebrews to Irenaeus. I think it might have been the second edition of Aquila which would date the entire religion to the second century.

stephan huller · 10-29-2012, 03:00 PM

an edition of the Bible in six versions. Especially it applies to the edition of the Old Testament compiled by Origen of Alexandria, which placed side by side:

1. Hebrew
2. Secunda – Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters
3. Aquila
4. Symmachus the Ebionite
5. A recension of the Septuagint, with (1) interpolations to indicate where the Hebrew is not represented in the Septuagint—these are taken mainly from Theodotion's text and marked with asterisks, and (2) indications, using signs called obeloi (singular: obelus), of where words, phrases, or occasionally larger sections in the Septuagint do not reflect any underlying Hebrew.
6. Theodotion

I think the list is chronological here implying at least that what passes as 'the LXX' was written at the end of the second century.

10-27-2012, 01:50 PM	#162
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Jerome's Critique of Aquila's Translation However, Aquila, a proselyte and contentious translator, who has attempted to translate not only words (uerba) but also the etymologies (etymologias) of the words (uerborum), is rightly rejected (proicitur) by us. For who is able to read and to understand χευμα (that which is poured), οπωρισμον (vintage), στιλπνοτητα (brightness) [words from Deut 7:13], for grain and wine and oil [Deut. 7:13], in so far as we are able to read “pouring” (fusionem) and “harvesting of fruit” (pomationem) and “shining,” (splendentiam)? Or because the Hebrews not only have αρθρα (connecting word, the article), but also προαρθρα (prefixes), so that he κακοζηλως (in bad style) may interpret both syllables and letters and he may say συν τον ουρανον και συν την γην [Gen. 1:1; Aquila renders the marker of the direct object in Hebrew with συν, even though this rendering has no acceptance in Greek or Latin], which no Greek and Latin dialect accepts? We are able to take his precedent of the matter from our discussion. For how many words are spoken well among the Greeks, which, if we translate according to the word, do not resound in Latin, and from a region, where they are pleasing among us, if equally the words are altered with respect to the arrangement, then among the Greeks they will displease. [Epistula LVII, 11]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-28-2012, 01:13 AM	#166
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The point again is that there are only two Greek translations - Symmachus and Theodotion - which actually render 9:26 as christos. One would think that the authoritative texts of Christianity would support this reading. Yet the only two accepted texts are the LXX and Aquila and both of these do not support any identification of this figure as the messiah let alone Jesus. WTF is going on here?

10-28-2012, 11:15 AM	#167
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	i think the interpretation which developed from Aquila and the LXX was that the priestly line was cut off in the 69th week. this is the minority position in rabbinic Judaism. if this interpretation arose from the Greek translations (Aquila, LXX) the early Christians who used these texts must have seen Jesus as the god who established a new priesthood through a new oil rite

10-29-2012, 12:06 AM	#168
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Of course, the unnoticed inference from this application of the Seventy Weeks prophesy is that all the Jewish claims that Samaritanism is a schism from their Jerusalem-based is complete bullshit. They can't have it both ways. Either Jerusalem was established after the reign of 'Cyrus the Great' or - as the Seventy Weeks interpretation demands it - the 'restoration' of Jerusalem happened during the reign of Artaxerxes III and rabbinic exegesis sort of makes sense (although it is still off by a few years). I have never understood how anyone could possibly believe that the Samaritans are an offshoot of a Jerusalem cultus. Everything points to a late Jewish schism from Samaritanism. Now Clement's placing of Ezra at the reign of Artaxerxes III finally makes sense. Jerusalem is not a holy city. It isn't even mentioned by name in the Pentateuch. WTF is the matter with people? Can't they read?

10-29-2012, 10:27 AM	#169
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	According to Jerome Origen, in his lost Stromata, announced his intention of using Theodotion's Daniel in preference to the LXX . — an objective which certainly reached fruition, as, in the words of Gwynn, 'the result of an examination of all to suppose the LXX of the book to be an early draft of his translation. Very few people realize that there is a general obscurity about the text of Daniel used by early Christian witnesses from the Epistle to the Hebrews to Irenaeus. I think it might have been the second edition of Aquila which would date the entire religion to the second century.

10-29-2012, 03:00 PM	#170
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	an edition of the Bible in six versions. Especially it applies to the edition of the Old Testament compiled by Origen of Alexandria, which placed side by side: 1. Hebrew 2. Secunda – Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters 3. Aquila 4. Symmachus the Ebionite 5. A recension of the Septuagint, with (1) interpolations to indicate where the Hebrew is not represented in the Septuagint—these are taken mainly from Theodotion's text and marked with asterisks, and (2) indications, using signs called obeloi (singular: obelus), of where words, phrases, or occasionally larger sections in the Septuagint do not reflect any underlying Hebrew. 6. Theodotion I think the list is chronological here implying at least that what passes as 'the LXX' was written at the end of the second century.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.