tanya

So far as I am aware, our only extant version, of Aquila's original Greek translation, of the then extant Hebrew text, is found in the only extant manuscript representing Origen's Hexapla, the original version of which, itself, had been destroyed by Islamic invaders in the 7th century, but which, apparently, exists in a mishmash of extracts, gathered together, one reads, by Frederick Field, in the nineteenth century, and available then, today as a freely accessible pdf file, the link to which, stephan conveniently omitted, "actually".

How do we know that Field's version of Origen is genuine, reliable, accurate, and pure as the driven snow?

:huh:

stephan huller

I am actually coming around to accepting that there may be an argument for a second century dating of the gospel. That doesn't mean I am saying its right. But Aquila changes everything. His interpretation of Daniel can be argued to have already had the events of the Bar Kochba war in mind. Also from what Eusebius quotes of his translation of Micah:

These events do not fit the description of 70 CE but rather 135 CE. I have found proof that the Marcionites used Aquila from Lactantius's Divine Institutes but what is need to take it to decisive proof is evidence Aquila was incorporated into the Marcionite New Testament. The argument isn't then that the canonical gospels were first but rather for (a) Marcionite primacy and (b) a concerted attempt in the age following the revolt to recast the gospel(s) as being related to the first destruction.

Again we are a few steps away from something respectable. The evidence isn't there yet. But it is important to note that the Marcionites could look to Aquila for support for their rejection of the concept of the messiah.

Aquila never uses the word χριστός to translate either וְלִמְשֹׁ֖חַ (Dan 9:24) or more importantly מָשִׁ֖יחַ (Dan 9:26). This is massively significant because no one has noticed before that Lactantius effectively reports that the Marcionites justified their rejection of χριστός and preference for based on Aquila's translation. This means (a) that the Marcionite tradition can't be older than Aquila's translation and (b) that Aquila had some other formula in mind.

Let me break it further down for my readers. Here is Eusebius's reference to Aquila's translation of 9:24:

Eusebius points to Aquila's translation of 9:26 as:

How big of a discovery is this? I've only started to sort this out but here is a treat for those reading this. Daniel is the only reference to the concept of the messiah. In Aquila it is not there. Hence Marcionitism is finally explained and its denial that Jesus was the Christ.

I think a weaker but potential plausible argument can be made for Acts being written after 140 CE (i.e. after Aquila).

The material here is from Deuteronomy chapter 18 but the LXX doesn't use this term. Could it be that Aquila expanded this section. No such advise to 'destroy those completely' who disobey the prophet is found anywhere else.

stephan huller

I was driving home from McDonalds when I realized something else. There is a fundamental different sense between what Aquila has with respect to oil and Symmachus and the rest. χρίω usually has the sense of "to touch the surface of a body slightly, esp. of the human body, graze" while ἀλεῖψαι has the sense of taking lots of oil and rubbing it all over the body like an athlete. The important thing is that there is no association at all with kingship.

stephan huller

how on earth did an anti-messianic translation like the Aquila text get off the ground? who on earth was the intended audience? and perhaps most important question of all - what forces (or force) led to the rabbis accepting Aquila as the authoritative Greek text when it was so anti-messianic? the answer has to be that the text was called the "eagle" brand because it was imposed by the Roman government. how else would this monstrosity have not only gotten off the ground but ultimately become authoritative? it boggles the mind

sotto voce

Bodily anointing was very widely used for medical and cosmetic purposes, oils being solvents for many perfumes, and anointing of the forehead was used to honour guests or other persons. Priests could be said to be symbolically made whole or consecrated by anointing in preparation for their role. One of the oldest political concepts was of the priest-ruler, whose authority was increased as vicegerent of the national deity, so this may well account for the anointing of civil monarchs who were not also priests. So symbolic forehead anointing is really a development of more practical anointing.

stephan huller

But Clement knows an older version of the same saying from his (unknown) gospel:

Compare our Matthew saying:

with his:

Sheshbazzar

Ye olde 'cooked' books.

stephan huller

And I am going through all the references to this term in the New Testament and I notice repeated mention of two ideas - the 'sick' and the 'dead':

Of course there is the concept of the leper messiah in rabbinic Judaism but it doesn't seem possible that it is what Marcion would have had in mind when he read Aquila's translation. Of course the idea of a religion of resurrected and anointed people makes much better sense given what actually happens in Christian baptism (and Secret Mark). I also wonder if the term 'anoint' here is a mistranslation. 'Smear' is far more appropriate:

stephan huller

On the authority of Aquila's translation cf. y. Meg. 1:9 (71c) ”Aquila the proselyte translated the Torah before R. Eliezer and R. Joshua and they praised him, and said to him: Thou art fairer than the children of men.' (Ps 45.3)

stephan huller

Philastrius, bishop of Brescia, a younger contemporary of Cyril wrote a work toward the end of his life (he died in 397) called “On different heresies”, referencing both Christian and Jewish groups. Among these he included reference to some Christian sects which preferred Aquila's translation to the LXX;

Philastrius also says: