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

Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late
Antiquity: Jewish and Christian

Perspectives*
Jenny R. Labendz
Jewish Theological Seminary, New York
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.
■ The Rabbinic Sources

The only ancient Jewish sources that mention Aquila or use his translation are
rabbinic, dating from the early-third to fifth centuries, though of course, these
sources do not represent the full extent of Late Antique Jews and Judaism in
*
I am grateful as always to Dr. Richard Kalmin for his invaluable guidance on this paper. I also
wish to thank Drs. Burt Visotzky and Robert A. Kraft, whose comments on my drafts were extremely
helpful, as well as Dr. Eleanor Dickey, Kevin P. Edgecomb, Justin Dumbrowsky, and Adam Parker
for their help particularly with the patristics and with Greek. Any mistakes are of course my own.
1
Greek: ©%OYZPEb; Hebrew: WP]U?. 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.
HTR 102:3 (2009) 353–88

354 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Palestine or elsewhere. I shall show that the rabbinic literature gives quite a different
picture than the one that emerges from the early Christian writers’ portrayals of the
reception of Aquila’s translation among the Jews. Since these two groups of texts
have often been indiscriminately grouped together when discussing Aquila, it is
worth reevaluating what each has to say on its own terms.
Before proceeding to the texts, a note on Aquila and Onkelos is in order. Owing
in large part to A. E. Silverstone’s 1931 study, Aquila and Onkelos,3 scholars have
long accepted the notion that Aquila is identical to Onkelos, a character mentioned
numerous times in the Tosefta and to whom the Aramaic Bible translation is
attributed in the Babylonian Talmud. However, there is no basis for this claim.
As early as 1937, Leon Leibrich published a review of Silverstone’s book that
pointed to flaws in his logic, textual analysis, and assumptions, as well as to blatant
inaccuracies in the work.4 Based on Leibrich’s review and other points that space
does not permit me to delineate here, it is clear to me that Onkelos bears no relation
to Aquila.
In addition to excluding from my discussion traditions about Onkelos, I have
also chosen to focus only on classical rabbinic texts, that is, those produced
before the sixth century.5 This includes the Palestinian Talmud (henceforth, the
Yerushalmi, redacted between the late-fourth and early-fifth centuries) and the
classical midrashim: Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, and Eichah Rabbah
(redacted circa the fifth century in Palestine).6 There is no mention of Aquila in
the Babylonian Talmud (redacted during the sixth century).7 I exclude the later
Palestinian texts because I am interested specifically in the centuries closest to
the time of Aquila’s life and in the first stages—not the later development—of his
appearance in rabbinic literature. While rabbinic texts both before and after the sixth
century contain sources that originate in the early rabbinic period, from the sixth
century onwards rabbinic editors begin to rework their sources more thoroughly
and more heavy-handedly than they had previously. Since the nature of the sources
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.
JENNY R. LABENDZ 355
shifts in this way, I shall attempt to answer the questions at hand by sticking closely
to the earlier corpora of rabbinic literature.
We can divide the rabbinic texts about Aquila into two groups: narratives about
Aquila’s activities, and reports of his translations of specific biblical words or
phrases. These texts can answer two questions: 1) to what extent Aquila’s translation
was “popular” among the rabbis; and 2) what role Aquila himself is portrayed
as having played within rabbinic society. The answers that will emerge from the
rabbinic texts are: 1) Aquila’s translation was popular insofar as he provided some
helpful explanations of difficult biblical words or phrases; and 2) his role within
rabbinic society is portrayed as having been ambiguous.
On the other hand, the rabbinic sources will not show that Aquila’s translation
came from rabbinic circles, or that the rabbis used it in general as a Bible version
they appreciated and adopted as their own, or that Aquila’s translation had any
ideological significance for the rabbis. While a number of early Christian writers
refer to Aquila’s translation as the favorite of the Jews, the rabbinic sources
suggest that the situation was much more nuanced. Moreover, although a number
of Christian writers related to Aquila’s translation on ideological grounds, Aquila’s
ideology was not at stake for the rabbis.
■ The Narrative Texts: Portrayals of Aquila’s Place in

Rabbinic Society
Genesis Rabbah8 70:5
Aquila the proselyte approached R. Eliezer.

He (Aquila) said to him: Is this the entirety of a proselyte’s gain: “[God]
loves the proselyte,9 providing him bread and raiment” (Deut 10:18)?
He (R. Eliezer) said: Is a matter about which the patriarch (Jacob) begged
unimportant in your eyes? “And [if God] will give me bread to eat [and
clothing to wear]” (Gen 28:20). And this one (i.e., the proselyte) comes and
[God] hands it to him with a reed (i.e., simply pronouncing it the reward of
the proselyte in Deut 10:18)!
He approached R. Joshua, who began comforting him with words: “Bread”
refers to the Torah, as it is said, “Go and eat of my bread” (Prov 9:5);
“clothing” refers to talit.10 When a person obtains Torah, he obtains it for
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 VK 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. VK). 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
his children;11 and further, that person’s daughters may marry priests, and
their children’s children sacrifice burnt offerings upon the altar.12
In this story, Aquila approaches two sages with a complaint about the rewards
of conversion to Judaism. R. Eliezer responds harshly while R. Joshua responds
reassuringly. For our purposes, two points are worth considering, both relating to
the portrayal of Aquila’s place within rabbinic society.
First, the text portrays Aquila as having had sufficient access to the sages—or at
least to these sages—as to engage two prominent figures in conversation. However,
we should not overstate this; it does not necessarily portray him as a disciple of
these two sages, and even if it did, we should not assume this reflects an historical
reality. Classical rabbinic texts portray many types of people as asking questions
of rabbis, and we cannot assume a master-disciple relationship in every instance.
Below we will discuss a text depicting the emperor Hadrian asking Aquila a question
about Judaism, and we certainly would not therefore conclude that Hadrian was
Aquila’s disciple.13
The second noteworthy point is that this story depicts Aquila expressing a
measure of insecurity. He is disturbed that the only reward the Bible mentions for
a proselyte is financial, and he is unimpressed. While the sages defend the status
of proselytes, the story portrays Aquila as expressing concern about the implied
worth (or lack thereof) of his status as a convert. Both sages hold that the rewards
of conversion to Judaism are indeed great, but the text uses Aquila as a foil for the
opposite position. The author’s choice of Aquila for this role may reflect a perception
Literature (New York: Judaica Press, 1971; repr., New York: Judaica Press, 1996) 537 s.v. X]PJ.
See also the comment of Chanoch Albeck, Bereshit Rabba 2:802, who notes the tannaitic midrash
Sifre Devarim 343, which says: U[pFÚXT]J?FÚO[P]LFÚL]V[F]HFÚ]VO]R]QON]H]QPX (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
NP[PXXPVKFL[E[ "VQERpVKPp[NFpPO]VL:[PVQE.V^?]P'VP\EWRORVKLWP]U?
?(L]:]]VFH)"LPQp[
[PLJ]p[L[LÊF['[K["POEPNP]PÚXR["?ÚU^L[]P?JFNXRpVFHÞ]R]?FE]LLPU]O[:VQE
!LRUF
]PpQ)"]QNPF[QNP[OP"VQERpLV[XL[^"NP":]VFHF[QNRQP]NXL[?p[L]'VP\EWROR
LR[LOPÚL]X[RFQÚ]E]pQÚLpEPEH[?EP[,[]RFPLO^LV[XPHELO^.X]PJL^"LPQp",(L:J
.NF^QL]FKP?X[P[?]F]VUQL]X[RF]RF[]L[
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 Ñazal le-’or aggadot Rabbi ve-Antoninus,” MaÝanayyim @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.
that his place within the rabbinic fold was unclear, whether on the basis of being
a convert or on some other unstated basis.
Thus this text, on the one hand, portrays Aquila as asking questions of the sages
and expressing a yearning to be a valued member of Jewish society on the basis of
rabbinic values. Indeed, he converses with prominent sages. On the other hand, we
cannot say with confidence that the rabbis considered Aquila to have been a sage
or disciple. In the following text, we find a similar ambiguity.
Yerushalmi Hagigah 2:1, 77a14
R. Yudah bar Pazi [said] in the name of R. Yosse son of R. Yudah: Hadrian
asked Aquila the proselyte:
Is it true that you (plural)15 say that the world is sustained by wind?
He said to him: Yes.
He (Hadrian) said to him: Based on what do you say this?
He (Aquila) said to him: Bring me camels.
He brought him camels.
He (Aquila) loaded the camels with burdens, stood them up and made them
kneel, took them and strangled them. He (Aquila) said to him (Hadrian):
Here you go; stand them up.
He (Hadrian) said to him: After you strangled them?!
He said to him: I have taken nothing from them; is it not (merely) wind that
I took from them?16
The first thing to note17 is that there are numerous similar stories in rabbinic
literature, involving prominent Greeks, Romans, and Persians (including emperors)
conversing or interacting with rabbis.18 Hadrian himself appears in the classical
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
VKLWP]U?PPEpW[R]]VHELH[]]FV]F]W[]]FVpF]^TVFLH[]]FV
?EN[VP?]]UEQP?Ú]LHÚ]VQEÚ[XEÚ]Jp[U
.Ú]EL]PVQE
?]P?H[QXEÚLÚQL]PVQE
.Ú]RK[L]P]X]]EL]PVQE
.Ú[Q]UEÞPELL]PVQE.Ú[URN[Ú[XWR.Ú[?FVE[Ú[Q]UE.Ú[L]R[?JÚ[R[R[?JE.Ú]RK[LL]P]X]]E
!?Ú[XURNHÚQL]PVQE
?Ú[LR]QXUTRHE]LEN[VEPÚ[RXVWN[POL]PVQE
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.
midrashim asking R. Joshua b. Hananiah—the same R. Joshua with whom Aquila

is associated—similar questions to the one posed to Aquila.19 Therefore, there is
little about Aquila specifically, or the rabbinic perception of Aquila, that we can
derive from this story.
What we can conclude is that Aquila is portrayed as an insider among the
Jews; if there is an “us” and “them” relationship between Jews and Romans, the
text portrays Aquila squarely on the Jewish side (“Is it true that you (plural) say
. . .”). But again, we should not overstate the matter; not only do important sages
like R. Joshua converse with non-Jews, but sometimes a person who specifically
lacks prominence is chosen to speak with an emperor.20 Therefore, as above, we
see that while Aquila is remembered as a Jew, there is no indication that he is a
prominent figure or a learned disciple of any sort. This remains a possibility, of
course, but there is no evidence for that conclusion from the narratives involving
Aquila that we have seen.
Yerushalmi Megillah 1:8, 71a–b

The next narrative text is the one most commonly cited in the scholarly literature
about Aquila, as it refers explicitly to his translation of the Bible.
It is taught (in the Mishnah): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:
Scripture was only permitted to be written in Greek (or Hebrew).
They investigated and found that the Torah is able to be sufficiently
translated only into Greek.
A barbarian (or watchman) “took out” for them the Latin from the Greek.21
(Said) R. Yirmiyah (early-fourth century) in the name of R. Hiyya bar Ba
(late-third century): Aquila the proselyte translated the Torah22 before R.
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-nusaÝim, 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 X]QVE, 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 (]Q[VÚ[pP) 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.
Eliezer and R. Joshua, and they praised him, saying to him “You are fairer23
than the children of men” (Ps 45:3).24
Scholars have drawn various conclusions from this text about Aquila’s relationship
to these two sages, about his translation’s general acceptance or popularity within
the Jewish community at large, and about these two sages’ perspectives on his
translation. I believe, however, that close attention to the particular wording of this
passage in the context of similar usages throughout rabbinic literature can offer a
more nuanced understanding of this text and its implications. First, however, in
response to previous scholarship, I will point out what the text does not say:
1) The text does not indicate that Aquila composed his translation under the
auspices of any sage.25
2) The text does not indicate any wider rabbinic approbation of Aquila’s
translation than that of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.26
23
This is a pun on the word X]T]T] (you are fairer), since the rabbis identify the biblical Japeth
(XT]) as Greece (see Gen 10:2). The comment also resonates with traditions such as y. Meg. 1:9,
71b (and parallels): pPp[PL[EFXT]Pp[R[pPFÚ]VFHQ[]L]pp]PLEFÚ[Op]XT]P]LPEXT]
(“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
.X]R[[]EPE[FXO]p[V]XLEP]VTWFEVQ[EPE]PQKÚFÚ[?QpÚFV]RX
.X]R[[]EPELOV[\POKVX]LPLP[O]LV[XLÚ]Ep[E\Q[[UHF
.X]R[[]Þ[XQX]QVELPEH]FHNE]RKV[F
?p[L]]FV]RTP[V^?]PE]FV]RTPLV[XLVKLWP]U?KV]XEFVFE]]N]FVpFL]QV]]FV
.HE]RFQX]T]T],[P[VQE[[X[E[WP]U[
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
3) The text does not indicate that any written text was physically presented to
the sages,27 much less adopted as a synagogal Targum.
4) The text does not indicate at what stage in Aquila’s life this interaction
occurred.
I turn now to what this text does indicate, beginning with R. Hiyya bar Ba’s
opening word: KVX. Our understanding of this verb colors the entire picture of this
interaction.28 First of all, it refers to speech: Aquila verbally translated Scripture
before these two sages.29 This verb is never used in rabbinic literature to denote
studying (whether Scripture in general or Targum); almost everywhere else it is used
in the Yerushalmi it is followed by a quotation.30 Thus, KVX stands in only for words
like VQE (said)31 or pVH (expounded),32 and not Fp] (sat) or HQP (studied).33
While there are instances of this verb denoting the synagogal practice of
Targum (the interlinear recitation of an Aramaic translation during the weekly
public reading of the Torah),34 it is also clear that translations of individual words
or verses sometimes served a midrashic, scholarly function entirely separate from
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 KVX 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. KVX; Wilhelm Bacher, Erkhe midrash (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Karmi’el,
1969) 2:320–21, s.v. KVX; Jacob Lewy, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim (4 vols.;
Berlin: Benjamin Harz, 1924) 4:668, s.v. KVX; Jastrow, Dictionary, 1695–96; Michael Sokoloff,
A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002)
591, s.v. KVX.
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 Fp] or HQP or FXO 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: NF^QLXE[RF[]RFELXE[E]FLÞOVNE[
Ú[pP]?FpFLV[XL]VFHPOXE[]P?[FXO[H]WF[L[HW[ (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:
[R]X[FVP[NPp[XVKE[FXOVXWE[]OHVQ[p?LQ (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: ]XpEP[RX[JK[FXOLpPpP. . .VQE ([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 Ú]VQE[Ú]QKVXQ (we translate, saying).
32
In fact, where Gen. Rab. 80:1 (not in connection with Aquila) employs the verb KVX, its
parallel in the later collection Midrash ha-Gadol (Gen 34:1) reads pVH.
33
The Babylonian Talmud’s use of EQKVX or LQKVX 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,
their liturgical functions.35 I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to deduce

in which sphere these translations originated—that of liturgy or scholarship—but
there is ample evidence that they were used in both.
Biblical translations may have been useful in rabbinic scholarly circles in a
variety of ways. A frequently cited Tannaitic midrash states: “Scripture leads to
targum, targum leads to mishnah (the legal teachings), mishnah leads to talmud
(argumentation).”36 There are plenty of examples of either the entirety of a midrashic
comment consisting of no more than a translation, or of a translation being embedded
within a midrashic discussion, among other types of midrashic techniques. That is
to say, not only could a translation as an extended composition be useful for Jews
(whether in the academy or the synagogue), but the translations of individual words
and phrases embedded within it—atomistically, separate from the composition
as a whole—could be useful pieces of midrash.37 Rabbinic citations of Aquila’s
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 I.VQLRIMZE, the literal and exact equivalent of the Hebrew [KVX, 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: LV[XLVKLWP]U?KVX. Nevertheless, no use of the extended translation is mentioned.
translations (below) will serve as clear examples of this sort of atomistic translation
functioning as midrash.
A further indication that Aquila’s recitation of his translation fit into the normal
routine of rabbinic activity is the phrasing of the sages’ response. In the Yerushalmi,
there are numerous instances of one sage offering a praiseworthy interpretation
(legal38 or otherwise39) or behaving in a proper way (such as reciting one or the other
of a disputed formula for a certain blessing),40 and a teacher responding just as R.
Eliezer and R. Joshua do here—by praising the person (using the same verb as is
used here: W-P-U),41 and often expressing that praise with a biblical verse appropriate
to the situation.42 Thus, Aquila’s recitation of his biblical translation was received
by the sages to whom he presented it just as any clever, proper, or insightful point
offered by a sage or student might similarly be received.
In contrast to the previous two narratives concerning Aquila, here he occupies
an unambiguous position within the normal rabbinic social structure. Thus the
perspective on Aquila expressed in this text is somewhat different from that of the
other two. It seems that the sages related to Aquila as a person slightly differently
from how they related to him as a Bible translator. In the two stories about Aquila
that have nothing to do with his identity as a translator, his role is ambiguous. But
when discussing Aquila as a Bible translator, there is no ambiguity about his value
and his welcome place within the rabbinic fold. This phenomenon may be explained
by noting that since the sages used Aquila’s translation for their midrashim (see
the citations below), they needed to portray the translation’s entrance into their
purview in terms of a familiar rabbinic context.
In addition, several other Palestinian rabbinic passages feature a scholar
translating a biblical phrase before (]RTP) a teacher, as in our case.43 It should be
noted in this context that speaking, expounding, or asking a question before a
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 LOPL?J (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 MeÝUEVMQFIXSVEX
)VIXW=MWVE¸IP (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.
given sage does not indicate that this sage is one’s primary teacher, though we can
assume the perception of some relationship (whatever its precise nature) between
Aquila and R. Eliezer and R. Joshua since they appear together in more than one
text. In another place in the Yerushalmi, Aquila is recorded as having translated a
particular verse before R. Akiva.44 No source indicates that Aquila was either the
principal student of these sages, or that they were his principal teachers. The rabbis
portray him in contact with them, but this may simply be because they were three
of the most prominent sages of their day. Jerome mentions two centuries later that
Aquila was a student of R. Akiva,45 but again this tradition may have developed
since R. Akiva was such a prominent sage. Alternatively, this may reflect Jerome’s
perception that he was a full-fledged disciple of the sages, but as we have seen, this
is not expressed unequivocally in rabbinic texts.
The description of Aquila translating before certain sages shows that he is
perceived to have afforded them respect and shared his knowledge with them, but
this may be true even of one who is not himself a sage. Thus, from this text, like
the above two narratives, while Aquila is most certainly depicted in a rabbinic
context, there is no clear depiction of him as a sage or as a disciple. He is present
in rabbinic circles, but overstated conclusions should be avoided.
I turn now to the question of the acceptance of, or enthusiasm for, Aquila’s
translation among sages other than the two who are mentioned in our passage. The
rabbinic authors and editors were quite able to express general consensus among
sages (at least of a certain time and place) with the term ]QON (sages), whose
collective positions are often opposed in rabbinic texts to minority positions, and
with expressions such as ]QON[P[H[L (the sages assented to him). Here, we have
no such expression of general agreement; only these two rabbis are mentioned.
Moreover, in numerous cases of individual sages “praising” (WPU) a person for
their insight or behavior, that insight or behavior accords specifically with one—of
at least two—extant possible traditions.46 In our case, I would not suggest that R.
Eliezer and R. Joshua necessarily reflect a minority opinion in appreciating the
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 (ÚRFV) 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 (L]WPU) 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.
translation, but it is clear that it does not imply anything beyond the opinion of
these two sages.47
Furthermore, we cannot draw any conclusions about the point in Aquila’s life
or career at which his translation before the sages occurred. The verb KVX, as I
noted, does not mean to compose a translation; Aquila recited something already
composed (since we assume he did not compose it on the spot).48 Therefore, it is
plausible, for instance, that he composed the translation ten or twenty years prior and
enjoyed considerable popularity (or the opposite) in synagogues in, say, Asia Minor,
and only then approached the rabbis. It is equally possible that he first offered his
translation to the rabbis, and only then branched out to other communities of Jews
or to the synagogues. The point is simply that some questions regarding the origin
of Aquila’s translation are not answerable based on the rabbinic evidence, and this
evidence should not be used for historical reconstruction of Aquila’s career.
To summarize my conclusions about this group of texts, in each story Aquila is
depicted as a Jew somewhat integrated into rabbinic society, but only in his role as
Bible translator is he depicted as fully within the fold. Still, in none of these texts
do we find a clear depiction of Aquila as a sage or disciple of the sages; indeed we
need not assume that everyone who interacted with Palestinian rabbis was himself
a rabbi.49 Aquila is present in rabbinic circles, but his role is ambiguous.
■ Citations of Aquila in Rabbinic Literature

Giuseppe Veltri50 has already provided translations and explanations (particularly
valuable due to his analysis of the Rabbis’ transliterated Greek) of each of the
citations of Aquila in rabbinic literature, so I shall not reproduce all the texts
here. What I shall add to Veltri’s analysis is specific attention to the context of the
citations, and a closer analysis of what the citations (in form and content) can tell
us about the role Aquila’s translation played within Palestinian rabbinic circles of
Late Antiquity.
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 ([XV[\O)—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: VKLWP]U?KVX (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.
Aquila is cited51 eleven times52 in the Yerushalmi and the Palestinian amoraic
midrashic collections (Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, and Lamentations
Rabbah).53 Veltri provides translations for the following verses and words (given
here in Hebrew with English translation from the Koren edition of The Holy
Scriptures):54
Gen 17:1 (Genesis Rabbah 46:3) ]Hp Almighty (Shaddai–
name/description of
God)
Lev 19:20 (Yerushalmi Qiddushin XTVNRLNTp a bondmaid designated
1:1, 59a)
Lev 23:40 (Yerushalmi Sukkah 3:5, VHL hadar (type of tree)
53d; Leviticus Rabbah 30:8)
Isa 3:20 (Yerushalmi Shabbat 6:4, pTRL]XF[ and the perfume boxes
8b)*
Ezek 16:10 (Eichah Rabbah 1:1)** LQUV embroidered cloth
Ezek 23:43 (Leviticus Rabbah 33:6) LPFP to her that was worn out
Ps 48:15 (Yerushalmi Megillah 2:4, X[QP? to the death
73b; Mashqin 3:7, 83b; Leviticus
Rabbah 11:9)***
Prov 18:21 (Leviticus Rabbah 33:1) ]]N[X[Q death and life
Prov 25:11 (Genesis Rabbah 93:3) X[]OpQF in ornaments
Dan 5:5 (Yerushalmi Yoma 3:8, 41a) EXpVFR lamp stand
Dan 8:13 (Genesis Rabbah 21:1) VFHQL]R[QPTP to that certain one who
spoke
*
And see Louis Ginzberg, Seride ha-Yerushalmi min ha-genizah asher be-Mitsrayim (New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary, 1909) 80.
**
Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and “Canonic” Texts, 179–80, cites the parallel in Song of
Songs Rabbah.
***
Veltri does not note the parallel in Leviticus Rabbah, which happens to provide a better
transcription of the Greek.
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.
Two of the translations (Lev 19:20 and Dan 8:13) are recorded, however, only
in Hebrew,55 and several are followed by Hebrew56 or Aramaic57 explanations of the
Greek. A few of the rabbinic citations58 contradict the Greek witnesses to Aquila
(others have no parallel in the extant fragments). These points can help us evaluate
the source or sources from which the rabbis drew in citing Aquila.
If the rabbis had written copies of Aquila’s translation to consult, one would
expect that their citations would come closer to those of our extant texts,59 and that
the original Greek would not be omitted, even if it had to be re-translated. This
observation, in conjunction with the more important fact that the word introducing
all of the citations—KVX—specifically denotes oral translation, should lead us to
rule out the rabbis possessing a written text of the translation.
Did the rabbis then possess an orally transmitted version of Aquila’s translation?
Or did they simply retain atomistic translations of difficult texts? I am inclined
towards the latter view since, apart from the narrative discussed above, the rabbis
never refer to the composition as a whole. But at present there is simply not
enough evidence in this case to ascertain what the rabbis preserved, beyond what
they actually report. The narrative tradition cited above reflects an awareness that
Aquila did not merely provide ad hoc translations, but it is the only source for such
an awareness. Indeed, that tradition may have been embellished to make a point
about the value of Greek translations in general, since the topic under discussion
there is the translation of the entire Torah.
As I noted in passing, citations of Aquila’s translation are always introduced with
the phrase WP]U?KVX (Aquila translated). In contrast, many other translations of
words are recorded anonymously in rabbinic literature, often simply into Aramaic.
Why do Aquila’s translations of a select few words merit rabbinic repetition in
Greek and citation of his name? This question is particularly apparent upon reading
Yerushalmi Shabbat 6:4, 8b. This passage provides word-by-word translations,
mainly into Aramaic (although three times the translations are into Hebrew, and
sometimes the translations are accompanied by a helpful related verse), first of
Numbers 31:5 and then of Isaiah 3:18–23. In the midst of this word-by-word
translation, we come across Aquila’s translation of the phrase pTRL]XF in Isaiah
3:20, introduced as always with WP]U?KVX (Aquila translated). The passage as
a whole begins with an attribution to a sage, though it is not clear whether the
intention is Rav Yehudah (the Babylonian sage, third century) or R. Yohanan (the
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.
Palestinian sage, third century),60 and only for this one phrase (out of twenty-six
words and phrases translated) is the origin of the translation, here Aquila, cited.61
Was this the only phrase in these verses for which they knew Aquila’s translation,
or was it the only phrase for which they were interested in it, and if so why?
These are only some of the many questions suggested by such a passage, but
unfortunately answers are scarce. In any case, it is more fruitful to inquire into
how the rabbis made use of whatever they did know, and into how they portray the
figure of Aquila. From this example we learn that while Aquila’s translations are
uniquely stamped with the label WP]U?KVX, they otherwise fall right into place
as standard points of interest for the rabbis. One of the things rabbinic texts do is
provide translations of difficult biblical words, phrases, and verses.
The fact that each and every one of the attributed citations of Aquila begins
WP]U?KVX (Aquila translated) can help us understand the role the rabbis perceived
him to have played in their world. Aquila is always introduced this way even when
the citation appears beside a rabbi’s Aramaic translation introduced merely by
“Rabbi so-and-so said.”62 The introduction, “so-and-so translated” to a translation-
interpretation is used in rabbinic literature many times, but Aquila is unique in that
his translations are never introduced by a different verb (VQE, pVH, etc.), and in
that these translations are his only contribution to rabbinic literature. Aquila only
translates.
This fact is difficult to interpret. It is possible either that this reflects a second-
class status afforded him, or that it reflects a special respect shown to him as a
professional; it is possible either that the rabbis knew that he was a professional
biblical translator, or that all they knew was that he never happened to say anything
besides translations or explanations of individual verses or words. This observation,
when considered in conjunction with the narrative texts, suggests that while he is
perceived as being integrated into rabbinic society in some way, his primary value
lies in his distinct capacity as a Bible translator.
Thus despite not being himself a sage, the traditions recorded in Aquila’s name
are unambiguously valuable midrashic comments, recorded as on par with other
rabbinic exegeses of the Bible. I shall now emphasize this point with a few examples
which also generally illuminate the rabbinic usage of Aquila’s translations.
In y. Qid. 1:1, 59a, Aquila’s translation of Leviticus 19:20 is incorporated by
R. Yohanan into a halakhic discussion about the “designated maidservant” and
the annulment of her marriage. R. Samuel son of R. Isaac asks a question, and the
60
See Ginzberg, Seride ha-Yerushalmi, 80. The geniza fragment reads: LH[L]FVÚRN[]'VVQH, while
MS Leiden reads: LH[L]FVVQH. 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 ^Q[O[ is explained with two options, each introduced as “there are those
who say.”
62
Veltri also points this out but differs in his explanation.
Talmud then includes two alternative possibilities, each based on a statement of R.

Yohanan. The Talmud then buttresses the second possibility with a further statement
of R. Yohanan, namely his citation of Aquila’s translation—in Hebrew63—of Lev
19:20. This is followed immediately by yet another statement, again in the name of
R. Yohanan: ]QON]RTPÚ[?Qp]FV]FV^?P]FVLpV]TÚO (Similarly R. Lazar son of
R. Shimon explained it before the Sages), followed by the exact same translation
and explanation as R. Yohanan had cited in the name of Aquila.64
Thus, the exact same statement is introduced first as “Aquila translated,” and then
“R. Lazar son of R. Shimon explained.” But it is Aquila’s translation that is cited
first and solves the halakhic question posed by R. Samuel at the beginning of the
pericope; the sage’s explanation buttresses Aquila’s translation, not the other way
around. Thus, while R. Yohanan appears aware that Aquila’s role was as translator,
the editor of this talmudic pericope understood these translations as exegeses with
legal force like the statement of any sage.
The Talmud uses Aquila’s translation uniquely in Yerushalmi Yoma 3:8, 41a.
Here the question under discussion is how to interpret a Hebrew word used in the
Mishnah: Helene, the mother of Munbaz of the royal family of Adiabene who
converted to Judaism in the first century C.E., is reported by the Mishnah to have
donated a golden XpVFR (nivreshet) to the temple. The Talmud first mentions the
Aramaic translations of two unnamed sages, grouping them together with the
introduction Ú]V[QEÚ]VX (Two amoraim. One said . . . and the other said . . .). Next
the Talmud cites Aquila’s translation of Daniel 5:5—EXpVFR (nivrashta)—which is
taken to be the Aramaic of the Mishnah’s XpVFR(nivreshet). Presumably, EXpVFR
(nivrashta) was a difficult or uncommon enough Aramaic word that the two amoraim
cited did not bother to mention it, since it would clarify nothing (or alternatively it
simply did not occur to them). However, Aquila’s translation of this biblical Aramaic
word could illuminate its cognate Hebrew word in the Mishnah.
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:
EFP[X[UPQLÚQLVJ[TPLQ\?XELR[UE]LLQFLT[VNLNTpE?FUN\]FVVFPE[Qp]FV
[]\N[HF?[]\Np]QÚRN[]]FVpFL]]N]FVVQEHJKFLE\[]LR]EpEJ]pT ?pELÚQL]P?
E]LpEJ]pT.[]p[V]KPÚ]pp[NÚ]ELpEpV]KLX[[OH[[]p[H]UPÚ]pp[NÚ]ELpEpH]UÚ]V[NÚF
']pp[NÚ]ELpEpH]U[Ú]V[NÚF[]\N[HF?[]\Np]QÚRN[]'VpFE]NV "EHEL]QJKFLE\[]
'VpF]W[]'VVQEHEL]QJKFLE\[]E]LpEJ]pT.Ú]p[V]KPÚ]pp[NÚ]EpV]KLX[[OH[[]p[H]UP
VQEXEHLQOp]E]RTPLp[XOFp]EP'TVNRLNTpE]L[LF]U?'V]RTPVKLWP]U?'KV]XÚRN[]
]QON]RTPÚ[?Qp]FV]FV^?P]FVLpV]TÚOÚRN[]]FVpFL]]N]FVVQE .X[T]VL[]P?NJpX[
.]P?FX[T]VLÞ[XFVQ]XHLQOp]E]RTPLp[XOFp]EPXTVNRLNTpE]L[
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.
Here we see that Aquila’s Bible translation is utilized as a dictionary of sorts

that can help explain the Mishnah. Aquila’s role is ambiguous. He himself does
not explain the Mishnah; he does not even address the particular word in the
Mishnah under discussion. But his translation can shed light on the interpretation
of the Mishnah, which is one of the central projects of the Talmud. Aquila’s role
can perhaps best be described here as a resource for the rabbis (although how
comprehensive a resource, again, is not clear). Thus, Aquila himself stands outside
this discussion of the Mishnah, having never commented on the Mishnah directly,
but his translation of Daniel fits smoothly into the discussion. Once again, Aquila
himself is not fully integrated into the social picture that the pericope reflects, but
his translations are fully absorbed into the rabbinic discussion.
Most of the other references to Aquila’s translation function as midrashic
explanations of the Bible, as in Yerushalmi Shabbat (discussed above); and were we
to find “Rabbi so-and-so said,” instead of “Aquila translated,” we would find nothing
out of the ordinary in these passages. However, in one case, Leviticus Rabbah 11:9
and its two parallels in the Yerushalmi, we observe something more.
In this example, if one were to remove Aquila’s actual translation, leaving only
the explanation that follows it, we would still have a perfectly coherent midrash. The
biblical word in question is X[QP? (‘almut). Amidst several anonymous translations,
each based on a proposed connection to a different Hebrew stem (P[?, LQP?, P?),
we read, X[Q[FÚ]EpP[?,LE]WRXEWP]U?KV]X65 (Aquila translated: ENUEREWMZE
[immortality], a world in which there is no death). Aquila’s rendering indicates
that he interpreted (or used a text that interpreted) X[QP? (’almut) as two words:
X[QP? (above death) or X[QPE (against death).66 But we did not need to know the
Greek word for immortality in order to arrive at such an interpretation; Aquila’s
translation adds nothing.67 Why did the text not provide just another anonymous
interpretation of this enigmatic word as X[Q[FÚ]EpP[? (a world in which there
is no death)?
We are familiar with the rabbinic preference for citing one’s sources,68 and can
see on any page of a given rabbinic text their interest in precise attribution when it
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 X[QPE is difficult to render in English, since PE usually means “do not,” but X[Q 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 VHL, referring to a
certain type of tree as V[H]L, obviously a transliteration of the Greek Y_H[V 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 VHL and Y_H[V.
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;
comes to each generation’s rabbinic (or proto-rabbinic) forebears. But why should
Aquila fall into the category of a source that one must cite? Why would the sages
not simply take what they learn from Aquila’s translation and convert it into their
own midrashim, leaving Aquila’s translation, which is merely the linguistic trigger,
unmentioned? This example shows that the rabbis considered Aquila more important
than mere background information. He was a bona fide source of knowledge and
deserved to be cited as such.
■ Conclusions Based on the Rabbinic Texts

We have seen that the rabbis depict Aquila’s identity ambiguously. On the one
hand, both the narrative accounts and the citations of his translation indicate that
in some respects he was perceived as an insider in rabbinic culture and valued in
his lifetime by at least two or three sages with whom he interacted. Furthermore,
rabbinic scholarship appears to have used his translations for generations. On the
other hand, we have also seen indications (again, in both sets of sources) that he is
set apart from the sages, marked as a translator and only a translator.
In addition, we have seen the sort of interest that the rabbis, both as individuals
(albeit represented only by a few) and as editors and compilers of the various
Palestinian rabbinic corpora, took in Aquila’s translation. However, there is not
enough evidence to determine whether the rabbis knew his translation as a complete
work, or whether they knew only atomistic translations of select words or verses.
But what they cite—and the fact that they cite it—reflects an appreciation of the
explanatory and interpretive value of these translations.
In summary, we have seen that it is far too simplistic to view the rabbis as having
unequivocally embraced Aquila, to assume he was one of their own, or to suppose
that the translation came from or was influenced by rabbinic circles. Aquila had
his place, but his role was limited, and the texts do not portray his integration into
rabbinic society as having been seamless. His translation was useful to the rabbis,
but only insofar as it helped with difficult words. We must keep in mind this limited
view from the Jewish sources when we see how the patristic authors portray the
Jews’ acceptance of Aquila.
■ The Patristic Sources on Aquila’s Popularity among Jews

The patristic sources that portray the Jews’ acceptance of Aquila are potentially
useful since they mention aspects of Aquila’s place within Jewish society on which
the rabbinic sources shed only limited light. The rabbinic sources we have seen
reflect only a slice of Palestinian Jewish society, whereas the patristic sources derive
from a wider range of places and communities. However, these texts need to be
approached carefully and critically. A number of sources that on the surface would
repr., Jerusalem: Shalem, 1992) 213.

seem to communicate a great deal about Jewish interest in Aquila’s translation on

closer consideration are less clear or less reliable than we might have assumed.
One problem in navigating the patristic sources (specifically on the topic of
Aquila’s translation among the Jews, but also on the topic of Aquila’s translation
in general, as discussed below) is that they mention the translation as though it
were a single volume, bound and portable like a modern book. This was simply
not the case. Not only was the material reality different from books of today, but
the very idea of the Bible as a circumscribed body of literature was not yet fully
formed for Christians. The material nature of the Bible and the concept of biblical
literature perforce influenced the way early Christians in particular thought about
and used the Bible and, by extension, translations of the Bible.69 Robert A. Kraft
has recently stated:
We do an injustice to the Jewish and Christian heritage if we import our con-
cept of “Bible,” with its fixed and exclusive canon, back into the period when
the respected literatures known as “scriptures” were transmitted piecemeal,
on scrolls or mini-codices, and held together, if so desired, through lists or
physical collections or conceptual abstractions which often were more open
ended (or less closely defined) than became possible and actual with the
development of the mega-codex in the 4th century C.E.70
Along similar lines, copies of one and the same “book” varied from manuscript to
manuscript. Therefore, especially given that only fragments of Aquila’s translation
survive, it is not clear to what extent the various references to it, as to versions of
the Septuagint, reflect a stable text.71 Furthermore, it is not clear to what extent
Christian authors were aware of this problem.72
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.”
There is at present no scholarly consensus on how to resolve these problems,

nor of terminology that avoids all confusion. I raise these issues for two reasons.
First, knowing the limitations of understanding the evidence of the patristic sources
allows us to focus more closely on questions that we can answer. Second, I present
these questions as potential directions for further scholarship. For now, I will adopt
simple terminologies such as “Bible” and “Septuagint,” although this should not be
understood as reflecting the actual material state of these books in antiquity.
There are a few sources commonly cited in the literature as Christian evidence
of the popularity of Aquila’s translation among Jews. The one remark that I believe
can be made generally is that for a few early Church Fathers representing a variety
of locales, Aquila’s translation is associated in some way with the Jews. For all
that my readings below may be minimalist, the point must be made that even when
Aquila figured into Christian writings in purely Christian contexts (i.e., contexts in
which neither Judaism nor particular Jews are mentioned), Aquila is known—and
moreover mentioned—as an important figure, or text, to Jews as well. Yet it is hard
to know exactly what to make of each piece of evidence, and I now turn to the task
of uncovering some of their subtleties.
Origen (185–254 C.E.)

In Origen’s letter to Africanus (c. 240 C.E.)73 he says the following about Aquila,
in the context of a reading of Aquila that accords with the Hebrew against the
Septuagint:
For so Aquila, a slave to the Hebrew language,74 gives it, who has obtained
the credit among the Jews of having translated (LNVQLRIYOIZREM) the Scriptures
with no ordinary care, and whose version is most commonly used by those
who do not know Hebrew, as the one which has been most successful.75
This testimony is of considerable importance, even as some scholars have taken

its implications too far. Origen indicates three things. First, that Jews in the third
century respect Aquila for his efforts. Second, that Aquila’s translation is used
by those who would otherwise have used the original, but did not know Hebrew.
Third, that Aquila’s translation is regarded by those people as comparatively more
successful than the other extant Greek translations.
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
3Y_ X [ KE V ©% OYZ P Eb HSYPIYZ [ R XL D Ò)FVEMZ [ R PIZ \ IM IN O HIZ H [OIR IMN T [Z R JMPSXMQSZ X IVSR
TITMWXIYQIZRSbTEVE©-SYHEMZSMbLNVQLRIYOIZREMXLR*VETLZR[`QEZPMWXEIMN[ZUEWMRSM.ENKRSSYDRXIb
XLRÒ)FVEMZ[RHMEZPIOXSRGVLDWUEM[.bTEZRX[RQEDPPSRINTMXIXIYKQIZR[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.
However, it is not clear which Jews respect Aquila. If Origen is referring to the
rabbis, then the evidence of rabbinic literature confirms this, as we have seen. But if
he is referring rather, or in addition, to a wider Greek-speaking Jewish community,
then we lack corroborating evidence of this claim.
As for the second point, Origen is certainly not referring to the rabbinic Jewish
community when he references those who do not use the Hebrew text because they
do not know Hebrew. Where Swete concluded from this line that Aquila’s translation
was “used by all Jews who did not understand Hebrew,”76 Veltri comments, “Origen
is without doubt speaking not only about Jews ignorant of Hebrew, but also (perhaps
especially?) of Christian writers like himself who use Aquila as a dictionary of
the Hebrew language.”77 My only disagreement with Veltri is the phrase “without
doubt.” It is possible that Origen means only Jews, in keeping with the start of his
description.78 On the other hand, it is also possible that he is now talking about
non-Jews; after all, throughout this letter he mentions Jews as those who use the
Hebrew text of the Bible, even if the Bible is the extent of their Hebrew knowledge.
And of course, as Veltri assumes, it is also possible that he means to include both
categories. If Origen is referring at least in part to Jews, this broadens Aquila’s
place in Jewish society from the learned, Hebrew-speaking rabbinic community
to the broader, Greek-speaking Jewish community. But again, it is impossible to
know to whom he is referring.
Furthermore, we do not know in what contexts Aquila’s translation was “used.”
Veltri assumes an academic context (as a dictionary), while other scholars have
cited this passage as evidence of synagogue use. In fact, Origen’s comment is firm
evidence of neither. If he means synagogue use, once again, this broadens the scope
of Jewish interest in Aquila from what we knew from the rabbinic texts.
My point is simply that Origen’s testimony is vague, so many of our conclusions
must be tentative. What we can conclude with certainty is that according to Origen,
Aquila’s translation was in circulation and use (“commonly,” to use Origen’s
word) in mid-third-century Palestine, and that Aquila’s translation was known and
respected among some Jews.
Augustine (354–430 C.E.)

Augustine makes the following comment in The City of God 15.23 amidst a
discussion of the nature of angels:
In the Septuagint too they are called both angels of God and sons of God.
This reading, to be sure, is not attested in all the manuscripts, for some have
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.
only “sons of God.” Aquila, on the other hand, whom the Jews prefer to the
other translators, says in his version neither angels of God nor sons of God
but sons of gods. But either expression is right.79
This comment possibly constitutes early-fifth-century testimony of a Jewish

preference for Aquila. However, scholars disagree about whether Augustine had
actual contact with Jews,80 so his testimony cannot necessarily be relied upon to
reflect a contemporary reality. The above passage may simply reflect a tradition
that Augustine had heard from predecessors like Africanus, and even if it does
reflect a contemporary perspective, the question remains as to what extent Jews
used translations in the first place. His wording is comparative, stating only the
Jews’ relative appreciation of Aquila.
But in noting this comparative phrasing, we may attempt to resolve another
question. Augustine’s wording (whether based on his own observations or based on
the testimony of his predecessors) indicates that at least some Jews knew of other
translations, and chose (or chose to stick with) Aquila’s. It is tempting to conclude
the same from Origen’s comment that Aquila has been the most successful “of all
the others”—again, stated comparatively. But it is worth hesitating since, as has
already been shown, it is not clear that Origen was speaking about Jews in that part
of the sentence, and since we do not have any evidence of this from the rabbis.
Justinian (482/3–565 C.E.)

Although I did not venture into sixth-century rabbinic sources, since as I noted
at the outset the nature of rabbinic texts shifts dramatically at that time, I will
include in this study a Christian Roman legal passage dated to 553 C.E., Novella
Justiniani 146,81 since it is often cited in literature about Aquila, in my opinion
inappropriately. This law published by Justinian deals with the question of what
version of Scripture the Jews may use in synagogue or “in general, any place where
there are Hebrews.”82 Justinian writes that he is responding to a Jewish petition to
resolve a dispute among Jews about admitting Greek as an acceptable language in
which to read Scripture. We do not know who submitted this petition, which side
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.
of the argument they were on, and how many others they represented.83 In fact,
Leonard Rutgers has recently argued that the petition was a fabrication by Justinian,
and that the emperor himself brought up the issue in an effort to eliminate Hebrew
from synagogues, for reasons having nothing to do with internal Jewish affairs.84 It
is also important to note that the question, if it really existed and from whomever
it comes, does not mention any translation specifically.
Justinian answers that Jews may indeed read in Greek and any other language
that they speak, since this will allow them to see the (Christian) truth of Scripture
unencumbered by errant (Jewish) interpretations. He then specifies that if they
read in Greek, they should read from the Septuagint due to its accuracy and to its
miraculous origins. But he permits Aquila’s translation as well, as follows:
But in order that we shall not appear to prohibit them all the other transla-
tions, we give permission to use also Aquila’s translation,85 although he was a
gentile86 and in some readings differs not a little from the Septuagint.87
It is surprising that someone who wants to rid Jewish readings of Scripture

of anti- or non-Christian interpretations would permit Aquila to be used, given
that some Christian writers (see below) believed Aquila to have corrupted key
theological points in the Bible.88 Further, as Rutgers points out, since Justinian
emphasizes the importance of allegorical rather than literal understandings of the
Bible, it is surprising that Justinian permits Aquila; Aquila’s translation is known
to have been literalistic.89
We might speculate that Justinian chooses Aquila precisely because, despite
Aquila’s literalism, he was viewed as something of an interpreter; and if Justinian
permits that version, the Jews might be quicker to replace their postbiblical
interpretations with Aquila’s biblical translation (in which case Justinian comes
out on top by far).90 But in any event, we have no idea whether Jews actually
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
TPLRENPP©[ZbE?RQLXEbPSMTEbEYNXSMDbENTSOPIMZIMRRSQMWUIMZLQIRI.VQLRIMZEbE?HIMERHMZHSQIR
OEM XLD ©%OYZPSYOIGVLDWUEMOE?RIMN ENPPSZJYPSbINOIMDRSbOEM SYN QIXVMZERINTMZ XMR[RPIZ\I[RI?GL
TVSbXSYbINFHSQLZOSRXEXLRHMEJ[RMZERNovella 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
responded by reading Aquila. (Perhaps Justinian assumed they would, given that
earlier Church Fathers kept mentioning Aquila as a favorite of the Jews. But we
saw already that those texts are vague, and do not necessarily represent the entirety
of the Jewish world.) Therefore, this text should not be considered evidence of
Jewish use of or interest in Aquila’s translation.91 Indeed, it is barely evidence of
a clear perspective on the part of Justinian.
When dealing with Christian sources that purport to tell us about Jewish behaviors
or perspectives, we have two realities to contend with: the historical reality we are
trying to reconstruct, and the perceived reality we are trying to decipher. Regarding
the former, we have evidence that suggests that there were Jews, Christians, and
likely other non-Jews, who wanted access to the Hebrew Bible but were faced with a
language barrier of one sort or another, and Aquila’s translation was useful to them.
Regarding the perceived reality, we have also seen some evidence that Christian
writers—Origen in third-century Palestine and Augustine in fifth-century North
Africa—associated Aquila’s translation with Jews, possibly Jews not associated with
the rabbis. I refer to this as the perceived reality mainly because it is always possible
that early on Aquila was associated with the Jews and that this association was
repeated uncritically. Whatever the case, understanding that this is how Christians
perceived reality may affect our understanding of the fact that some of them still
appreciated and utilized Aquila’s translation for their own purposes, while others
disparaged it as heretical.
Moving on from the complications of navigating a perceived reality and an
historical reality, we are on firmer ground when dealing with patristic sources that
express the Church Fathers’ own perspectives on Aquila and his translation. It is
to these sources that I now turn.
■ The Church Fathers’ Perspectives on Aquila and His Translation

A number of Christian writers were concerned with the interpretive nature of
Aquila’s translation. These writers reflect what might be considered the inverse
of the rabbinic interest in its interpretive value. We have seen that for the rabbis,
mundane translations function as midrash. Not all midrashim need be ideological;
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.
rendering the Hebrew text into another language—be it Aramaic or Greek—is

midrashic activity enough. So when we say the rabbis are interested in Aquila’s
translation’s interpretive value, that is to say that they cast their net wide in terms
of what counts as “interpretive.” It was apparently Aquila’s Greek translations that
entered their purview, so it was Aquila’s that they cited.
But for the Church Fathers, by whose time and in whose circles the Septuagint92
was already in common use,93 Aquila’s translation meant something else. A trans-
lation in and of itself was by no means a novelty. They therefore turned their
attention to the exegetical contents of the translation in a way that is foreign to
the rabbinic texts. Thus, while for the rabbis Aquila is primarily a translator who
is useful to the rabbinic exegetical project, for Irenaeus, for example, Aquila is
an exegete who expresses his heretical ideas about the meaning of the Bible by
means of a translation.
Irenaeus (120–202 C.E.)

Irenaeus provides the first patristic reference to Aquila’s translation, and so the
publication of Irenaeus’s Adversus haereses some time between 177 and 192 C.E.
is often cited as a terminus ante quem for Aquila’s translation.94 Irenaeus mentions
Aquila in the context of his disapproval of Aquila’s and Theodotion’s translation
of LQP? in Isaiah 7:14 as RIEDRMb (young girl) rather than the Septuagint’s
TEVUIZRSb (virgin). His choice of words is telling:
God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the
token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to
expound (QIUIVQLRIYZIMR; interpretari) the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young
woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian
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 Fernández 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.
has interpreted (L.VQLZRIYWIR; interpretatus), and Aquila of Pontus, both Jew-

ish proselytes.95
Whereas the rabbinic word for Aquila’s translation is KVX, Irenaeus refers to
Aquila’s activities with words that also connote expounding and interpreting.96
Unlike the rabbinic authors, Irenaeus did not use a word that refers strictly to
translation, such as QIXEKVEZJ[ or QIXEJIZV[, which in some measure reflects the
different role Aquila plays for the rabbis and for certain Church Fathers.97 For
the rabbis he is marked as different from those who interpret because all he does
is translate. For Irenaeus he is included among the interpreters because he is a
translator.98
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.” Ò3 UISb SY@R E?RUV[TSb INKIZRIXS OEM EYNXSb OYZVMSb I?W[WIR
WLQIMDSR ©%PP© SYZG [.b I?RMSMZ TEWMR X[DR RYDR XSPQ[ZRX[R QIUIVQLRIYZIMR XLR KVEJLZR MNHSY L.
RIEDRMbINRKEWXVM I_\IMOEM XIZ\IXEMYM.SZR[.bUISHSXMZ[RL.VQIZRIYWIRS. ©)JIZW MSbOEM ©%OYZPEbS.
4SRXMOSZbENQTSZXIVSM©-SYHEMDSMTVSWLZPYXSM 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 I.VQLRIYZ[ 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
(I.VQLRIMZEI.VQLRIYXLZbI.VQLRIYZ[), while other forms are restricted to the realm of interpretation
(I.VQLRIYZbI.VRLRIYXIZSRI.VQLRIYXMOSZb). Lampe gives “translate” as the first and “interpret” as the
second meaning of QIUIVQLRIYZ[, citing its use regarding Theodotion and Aquila, while he gives
“interpreter” as the translation of QIUIVQLRIYXLZb (Patristic Greek Lexicon, 838). While the Hebrew
and Aramaic KVX 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 pV]T (explained) and VQE (said). Sokoloff, Dictionary
of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 591, gives only “translate,” not “interpret.” Jastrow, Dictionary,
1695–96, gives for the various entries related to KVX 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 KVX. 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.
Irenaeus also sees Aquila’s translation as an offensive act in and of itself. In

the same section, after discussing the divinely inspired nature of the Septuagint,
and its importance as the text he believes the apostles used, Irenaeus writes of the
new translators:
Truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would
now show a desire to make different translations.99
In this context he points out also that the new translators indeed failed to thoroughly
communicate the interpretations they intended, since they did not correct, as it
were, other similar verses. He says the translators “did not understand” enough to
effectively change the biblical text, try as they did.
Thus, Irenaeus critiques Aquila and Theodotion for their wrong beliefs (regarding
the virgin), their presumptuousness, and their lack of understanding. The first two
concerns are utterly foreign to the rabbis. Aquila is everywhere described as a Jew,
and the closest he comes to wrong beliefs is his expression of dissatisfaction with
the rewards of conversion. As well, translation is a perfectly accepted rabbinic
endeavor.
As to a lack of understanding, the fact that Irenaeus is examining the entirety
of Aquila’s biblical translation makes all the difference. Irenaeus finds Aquila
inconsistent and short-sighted. But he does not mention philological problems or
linguistic errors (though we will see that later Christian writers do). The rabbis
nowhere indicate awareness of the whole work, nor do they ever juxtapose two
translations of his.
Regarding all three problems with Aquila that Irenaeus raises, we see not so
much a disagreement between the rabbis and the Church Fathers as a different set
of questions and different criteria for evaluating the worth of Aquila’s work. It is
not merely a matter of Jewish “acceptance” of Aquila and Christian “rejection.”
Each of their reactions was more nuanced, as well as based on their specific
contexts and interests. Each Christian writer, in turn, needs to be read on his own
terms. Irenaeus’s work is concerned with doctrine, whereas Origen, for instance,
is concerned with text criticism of the Hebrew Bible.
Origen (ca. 185–254 C.E.)

In considering the various Church Fathers’ responses to Aquila, in many cases it is
important to understand their perspectives on the Septuagint, of which they might
see Aquila’s translation as a revision. Origen viewed the Septuagint from a critical
perspective. While like the other Church Fathers he seems to have accepted the
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.
inspired nature of the original Septuagint,100 he did not consider the copies extant in
his own day to reflect that original reliably. He therefore sought to reestablish the
correct text and meaning of the Septuagint101 by comparing it with the Hebrew text
in his day, and with other Greek translations that better accorded with the Hebrew
than the Septuagint did.102 Given this goal and his consequent composition of the
Hexapla, he is distinguished from Irenaeus (and Epiphanius, discussed below) in
that he uses Aquila’s translation not as an interpretation, but as a textual witness.
There are only a few statements about Aquila and Aquila’s translation in the
portion of Origen’s writings that are extant today, and our main evidence of Origen’s
perspective on Aquila is that he includes that translation in the Hexapla. Besides
this, Origen cites Aquila’s translations as support for certain biblical readings or
understandings,103 and he uses peculiarities in Aquila’s translation as a guide (at
least in part) to the proper rendering or meaning of Scripture.104
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”: )Y`VSR KEV XE MNWSHYREQSYDRXE XLD
PIZ\IMXEYZXLINRXLDXSYD©%OYZPSYI.VQLRIMZEOIMZQIRE (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: 8SKEVXIXEKQIZR[b<OEM>ENOSYPSYZU[bX[DXIGRSPSKSYQIZR[OEXEXSRXSZTSR
TVSXIXEZGUEMXEbTVSWLKSVMZEbIM@X©INTMJIZVIWUEMXE OEXLKSVLZQEXEOIOMZRLOIRL.QEDbQLZTSXIXS
TVEDQEOEMTEVEX[DUIVEZTSRXMRIRSZLXEMSY_X[bI?GSROEMQEZPMWXEINTIMOEMS.OYVM[ZXEXEI.VQLRIYZIMR
TMPSXMQSYZQIRSb©%OYZPEbSYNGE?PPSTITSMZLOITEVE XLRTVSWLKSVMZEROEM XS OEXLKSZVLQE (“The
orderly and systematic arrangement of the passage, the names coming first and then the predicates,
One description Origen gives of Aquila, which is sometimes misconstrued,

appears in his letter to Africanus (see above for the fuller context): HSYPIYZ[RXLD
Ò)FVEMZ[RPIZ\IM (“slave of the Hebrew language”). Out of context this might seem
like a condemnation; in context he is using Aquila’s translation as a support, and
goes on to describe the esteem shown to Aquila by Jews and those who do not know
Hebrew (see above). Therefore, I believe this description is a positive evaluation
of Aquila’s accuracy.105
Epiphanius (c. 310–403 C.E.)

In Epiphanius’s treatise On Weights and Measures, written in 392,106 he provides
an elaborate biography of Aquila which, it is commonly noted, cannot be trusted
as historical.107 For our purposes, his final comments on Aquila are worth noting
since we are interested in early Christian perspectives on Aquila’s translation, and
because Epiphanius’s followers may have taken his comments quite seriously.108
After telling of Aquila’s pagan origins, his conversion to Christianity, and then his
conversion to Judaism, Epiphanius describes the translation as follows:
He was moved not by the right motive, but (by the desire) so to distort certain
of the words occurring in the translation of the seventy-two that he might pro-
claim the things testified to about Christ in the divine Scriptures to be fulfilled
in some other way, on account of a certain shame that he felt (to proffer) a
senseless excuse for himself. . . . But we must say, beloved, the words of it
are incorrect and perversely translated.109
Epiphanius does not give examples of these charges against Aquila, as other
writers do, and comments not merely on the product, but on the motivation of the
translation.
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.
After he writes about Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion individually,

Epiphanius refers to all three together:
Now you become the judge, O great lover of the good, of such a matter as
this, whether the truth is more likely to be found with these three—I mean
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion—who, moreover, were not together,
but were remote from one another in both time and place; and there were not
many, but only three, and yet they were unable to agree with one another.110
Then after describing the miraculous origin of the Septuagint and the divine
inspiration of the translators, he says of the Septuagint translators:
Though they did not know what each one by himself was translating, they
agreed absolutely with one another, and the translations were identical. And
where they cast out words, they translated in agreement with one another. So
it is clear to those who through love of the truth seek to investigate that they
were not merely translators but also, in part, prophets.111
These passages show that, like Irenaeus,112 Epiphanius took issue with the very
fact of new translations, emphasizing that the Septuagint should not merely be
considered a translation, but an inspired, prophetic Bible. The proliferation of
different versions is therefore senseless.
As noted with regard to Irenaeus, this critique derives from one of the most
basic and central differences between (at least a certain) Jewish perspective
and the perspective of certain Christians. For rabbinic Judaism, the only thing
sacrosanct is the Hebrew Bible. Translations, as we have seen in the rabbinic
texts, were essentially commentaries, and when it came to scriptural exegesis, the
rabbinic world did not seek to promote orthodoxy.113 For Epiphanius, this was not
a question of divergent commentary; it was a divergent text of the Bible itself, this
time uninspired.114
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-IIIe siècles
(2 vols; Paris: Études 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.
In the eyes of the rabbis, Aquila composed a translation of Scripture; in the

eyes of some Christians, he corrupted Scripture. But they were starting from
vastly different assumptions about what Scripture was.115 For this reason, it seems
appropriate to view this aspect of Christian and Jewish reception of Aquila—that
is, the issues raised by Epiphanius—as a matter of disagreement not about Aquila’s
translation or the translator himself, but about the very nature of Scripture and what
is required in order to translate it. Epiphanius will not countenance anything but
the prophetically revealed text of the Septuagint.
Jerome (ca. 347–420 C.E.)

In contrast to Irenaeus’s and Epiphanius’s concerns about heresy and affronts
to the Septuagint, when Jerome writes about Aquila he does so as a linguist and
a translator. In his Epistle to Pammachus, written in 395, he writes on the best
method of translating:
Yet the Septuagint has rightly kept its place in the churches, either because
it is the first of all the versions in time, made before the coming of Christ, or
else because it has been used by the apostles (only however in places where it
does not disagree with the Hebrews). On the other hand we do right to reject
Aquila, the proselyte and controversial translator (contentiosus interpres),
who has striven to translate (transferre) not words only but their etymologies
as well. Who could accept as renderings (frumento) of “corn and wine and
oil” such words as GIYDQE SNT[VMWQSZR WXMPTRSZXLXE,116 or, as we might say,
“pouring,” and “fruit gathering,” and “shining”? or, because Hebrew has
in addition to the article other prefixes as well, he must with an unhappy
pedantry translate (interpretur et . . . dicat) syllable by syllable and letter by
letter thus: WYRXSRSYNVERSROEMWYRXLRKLDR,117 a construction which neither
Greek nor Latin admits.118
The question about which we should be careful not to speculate excessively is

what Jerome meant by “controversial translator.” Was Aquila controversial among
the Christians? Among the Jews? Or was it a point of contention between Jews
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
p[V]X[,ÚKH,VL\].
117
Gen 1:1, ¨VELXE[]QpLXE.
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 GIYDQE SNT[VMWQSZR WXMPTRSZXLXE, quod nos possumus dicere “fusionem,”
“pomationemque” que et “splendentiam.” Aut, quia Hebraei non solum habent E?VUVE, sed et
TVSZEVUVE, ille OEOS^LZP[b et syllabas interpretatur et litteras dicitque WYRXSRSYNVERSROEM WYR
XLRKLDR, 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).
and Christians? I do not believe it is possible to know what Jerome perceived. I

therefore turn to what we can understand from this passage.
Jerome favors the Septuagint translation, at least for use in church, for two
reasons, also found in Irenaeus’s writings: it was the first, and it was used by the
apostles. But Jerome’s problem with Aquila is not a traditionalist one;119 that is,
the problem is not that Aquila attempted to supercede the Septuagint,120 as we saw
with Epiphanius, or that his translation was heretical or inaccurate, as we saw with
Irenaeus. Jerome views Aquila as simply a bad translator who strove to accomplish
more than is possible for a decent Greek text. Whereas Irenaeus refers to Aquila’s
work as interpretation, Jerome also uses other words besides interpres to describe
Aquila’s work: dicat, transferre, and below, editionem.
This problem of the awkwardness of Aquila’s translation would not have been
relevant in any of the extant rabbinic usages of Aquila, since the rabbis, as we have
seen, only cite words or phrases, never whole verses or even clauses. If anything,
Aquila’s attention to detail would have found favor with them, since they sought
precise translations of difficult words (though it remains speculative whether or not
the rabbis were specifically drawn to that aspect of Aquila’s translations).
Once again we see that a Church Father has a problem with Aquila because he is
looking at the translation from a particular point of view. The Christian community
reads the Bible as a whole in Latin and/or Greek, and Jerome is therefore concerned
with the running text and with Greek (or as the case may be, Latin) style. Jerome
in particular, himself a translator, was sensitive to the issues involved in producing
a new version, as well as to the idiosyncrasies of different translators’ styles. The
rabbis, on the other hand, use the Hebrew Bible, and are only interested in atomistic
Greek translations (and presumably running Aramaic translations for synagogal
use, though that is not our concern).
As Hillel Newman has pointed out, Jerome’s distaste for Aquila’s running text
did not stop him from utilizing that same translation when it suited him.121 In fact,
in Jerome’s Epistle 32 to Marcella—written in 384, eleven years before the above
letter—he writes that he is in the process of comparing Aquila’s version to the
Hebrew (having already completed his comparison of the prophets, which one
assumes includes Isa 7:14, which so bothered Irenaeus):
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.
Let me tell you, then, that for some time past I have been comparing Aquila’s
version of the Old Testament with the scrolls of the Hebrew, to see if from
hatred to Christ the synagogue has changed the text; and—to speak frankly to
a friend—I have found several variations which confirm our faith.122
When it comes to the content of the translation, Jerome, at least at this stage,
approves (or at least does not disapprove) of Aquila’s translation.123 Its Jewish
origin renders it suspect, but ultimately its inherent worth overrides the suspicion.124
Sarah Kamin125 has argued that Jerome was more tolerant of the Jewish revisions
of the Septuagint than of the original Septuagint, based on his assessment of their
respective translation techniques. Jerome writes that the Septuagint translators did
not understand what the Hebrew Bible meant when it referred to the future coming
of Jesus, so they translated vaguely or doubtfully.126 The Jewish revisions, on the
other hand, translated the Hebrew exactly, even though they did not understand (or
they rejected) its true Christian meaning.127 So Aquila’s literalism had a positive
element even for Jerome. Thus we see that even within the works of a given writer,
Aquila’s reception requires a nuanced answer, and it is not simply a matter of
acceptance or rejection, popularity or unpopularity.
Jerome’s testimony also sheds light on the perspective of his readers. In the
prologue to his translation of Isaiah, he defends himself against those who would
criticize his translation’s departure from the Septuagint. He writes regarding Aquila,
Symmachus, and Theodotion:
Therefore, knowing and being wise, I place my hand in the fire, and never-
theless I pray this for the scornful readers: that just as the Greeks after the
Seventy translators read Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion, either for
study of their doctrines or so that they better understand the Seventy through
their collation, that these are deemed worthy to have at least one translator af-
ter the earlier ones. Reading first and afterward despising, they are seen not to
condemn by judgment, but rather by the ignorant presumption of hatred.128
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.
Jerome here encourages people to accept his Latin translation, just as they
accepted that there were translations in Greek after the Septuagint. This is quite
significant; Jerome does not merely reflect his own perception of the post-Septuagint
translations, but he expects his readers to agree that there is nothing preposterous
about putting forth a new translation of the Bible.129 This perspective stands in
stark opposition to that of Irenaeus (before Origen’s Hexapla) and Epiphanius
(even after the Hexapla).
As we have seen, each of the above authors and texts bears unique nuances and
perspectives. They also represent different places and time periods. Irenaeus lived
in the second century, before Origen’s Hexapla, and was writing in Lyon; Origen
lived in the third century in Alexandria and then Palestine; Epiphanius lived in the
fourth century in Cyprus; and Jerome lived around the same time but in Rome and
then in Palestine. Aquila’s place in these authors’ personal study, literary work,
and teaching, like his place in their Christian communities and among their Jewish
neighbors, was anything but uniform. The only thing that can be said with certainty
is that Aquila’s translation managed to work its way into the purview and interest
of some of the most significant figures in early Christianity.
■ Conclusion
Aquila’s legacy in the scholarship, polemic, and memory of Late Antique Jewish
and Christian tradition is particularly intriguing in that it figures in both traditions
over the course of centuries. It is equally remarkable that both traditions seem
aware of that fact, at least to some degree. Even Irenaeus and Jerome, who do
not mention contemporary Jews in connection with Aquila, mention that he was a
Jewish proselyte, as does Justinian later on. Origen and Augustine say explicitly
that Aquila’s translation occupied a prominent place in Jewish communities.
From the rabbinic sources it is harder to be sure what the rabbis knew of Christian
interest in Aquila’s translation. But it is plausible that part of the reason Aquila is not
portrayed by the rabbis as a standard rabbinic figure is that he and/or his translation
also functioned outside of the rabbinic sphere. Yet despite the rabbinic perception
of Aquila’s identity as less than fully rabbinic, and the Christian awareness of his
Jewish connections, his translation was utilized by Jews for purely Jewish reasons,
and by Christians for purely Christian reasons.
Appreciating this phenomenon requires a clear understanding of the answers to
the following questions: How did the rabbis perceive or remember the historical
Aquila, and how did they use his translation? How did the Christians respond to
his work, and how did they perceive the Jews’ interests in his translation? I have
attempted to answer these questions through a detailed analysis of the sources,
keeping a close eye on what may reasonably be inferred and what is mere
129
For an in-depth discussion of Jerome’s arguments of this sort, see Kamesar, Jerome, Greek
Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible, 58–72.
speculation, since often in the past the scarcity of evidence has led scholars to
overstate matters.
To reiterate my conclusions: Rabbinic narratives about and citations of Aquila
show that he was perceived as a figure who was in some sense integrated into the
rabbinic community, but who was not himself a sage and was not fully comfortable
with his place in rabbinic society, expressing insecurity about his own status.
He is also portrayed as having functioned outside the rabbinic sphere (albeit as
a Jew, in his conversation with Hadrian), and all of his translation traditions are
introduced with a special formula that distinguishes him from the rabbis. Yet his
translations themselves are unambiguously incorporated into rabbinic midrashic
and legal discussions. The Palestinian rabbis thus manage to express the limits of
their identification with Aquila the proselyte translator, while culling his translation
for all the insight it offered.
Christian writers have a greater diversity of opinions about Aquila’s work. Being
heresiologists, Irenaeus condemns the translation as heretical and presumptuous
and Epiphanius echoes that condemnation in even stronger terms. However, in stark
contrast to them, Origen considers Aquila’s translation a valuable text witness for
the original Hebrew Bible and a useful tool in correcting the Septuagint translation.
Jerome, with the critical eye of a translator who, like Origen, highly values
the original Hebrew text of the Bible, expresses mixed feelings about Aquila’s
translation; Aquila’s running text reflects poor translation technique in Jerome’s
eyes, but individual translations were useful to him, as they were for the rabbis.
Moreover, the fact that the translation as a whole was not seen as preposterous
helped Jerome claim validity for his own translation.
All of these views about Aquila—Jewish and Christian—varied according to
the perspectives with which the ancient authors approached the translator and his
translation: whether they saw him as Aquila the Greek-speaker, Aquila the Hebrew-
speaker, Aquila the Jew, or Aquila the Roman, and whether they saw translation
as interpretation, as philological tool, or as Bible version. Therefore, examining
the different responses to Aquila and his translation is illuminating both in what it
tells us specifically about Aquila’s legacy in Late Antiquity, as well as in the light
it sheds on the various issues—whether issues of language, doctrine, exegesis,
or others—that were important to different segments of the Jewish and Christian
communities of this time period.
Furthermore, the very diversity of perspectives on, concerns about, and uses
of Aquila’s translation among Jews and Christians is instructive in and of itself.
Despite the similarities between Jews and Christians at this stage—as they lived
in the same geographical areas, were minorities within the Roman Empire, were
readers of the Bible, and were Greek-speakers—Jewish and Christian perspectives
on Aquila were not at all monolithic. A Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by
a Jewish proselyte might have served as a bridge between these communities, but
instead, it became a source of controversy that illuminates not their unity but their
divergence. Further still, we have seen that different opinions of Aquila’s translation
do not reflect a binary division between Jews and Christians.
Even more significant than the diversity of opinions about Aquila’s translation
among various writers is the diversity of their reasons for addressing the translation
in the first place. For Irenaeus it is a matter of heresy; for Jerome a matter of
language; for the rabbis a matter of commentary. The rabbinic sources are more
unified on this topic than the Christian sources, but even the rabbinic sources reflect
the different angles from which the rabbis viewed Aquila—as a translator, as a
non-rabbi, as a proselyte. Other Jewish sources are silent. The sources presented
here occupy a miniscule amount of space in the literature of one slice of the Jewish
world—the Palestinian rabbinic community. We need not speculate about the
specific opinions of silent voices in the Jewish world, rabbinic or otherwise, but it
seems more than likely that the broader Jewish community included a diverse array
of perspectives on Aquila’s translation, just as did the broader Christian community.
Indeed, we glimpse this possibility in the various comments Christian writers make
about the Jews’ interest in Aquila’s translation.
The case of Aquila’s Bible translation serves then as a demonstration of the
complexity of these two Late Antique communities. As such, this case may serve
as a corrective to scholarly searches for the Christian or the Jewish view of any
given matter of interest. It also demonstrates the necessity of seeking not only the
final opinions expressed by ancient writers, but also their underlying assumptions
and their motivations for taking up a given question in the first place.

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late

Antiquity: Jewish and Christian

■ The Rabbinic Sources

HTR 102:3 (2009) 353–88

■ The Narrative Texts: Portrayals of Aquila’s Place in

Genesis Rabbah8 70:5

Aquila the proselyte approached R. Eliezer.

Yerushalmi Hagigah 2:1, 77a14

midrashim asking R. Joshua b. Hananiah—the same R. Joshua with whom Aquila

Yerushalmi Megillah 1:8, 71a–b

their liturgical functions.35 I do not believe there is sufﬁcient evidence to deduce

■ Citations of Aquila in Rabbinic Literature

Talmud then includes two alternative possibilities, each based on a statement of R.

Here we see that Aquila’s Bible translation is utilized as a dictionary of sorts

■ Conclusions Based on the Rabbinic Texts

■ The Patristic Sources on Aquila’s Popularity among Jews

repr., Jerusalem: Shalem, 1992) 213.

seem to communicate a great deal about Jewish interest in Aquila’s translation on

There is at present no scholarly consensus on how to resolve these problems,

Origen (185–254 C.E.)

This testimony is of considerable importance, even as some scholars have taken

Augustine (354–430 C.E.)

This comment possibly constitutes early-ﬁfth-century testimony of a Jewish

Justinian (482/3–565 C.E.)

It is surprising that someone who wants to rid Jewish readings of Scripture

■ The Church Fathers’ Perspectives on Aquila and His Translation

rendering the Hebrew text into another language—be it Aramaic or Greek—is

Irenaeus (120–202 C.E.)

has interpreted (L.VQLZRIYWIR; interpretatus), and Aquila of Pontus, both Jew-

Irenaeus also sees Aquila’s translation as an offensive act in and of itself. In

Origen (ca. 185–254 C.E.)

Kraft, “Christian Transmission of Jewish Greek Scriptures,” in Paganisme, judaïsme, christianism.

One description Origen gives of Aquila, which is sometimes misconstrued,

Epiphanius (c. 310–403 C.E.)

After he writes about Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion individually,

In the eyes of the rabbis, Aquila composed a translation of Scripture; in the

Jerome (ca. 347–420 C.E.)

The question about which we should be careful not to speculate excessively is

and Christians? I do not believe it is possible to know what Jerome perceived. I

You might also like