Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
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 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...