SBL 2005 Philadelphia


Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (S20-112 = p.67, 4-6:30 Sunday)

Situating T-A in the Wider world of Dialogues with/against Jews


[Robertson, Critical Edition – 1986 diss

[Pastis, Unknown Greek MS – 1994 diss

[Pereswetoff-Morath, Medieval Slavonic Version (in absentia)

[Nilsson, Matthean Texts – 1997 diss

[Varner, English Translation – 2005 Continuum

[Lahey, Dialogue Source – MA thesis on S-T and Jason/Papiscus (1994), PhD on T-A (2000), argues for shorter and longer versions in T-A, both dependendent on an original form, following Jason/Papiscus.


[see also Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity
Tues 11/22/2005 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Room 107-A - PA Convention Center

Petrus J. Gräbe, Regent University
The Reception of the New Covenant Concept (cf. Jeremiah 31:31–34) in Early Judaism (Especially Qumran) and in the Early Church (Barnabas, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin and Aphrahat)

the term ‘kaine diatheke’ (‘new covenant’) is used by Clement both to speak of the theology of salvation history and to designate the writings of the New Testament. In a similar way, Tertullian uses testamentum in certain contexts to refer to the biblical books and uses it elsewhere in a theological context to refer to ‘last will/covenant.’ In Origen’s commentaries ‘kaine diatheke’ refers, however, primarily to the New Testament. This development can be explained by discerning five phases in the way early Christianity used the new covenant concept. The paper will be concluded by reflecting on the implications of this textured history of effect on our current understanding of the new covenant concept.]



The task is formidable. How is “our” dialogue of Timothy and Aquila similar to, or perhaps distinct from, other examples of the same genre? All such “dialogues” purport to argue, usually successfully, with a Jewish representative, although the extent to which this may be historically accurate varies from case to case (see now Jackie Pastis’ dissertation). They all make wide use of Jewish and Christian scriptures and/or traditions, although the degree of faithfulness to such sources is sometimes questionable. And there seems to be some level of genetic relationship between many of them, so that the careful reader is encouraged to explore questions of intermediate or immediate sources beyond those ultimately indicated by biblical quotations and allusions (Robert Robertson’s dissertation deals with much of this).


In his edition of the dialogues of Timothy and Aquila [=T-A] and Athanasius and Zacchaeus [=A-Z] nearly a century ago, Conybeare (following up on work done especially by Harnack) tried to pursue the question of relationships and sources of those two dialogues with results that still merit close attention. He found a number of striking similarities with Epiphanius, and with Eusebius and the Paschal Chronicle, which suggested to him that some sort of common material lay in the background. For Conybeare, that lost and mysterious mother of such Christian/Jewish dialogues, Papiscus and Jason, provided a possible conjectural solution that remains alive today, along with or alongside of possible early “testimonia” collections or similar sources. In any event, Conybeare showed that there were certain shared features between T-A and A-Z, with a nod as well in the direction of Simon and Theophilus [S-T], that deserved much closer attention. Such matters are easier to deal with now that William Varner’s book has appeared.


On the dissimilar side,


(1) while T-A ends, like most, with the conversion of the Jewish spokesperson, it is less one-sided along the way than most such writings, resembling Justin and Trypho in this respect more than A-Z or a host of others.


(2) Similarly, while T-A presents most of the same discussion points as the dialogues in general – Jesus is the expected Messiah, was involved in creation, and despite his predicted death is indeed deity – it also contains some unique Christian nuances, some of which seem relatively archaic (as Don Nilsson details in his dissertation on gospel tradition in T-A).


(3) Regarding “historical” claims, T-A provides some otherwise unattested information about persons and events especially in the second quarter of the second century, such as Hadrian’s reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem and the translator Aquila’s biographical details and textual work (including changing the Hebrew text!). T-A also has a unique passage about other Greek translations of Jewish scriptures that were discovered “in jars” around the year 70 (3.10).


(4) With regard to knowledge of the Semitic languages, at several points T-A selfconsciously supplies meanings, some rather unusual, for specific names and terms,  much like what is found in Epiphanius’ explanations in Weights and Measures:

  • ARWNA [3.12, “Ark of the covenant”],
  • EMMA-NOUEL [8.5f, “with us” (Syriac) “God” (Hebrew)],
  • DIDICH [9.3, “mine”],
  • THELLASARASAR [9.17, king of Babylon],
  • JEBLAEM [16.2ff; Abraham’s servant (not Eleazar)],
  • NECHOTHA [20.15, “crypt”],
  • MANNA [22.8, “what is this”],
  • AMALECH [23.4f, “Antichrist”],
  • SABEK [32.2, “release”],
  • NEANIS [? 34.16, “virgin”],
  • ELOEI ELOEI LEMASABACHTANI [55.24, as in Matt 27.46])



(5) With specific reference to the scriptural quotations, while T-A uses most of the same passages from Jewish scriptures as are found in other dialogues – notably from Genesis, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalms, and Daniel – it also expands this area in interesting directions, including selfconscious use of “Solomon’s Testament” (Solomon’s  sacrificing, or crushing, of locusts) and of “apocrypha”: there are quotations from Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Bel/Dragon; but not Judith (included in T-A’s main list, 3.17a) or Tobit, although Tobit is mentioned explicitly as one of the “apocrypha” (3.17b along with Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach).  Christian “apocrypha” are also mentioned, alongside the accepted gospel (singular), acts of the holy apostles, their epistles, and 14 letters of Paul (3.22) – indeed, our Aquila wonders if the idea that Mary is a virgin after Jesus’ birth comes from Christian apocrypha (18.3).


Against this very general background, I will comment breifly on three areas that seem to me worth closer exploration in the context of other such texts. Unfortunately, for Greek materials the wonderful TLG data bank is frustrating to use, since although it contains most or all of the relevant texts, it does not easily permit simultaneous searches of T-A (grouped under SCRIPTA ANONYMA ADVERSUS JUDAEOS) and many of the comparable Dialogues such as A-Z (under Athanasius) or Prooftext collections such as Ps-Epiphanius (under Epiphanius; see further below). Still, some “electronically facilitated research” is possible.


1. Concepts of “scriptures” and “the scripture/Bible”: Although the author/editor of T-A can think of Jewish scriptures collectively (17.2, “old and new covenant”; see also 22.4, 30.7 “covenant of the law”), he usually does not. In general, he uses language indicating a plurality of authoritative works – “the holy scriptures,” “books” (22 or 27 or more) – although within this collection there may be sub-collections such as “the book of the twelve prophets” (12.13, 48.12) or the “new book” that combines Baruch, Lamentations, and Jeremiah (10.10).  Aquila also knows that Paul’s epistles (fourteen; see 3.22) are numbered in the “new covenant” (56.3, see also 3.19, 3.21). Since the technological ability to gather all biblical writings together under one set of codex covers is not attested before the 4th century, and even after that is relatively rare, I’m interested in whether the language of such “canon” discussion changes much in the process. Under what conditions do we find “the Bible” (or even “the OT”) as an integral unit?


At an even more specific level, the author of T-A makes a distinction between the mode of revelation, and presumably then the perception of authority, pertaining to the four books of Genesis through Numbers, on the one hand. and the fifth book of Deuteronomy on the other. “The fifth book is the Second-law (“Deuteronomy”), not dictated through God’s mouth but presented as a second law through Moses – wherefore neither was it placed in the ΑΡΩΝΑ, that is, in the ark of the covenant. This constitutes the Mosaic Pentateuch” (3.12-13). Since it has been noted that rabbinic Judaism avoided attributing Pentateuchal quotations directly to Moses, while Christian prooftexters seem to have no such hesitations, I wonder if such a passage might be part of a broader discussion. Presumably it is fueled by an exegetical question: what does Deut 31.26 mean when Moses instructs the Levites to place “this book of the law” (i.e. Deuteronomy, freshly written) “alongside (κ πλαγων) the Ark”? Ps-Athanasius points out that the tablets of the law were in the ark, so that the written second law was put beside them (Synopsis scripturae sacrae [Sp.]. {TLG 2035.071} Volume 28 page 309 line 6). Cyril of Alexandria, on the other hand, argues that this action leaves room for Christ to be central, with the law respected but on the periphery (Glaphyra in Pentateuchum. {TLG 4090.097} Volume 69 page 677 line 31). T-A later cites Deuteronomy by name in 34.17 (“it/he says”) and 38.5-7 (“Moses testified, . . . he said”).


The closest known parallel to T-A’s treatment of Deuteronomy comes, not surprisingly, from Epiphanius: “There were placed in the ARWNA[?], that is, the Ark, four books: Genesis . . . Numbers. For it was in the 38th year of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt that Deuteronomy was commanded to be written and placed by the side of the ark and not joined to these four, so that it might not obscure” the significance of the number four (Epiphanius Weights 35 Syr apud Robertson 138). Elsewhere, Epiphanius also has the idea that the Wisdom books of Solomon and Sirach are useful, but not among the centrally authoritative books “and thus were not kept in the ARWNA, that is, the Ark of the covenant” (Weights 4 apud Robertson 138). It is interesting, perhaps even significant, that in S-T 1/4, the Jew cites Deuteronomy by name as a “sacred and venerable book” in which God speaks, and later there are several explicit formulae mentioning “Deuteronomy” (5/20 [twice], 6/22, 6/25 [actually quoting Exodus!], 7/28). And for S-T, it is only in these Deuteronomy quotations that Moses is named as speaker (5/20, 6/22, 6/25 [but actually Exodus 23.7 – oft quoted as “law” – thus easy to identify with Deuteronomy -- and even apparently denied to Moses in the Anonymous Dialogue 8.274 “it is not by Moses as the Jews teach but is a law of nature”]), but not in other pentateuchal references.


Since one of my longstanding research interests is early Christian appropriation and adaptation of Jewish scriptural passages and traditions, I decided to try to take a closer look at the situation in T-A, for comparison with other prooftexting literature. For clarity, I have tried to divide the task into two parts: the use of introductory formulae, and the textual contents of the quoted material. As it turns out, there is too much that still needs to be done with this material – several dissertations or monographs or even articles cry out for the attention of dedicated researchers – but here are some impressions – none of which are necessarily new or original:


2. That the author/compiler of T-A sometimes relies, directly or indirectly, on “testimony/prooftext collecting” and its techniques is perhaps best illustrated by T-A chapter 10, which surveys the life of Jesus in terms of a series of topics, each of which is introduced with a set formula (“Now concerning ...”), and matched with a passage or passages from Jewish scriptures. This same technique is well illustrated by the “testimony book” attributed to Epiphanius, edited by Robert Hotchkiss in the SBL Texts and Translations series (1974), and can be found in various other sources from late antiquity (e.g. Barnabas, Justin). Whether closer exploration of this aspect of T-A can get us back to a very early stage of Christian development, perhaps in some connection with the mysterious proto-dialogue of “Jason and Papiscus,” seems probable to me, although the route is not entirely clear.


Although most of the quotations in T-A have clear introductory formulae and can be traced to Jewish Greek scriptural sources with which they generally conform, there are some interesting exceptions. The reference to Solomon’s “covenant/testament” in which the king sacrifices (so Timothy) or crushes (so Aquila) locusts is probably the most obvious and amusing – and it is presented as being well known to both discussants (9.11-13). Similarly, although there seemed to have been an agreement at the outset that arguments would rest on only the accepted Jewish books, not including the “apocrypha,” There are places in which the Christian cites by name from Baruch (as included in the “Jeremiah” corpus) with only mild murmerings from Aquila (S-T includes an unidentified “Baruch” quote in 4.17), and from Wisdom of Solomon and “Esdras” (? 1 Esdras; 10.24) with no objection, and a discussion of a tradition found in Bel and the Dragon (about Habakkuk and the fiery furnace) that both disputants cite. There are also a couple of anonymous references to material found in Sirach. Interestingly, S-T 3.12 cites Sirach 24 as spoken “through Solomon.”


An example from unproblematic scriptures is the treatment of Habakkuk 1.5 (“. . . I am doing a work in your days that you will never believe . . .”) in T-A 18.11 (“in another passage it says”) and in 38.13 (“thus he/it said through Hosea”). As was noted above, T-A treats “the 12” minor prophets as one book. Perhaps that can explain the ascription of the Habbakuk passage to “Hosea,” presumably the first of the twelve, although such misattribution is often thought to be a sign of confusion caused by copying and recopying strings of excerpts. In the New Testament book of Acts, the same passage is attributed to “the prophets” (13.41) and, indeed, various Christian authors preserve versions of that vague formula, presumably under the influence of Acts. The accurate ascription to Habakkuk is found on the Greek side only in the Chronicon Pascale and in Cosmas Indicopleustes, who appears to be citing the Chronicon Pascale directly. On the other hand, the Latin S-T 7/28 also explicitly identifies Habakkuk as the source. This sort of evidence tends to encourage the idea that at least some of the quoted materials are taken not directly from biblical manuscripts but from deritive collections of excerpts (or even “floating excerpts”) such as we know existed in various forms.


3. The textual affinities within the quoted materials are not easy to identify, given the wide range of variation in the known Greek scriptural manuscripts, and in the MSS of T-A, not to mention the additional complications introduced by paying attention to indirect witnesses (other quotations especially). Robert Robertson has exhaustively (and perhaps exhaustingly?) drawn up charts of attested variants to determine whether identifiable patterns of variation exist in the quotations in T-A. On the whole, there are no such patterns. This is not unexpected, since the attempt to identify thoroughgoing “recensions” (e.g. Hexaplaric, Lucianic, Catena) by examining the mostly much later LXX/OG MSS is methodologically suspect, especially for any witnesses earlier than the fourth or fifth centuries, when a few whole Bibles began to be produced. Before that time, biblical books circulated in mini-codices or scrolls that contained only one or two books, which would have made the maintenance of a homogeneous “text type” extremely difficult if not completely impossible, even if there were individuals or schools that produced such consistently edited copies. If the fourth century is about the time our version of T-A comes together, making use also of earlier materials, we can hardly expect to find clear-cut textual patterns. Of course, later copyists of T-A might have introduced “corrections” and “adjustments” from the texts with which they were familiar, making our detective work all the more complicated. Robertson found some evidence of such procedures, especially in MS O of the T-A material.


What we do find is that the Daniel materials in T-A silently represent the translation popularly attributed to “Theodotion,” a situation that is not at all surprising, even though the Christian spokesman knows of Theodotion and other scriptural translators/translations and seems to think of them as distinct from his authoritative Greek texts (3.9ff). Some of the “variations” found in other T-A quotations are attested, again unsurprisingly, in other prooftexting literature such as Justin’s Dialogue, although a great deal of work remains to be done in gathering and digesting this sort of evidence. T-A gives several relatively lengthy passages from the Minor Prophets (“the Twelve”), and especially from Hosea and Zachariah, which I hoped might show some knowledge of the “kaige” translation discovered at Nahal Hever and known to Justin. This hope was dashed, but out of the rubble emerged a somewhat consistent pattern of variation that deserves even closer analysis than Robertson was able to give it. Did the author/compiler of T-A have access to a special edition of the Minor Prophets that has not survived in the manuscripts? When he ascribes a passage from Habakkuk to “Hosea,” is this because Hosea is the lead section in the composite book of the twelve? But he does cite from several of the minor prophets by name elsewhere.


Moving forward with this type of material into relatively unexplored but highly promising directions will not be easy, even with the increasing number of new traditional and electronic tools. For example, T-A cites Lamentations 4.20 twice in almost exactly the same textual form (10.41, 11.8), and once in a conflated context (6.5). Robertson takes the first step of collating these materials against the text and apparatus of Ziegler’s 1957 Goettingen edition of Jeremiah-Baruch-Lamentations, and notes only three variations in which T-A differs from Ziegler’s text but has support from one or more witnesses in the Goettingen apparatus. In T-A 10.41, this is one of several proof texts anticipating the bad treatment received by Messiah Jesus; in T-A 11.8, the passage is one of three attesting the titles Messiah and Lord. T-A 6.5 is part of a montage about God’s SUMBOULOS (Advisor) who was in the beginning (Prv 8.27f, Gen 1.1), before time (Mic 5.1), without known origin (Isa 53.8), by the spirit/breath of our face which is Messiah Lord (Lam 4.20?) who searched the whole way of knowledge . . .  (Baruch 3.37f).


The most interesting of these passages – the montage – is not attested elsewhere in the online TLG materials, unfortunately. But the independent quotation from Lamentations is widely used among the Christian authors in the TLG bank, with five giving only the first phrase (“the spirit before our face is the Messiah Lord” – see also Ps-Epiphanius Testimonies 5.29) and another eight completing the quotation in the same way as in T-A (“who was siezed because of our corruptions, of whom we said: Let us live under his shadow among the gentiles” – see also Ps-Epiph Testimonies 41.3, lacking the last 3 words; S-T 6/22 has an odd shortened form), although two of them omit “who was siezed . . . corruptions.” So there are lots of prooftext parallels with which to compare the textual form(s) in T-A. But if we can trust Jean Danielou (Etudes, 1965, 76f), this passage appears over 30 times in the Greek and Latin sources he examined, all of which would need to be reviewed to obtain a more complete picture. Ziegler, unfortunately, does not detail such evidence in his Goettingen LXX/OG edition. But to make an accurate assessment of this material in T-A and similar texts, it all needs to be explored closely.



There is not time, nor energy, to pursue these matters further in this setting. And the tools are only gradually emerging.


3 overlapping things for comparative study:

concept of “scripture(s)” – e.g. Deuteronomy

use of introductory formulae – e.g. false attributions

actual quotation texts – e.g. characteristic/unusual readings

  T-A ναντίον (3*)/ νώπιόν (13*); Anonym (7*)/ (6*); other (0)/ (1,1*)



J.H. Declerck, Anonymus dialogus cum Iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 30. Turnhout: Brepols, 1994]: 3-111. 28.5K words.


R.G. Robertson, The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Critical Text, Introduction to the Manuscript Evidence, and an Inquiry into the Sources and Literary Relationships. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University (Diss.), 1986: i-cxxix. 24.3K words


G. Bardy, Les trophées de Damas: controverse judéo-chrétienne du VIIe siècle [Patrologia Orientalis 15:2. Paris: Firmin-Didot et Companie, 1920]: 189-275 [19-105]. 15.6K words and 1.5 K



Check bibliogs:

For discussions and enumeration of such anti-Judaica in general, see (chronologically; also Harnack Geschichte 1.92ff, PSCO):

1882 Adolf Harnack. Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter. Section 2.9 “Die dem Aristo von Pella beigelegte Schrift: Jason’s and Papiskus’ Disputation über Christus” 115-130. TU 1

1883 Adolf Harnack. Die Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani, nebst Untersuchungen über die antijüdische Polemik in der alten Kirche (und Die Acta Archelai und das Diatessaron Tatians [137-153]), Texte und Untersuchungen 1.3 (1883). [See also the Bratke edition, below; here Harnack argues for S-T as based on Jason & Papiscus, but he retracted that theory in Geschichte der Altchristliche Litteratur 1.95 (1893)]


1889 the "Introduction" to Dialogue of Papiscus and Philo, ed by A.C. McGiffert, Dialogue Between a Christian and a Jew. Marburg/New York, 1889. [not at UPenn]


-1898 A-Z The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, ed by F.O.Conybeare in Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series 8. Oxford, 1898, esp. pp. xxxiv-lvii; and photo of MS at p.65 [231.1 A82.1898]


-1900 H.B.Swete, An Introduction to the OT in Greek (1902), summarizes relevant material from T-A concerning Aquila (p. 31f) and the list of Jewish scriptural books (p. 206)


1904 Evagrii Altercatio Legis inter Simonem Judaeum et Theophilum Christianum, ed by E. Bratke. CSEL 45, 1904. [231.2C C817 storage] (and Harnack before him)


-1914 J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l'emipre Romain I (1914), pp. 53-76;

[274.945 J985]  


1919 Marmorstein, A.  "Jews and Judaism in the Earliest Christian
Apologies," The Expositor 17 (1919), 73-80 and 100-116. [BS410.E7 storage]


1921 G.F.Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921), 197- 254.


1932 A.B. Hulen, "The 'Dialogues with the Jews' as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity," JBL 51 (1932), 58-70 and especially 62 n.6 [Sem Rm 401; BS 410.J7]


1935 A.L. Williams, Adversus Judaeos: a Bird's-eye View of Christian <lt>Apologiae</> until the Renaissance.  Cambridge (Eng.), 1935. [lost at UPenn BT1101 .W55, Yarnall NT24.87 W761]


1946 B.Blumenkranz, Die Judenpredigt Augustins: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der judisch-christlichen Beziehungen in den ersten Jahrhunderten (Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft 25; Basle, 1946) [231.2 A6.yBlu]


-1948 M.Simon, Verus Israel: etude sur les relations entre Chretiens et Juifs dans l’empire Romain (135-U425) (Paris, 1948, 1966(2)); see especially chs. 5-6 and the bibliography; supplemented in …


-1949 Wilde, R.  The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian
Writers of the First Three Centuries.  Catholic University of
Patristic Studies 81.  Washington D.C., 1949. [BR67 .W5]


-1951 Hunt, B.P.W. Stather.  Primitive Gospel Sources.  New York,
1951. [221.1/H917]


1956 Dispvtatio Ivdei et Christiani et anonymi avctoris : dispvtationis Ivdei et Christiani continvatio / Gisleberti Crispini ; ad fidem codicvm recensvit prolegomenis notisqve instrvxit B. Blvmenkranz (Stromata patristica et mediaevalia 3; Vltaiecti ; Antverpiae : In Aedibus Spectrvm, 1956). [CAJS BM535 .C75 1956]


1966 B.P.W. Stather Hunt, “Dialogue between Timothy and Aquila, a late survival of an early form of Christian apologetic,” in Texte und Untersuchungen 93 (1966), 70-75.




2003 Bauer, Renate. Adversus Judaeos: Juden und Judentum im Spiegel alt- und mittelenglischer Texte (Münchner Universitätsschriften 29; New York: P. Lang c2003)


Oepke, pp. 281 @@ff. [title?]


An interesting short catena of scriptural quotations couched in Dialogue form also is to be found in the

Act Phil 77-79 (Philip vs. Aristarchus)




Jason and Papiscus Dialogue is known mainly from


Celsus (Origen, CCels 4.52) – elicits pity and hatred instead of laughter, for its fallacy is obvious [presumably allegorical method?]


Origen counters that it is useful at basic level, showing how the Messianic predictions fit Jesus, and that the Jew (Papiscus) discourses appropriately.


“A Christian disputes with a Jew on the basis of the Jewish Scriptures, and proves that the prophecies about the Messiah apply to Jesus, while his opponent in a gallant and not unequal manner plays the part of the Jew in the argument” (Stather-Hunt 244).


Celsus Africanus translated it into Latin for Bishop Vigilius (see works of Cyprian, ed. Hartel 3.119-132), and calls Jason a Hebrew Christian and Papiscus an Alexandrian Jew who in the end is baptized. It is an “opus praeclarum atque memorabile, gloriosumqe.” The preface also is “de Judaica incredulitate” (compare S-T language!). Some MSS attribute it to Cyprian, with which there are some affinities, especially in OL quotes (so Stather-Hunt 249).


Maximus (PG 4.421; 7th c?) attributes it to Ariston of Pella (c 140), and notes that Clement of Alexandria said it was by Luke in Hypotyposes book 8 (now lost) – note that ClemAl also plays with the idea that Luke wrote Hebrews (where?).


Otherwise, Ariston of Pella is attributed with information on the revolt under Hadrian (Eusebius, HE 4.6.3; compare Tertullian AdvJud 13, and Justin Dial 16.2; see Isa 33.17 on Jews seeing their land only from afar?), and even to have presented an Apology for Christianity to Hadrian (Chronicon Pascale Alexandrinum [ed Dindorf 477])


Jerome QuHeb in Gen 1.1 (ed Vallarsi 3.305) says Gen 1.1 is presented as if the Hebrew has “In the Son God created …”


Jerome On Gal 3.13 on Deut 21.23 says it has LOIDORIA QEOU is the one who is hanged (maledictio dei qui appensus est) – see Aquila?


Maximus, Scholia on Mystical Theology 1.3 says it refers to the 7 heavens;


Moses Khorenensis is supposed to have referred to it also (or to Aristo as a source of history?), according to Stather-Hunt (244, no ref given!)


Tertullian’s ref to previous treatise of which he was aware (Conybeare)

[From my Dissertation:]

Origen, in answer to [[83]] Celsus' attacks on Christianity, describes the (now lost) I)A/SONOS KAI\ PAPI/SKOU A)NTILOGI/AN PERI\ XRISTOU= which elsewhere is attributed to Aristo of Pella (c. 140), in the following manner:\30/

A Christian [Jason] debates with a Jew [Papiscus] on the basis of Jewish scriptures and demonstrates that the prophecies concerning the messiah are applicable to Jesus, while the other participant in the debate argues in a manner which is neither base nor unfitting to the Jewish character. Into the same literary genre of "Dialogues," and at the same time employing testimonies to some extent, fall numerous writings with varying degrees of similarity. Some of the most important examples are Justin's Dialogue with Trypho (c. 150), Evagrius' Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus (c. 400), and the anonymous Dialogues of Timothy and Aquila (c. 400), [[84]] Athanasius and Zacchaeus (c. 400), and Papiscus and Philo (medieval).\31/ An interesting short catena of scriptural quotations couched in Dialogue form also is to be found in the Act Phil 77-79 (Philip vs. Aristarchus). ---

\30/CCels IV:52. Extant fragments for the Dialogue may be found in PG 5:1277-86. According to a certain Celsus Afer, who apparently translated the dialogue into Latin sometime before the fifth century, Jason was a Jewish-Christian and Papiscus was an Alexandrian Jew who finally was converted through the discussion. It is Maximus Confessor (7th century) who claims that the Dialogue was written by Aristo, although Maximus says that in the Hypotoposes, Cl.A attributed it to Luke! See the literature cited in the next note, especially Juster, p. 54. (confused with Ep. Hebs??} {@@RAKnote on facing page:



Focus on concepts of “scripture(s)”

[note also 4.7 bowed his head to the east; see later as well]

[note also occasional use of “Hebrews” not “Jews” by the Xn]

use of language (check Greek) for “scripture(s)” etc.


Specific naming of books, sections (e.g. “at the bush,” Ps numbering), order of proofs in series?


Treatment of Moses as speaker in Pentateuch?


Concept of LXX as unitary and covering more than Pentateuch.



TLG Scripta Anonyma Adversus Judaeos, Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae.


01.5 (A) πηγγελκς τς θείας γραφάς

01.6 (A) For the divine scriptures (α θεῖαι γραφαί) also teach us to worship one God alone, for thus it is written (γέγραπται γὰρ ουτως):

Hear Israel, the Lord your God is one, and besides me there is

no God [Dt 6.4].

20.4 (T) ζητούμενον ν τας θείαις γραφας

24.6 (T) καλς μν πάντα λέγουσιν α θεόπνευσται γραφα

27.1 (A) ερίσκομεν ν τας θείαις γραφας

30.2 (T) α θεαι γραφα οκ κρυψαν

30.3 (A) ε πάντα σα επαν α θεαι γραφαί

35.1 (A) πς ον πσαι α γραφα θέλουσιν

39.1 (A) ς θελήσατε ο Χριστιανο διεστρέψατε τς γραφάς

39.3 (A) μήποτε ληθς ο Χριστιανο ς θελήσατε διεστρέψατε τς γραφάς

39.4 (T) επερ τας γίαις γραφας [passages]

39.5 (T) διέστρεψεν τς γραφάς [proofs]

39.32 (T) πρς τ μ συνδυάσαντας νοθεσαι τς γραφάς

40.1 (A) τίς ον νοθεύσας τς θείας γραφς

40.5 (T) ρμηνευθναι τς θεοπνεύστους γραφάς

40.6 (T) Πτολεμαος Φιλάδελφος κα ρμηνεύσας τς γραφς

40.21 (T) οτινες νοθεύτως ρμήνευσαν τς γραφάς

52.7 (T) καθς δήλωσαν μν α θεαι γραφαί


Singular “the scripture” [contrast θεία γραφὴ in preceding TLG Dialogue]

04.16 (A) πάγει γρ γραφ λέγουσα [Gen 1.31]

04.19 (A) ν τέρ γραφ  [in no other text]

11.2 (A) οτε νομα ατο μφέρεται πώποτε ες γραφήν [in no passage]

11.10 (T) ο μόνον Χριστν ατν κάλεσεν γραφή, λλ κα κύριον [Ps 2.2]

13.5 (A) λλ τίς στιν ν λέγει γραφή; [Gen 27, etc.]

13.6 (T) γραφ πάντα καλς λέγει [same]

15.6 (T) μ γρ επεν γραφ θαύμασεν; [Gen 27.32]

15.9 (T) λεγούσης τς γραφς τι [Gen 15.12]

19.12 (A) τς γραφς μ μφερούσης [Dan 6.18 inference]

19.13 (T) χει γρ γραφ τς Γενέσεως οτως [Gen 2.7]

19.17 πάγει γρ γραφ λέγουσα οτως [Dan 6.19ff]

33.6 (A) ψεύδεται γραφ ελόγησα ατόν; [Gen, Jacob blessed]

33.7 (T) πάντα γρ ληθ επεν γραφή. [general, on this passage]

33.8 (T) κουσον δ τς γραφς λεγούσης [Gen 27]

34.6 (T) λέγει γρ γραφ οτως [Gen 49]

39.8 (T) κα συνήγαγεν βίβλους π πάσης γραφς [general, books/writing]

46.2 (T) γραφή σοι ποδείκνυσιν [Ps 88]

51.2 (T) οκ επεν γραφ τι [Isa 65.15]

56.14 (T) κα λεγεν τ κόλουθα τς γραφς [Dan 7.9ff]



And again, he says to Moses at the bush (λέγει τῶι Μωυσῆι ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου): 

I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, your fathers [Ex. 3.6].


And he teaches us through all the prophets (δι πάντων τῶν προφητῶν) and in the historical books (ἐν τοῖς ἱστορικοῖς βίβλοις) and everywhere in general (ἀπαξαπλῶς πανταχοῦ) to worship one God and not two.


3.1 On the basis of which writings (ἐκ ποίων καὶ ποίων γραφῶν) do you want to conduct the discussion, my good man?


Timothy the Christian said: You don't reject any book from the law 

or the prophets, do you?


The Jew said: Before God almighty, far be it from me to  

repudiate any of the inspired scriptures! (τι τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν)



The Jew said: So then, what are the books (βίβλοι) on the basis of which you wish to conduct the dialogue with me?


The Christian said: I mentioned this matter to you because there are also certain other apocryphal books (τινα κα ἀλλα ἀπόκρυφα βιβλία); for they (τ . . . οντα) are also included in the covenant of God (ἐν τῆι διαθήκηι τοῦ θεοῦ).


And the 72 [om?] Hebrew translators translated them (ατινα και), as did Aquila and Symmachos and Theodotion.


And two other versions (εκδοσεις) were also found hidden in jars, one in Jericho and one in Nicopolis (which is Emmaus);


but we do not know who translated them, for they were found in the days of the desolation of Judea which took place under Vespasian.


Now these are the inspired books (αι θεοπνευστοι βιβλοι), acknowledged by both Christians and Hebrews: . . .

3.11b [Gen-Exod-Lev-Num] these are the books dictated by God's mouth and written by the hand of Moses (δι στόματος θεοῦ ὑπαγορευθεῖσαι καὶ ἐν χειρὶ Μωυςέως γραφεῖσαι).


And the fifth book is Deuteronomy, which was not dictated by God's

mouth (ο δι στόματος θεοῦ ὑπαγορευθὲν ἀλλὰ διὰ Μωυσέως δευτερονομηθέν)--


thus neither was it deposited in the <Arona> (αρωνα) (that is, in the ark of the covenant). . . .


The twenty-first book is Judith; twenty-second, Esther;


for the 72 translators handed down to us Tobit and the Wisdom of

Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach among the apocrypha (εις τα αποκρυφα).


These are the 22 books that are inspired and canonical (α θεόπνευστοι καὶ ἐνδιάθετοι) -- there are, in fact, 27, but they are counted as 22 because five of them are double and because there are only 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet -- but all the rest are included among the apocrypha. . . .

4.6  The Lord God Almighty spoke to his servant Moses mouth to mouth (θεραποντα Μωυσεα στομα προς στομα); and Moses himself, when he wrote, said thus (και γε αυτος Μωυσης γραφων ουτως ειπεν):

In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth [Gen 1.1]


4.16 [Aquila] For the scripture (η γραφη) continues, saying:


4.19 [Aquila]

But we have never found anything -- either in the book of 

Genesis, or in David, or in Job, or contained in any other

scripture (εν ετερα γραφη) -- concerning a son;


5.10 [Aquila speaking]

For the Almighty himself also says through Moses:

Hear, Israel, the Lord you[r] God is one Lord, and you shall

not worship a strange God -- for I am, and there is none

beside me [cf. Deut 6.4, Isa 11.3].



The Christian said: All these things, if you listen patiently, the law and the prophets proclaimed beforehand, and I will also show you from the divine scriptures ( νόμος κα ο προφται προεκήρυξαν, κγ δέ σοι δεικνύω κ τν θείων γραφν).


7.2 [A]

But about this Jesus, you promised to demonstrate for me, from the divine scriptures (κ τν θείων γραφν) that he is the advisor of God --  now fulfill the promise.



It was all made known to us through the law and the prophets (διά τε το νόμου κα τν προφητν), and now listen with understanding!


Concerning his first coming, Moses said (Μωϋσς επεν): "The Lord God will raise up for us a prophet like me from your brothers; listen to [obey] him in

all that he says to you; "[Deut 18.15 in Acts 3.22 form] and he passed 

sentence on [gave warning to] the one not listening [obeying][Dt18.19@] as you also know.



But also in the 2nd Psalm David says thus: "The Lord said to me:  'You are my son, today I have begotten you," [Ps 2.7]. 


The Jew said: That which is in the 2nd Psalm was [has been] written about Solomon; or don't you know that before he was born God spoke

about [concerning] him saying: "I shall be to him as a father and he

shall be to me as a son" [2 Sm 7.14 = Heb 1.5].


9.4 (T)

You know that he kept none of the commandments of God [P; V has "That.. you also know], for he also [even] built high places for each of the

idols which his wives were worshipping, foreign women whom he took

[cf. I Kg 11,1-8], concerning whom God had spoken to the sons of Israel

by the hand of Moses saying (λάλησεν θες τος υος σραλ ν χειρ Μωϋσ λέγων·):  "Do not marry them" [Dt 7.3] namely those

(among the) gentiles around [around about] you.



The Jew said: He did not slaughter them, but against his will he crushed them in his hand.


In any event, these things are not included in the book of the kings, but are written in his Testament (τατα δ ο περιέχει βίβλος τν βασιλειν, λλ’ ν τ διαθήκ ατο γέγραπται)[413.6,8.3d  + 11Ps].


The Christian said: Thereby (Then by this) it is all the more firmly established, because this was not revealed by the hand of a historiographer but was made known from the mouth of Solomon himself (λλ’ κ το στόματος ατο το Σολομντος γνωσθε τοτο).



The Jew said: with respect to the former quotation, these words  

are not written in the (book of) Jeremiah (οκ στιν τατα γεγραμμένα

ν τ ερεμί).


The Christian said: They are in the epistle of Baruch. 


The Jew said: this is so.  


The Christian said: But the epistle of Baruch and the Lamentations of Jeremiah and his prophecy (are) designated [constitutes] one [a new] book (λλ’ πιστολ Βαρούχ, κα ο θρνοι ερεμίου, κα προφητεία ατο νέα βίβλος ναγορεύεται).



And that the infants -- what I mean is children of the Hebrews -- bid

him welcome(?) (met him) with olive branches by saying "Hosanna" David

says [relates] in the eight Psalm: . . .

10.16 for Isaiah first specifies Zion, but [or] rather the Holy Spirit

through Isaiah saying: . . . And through Zachariah . . . [[but not consistent – see 10.14 where Zachariah says]]


And through Zachariah, he says by the same mouth to her:



Concerning the counsel which the chief priests and elders of the

people took against Jesus, David says: "Their kinsmen said in their

heart in unison come and let us cause the feasts of God to cease from

the earth" [Ps/74.8]


And again in the 40th [42nd,IV] Psalm it says thus "All my enemies

wispered slanders against me; they devised evil against me."




But Solomon also says in the Proverbs: "And the impious were brought

to naught, while they were thinking [to be honored] [<____> 3.10f.]


And a little later he says: "When they [saw] the just man glorified, they

said: 'woe to us because we were deceived; is not this the one whom we

held in laughter and mockery[derision]? How has he come to be reckoned

among the sons of God [Wisd 5.16]


And the same Solomon again says: Let us run together against the just

one because he is inconvenient for [a burden to] us, and he opposes

our works. And He reproaches [upbraids] us for sins against the law;

and He charges us with the sins of our youth.


He professes to have knowledge of God and calls himself a child

[servant] of God.


He became to us a rebuke of our thoughts; He is a burden to us and he

sees that [even to see because] his life is unlike others, and his

paths are utterly strange.


We were beckoned [thought/consdered] by him as [to be] base and he

keeps both from [abstains from] our ways as from uncleannesses.


He esteems [makes] the end of the righteous happy and boasts that

God is his father.


Let us see if his words are true; and let us test the issue [end] of

his life, for if the just man is God's son, he will assist him, and

will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.


By violence and torture let us draw him out [examine him], in order

that we might know his virtuousness and to a shameful death let us

condemn him and let us [we will] test his forbearance --


for from his words there shall be a visitation [an examination].'


The  foolish thought these things and were deserved, for their evil

blinded them and they did not know God's mysteries [Wisd Sol.2.12ff.]."



And concerning his sitting at the right hand of the father, the

Almighty, through the mouth of David, said: "Sit at my right hand

until I make of your ememies a stool for your feet" [Ps 109.1].


Wherefore Moses indeed knowing all these things reproached the sons

of Israel with curses saying: "O crooked and perverted generation,

repay these things to the Lord" [Deut 32.5f].



The Christian said: Now I shall show you from the   

divine scriptures, the words (signs, symbols) Jesus, Christ, and cross.



The Jew said: Certainly the great nations round about him (?);  

but the Lord also said through Moses: [He causes you?] "You go into

nations greater than you and mightier than you to obtain your

inheritance (?)." [cf Dt 4.38]



Or do you not know that Abraham also, being in ecstasy about the

setting of the sun, when the Lord made the covenant of circumcision

with him [cf Gen 15.12], saw the same things?


When the scripture says that about the setting of the sun an ecstasy

fell upon Abraham.


On which account also there was a change (?) of the name; it is clear

that "setting of the sun" signifies at the end of days.



The Christian said: Your own mouth has reported how you have 

read both the old and the new covenant, and you do not know this?


The Jew said: Well, there is a genealogy in the old, and  

in the new it is in [the gospel, +P] according to Matthew, . . .


The Christian said: You must (ought to?) speak rightly and  

in order, as we also spoke in truth, speaking from the old

(covenant) thus, as a cup in the hand of the Lord, full of drink

of unmixed wine, and he poured from one to the other; and indeed if

you think to hide anything at all, we are not ignorant. [cf Ps 74.9]



The Jew said: But your gospels contain nothing of these things,  

unless there is something among the apocrypha. Surely I do not have

to believe them?


The Christian said: Do not (you will not?) give ear to the 

apocrypha at all (?); but it is clear that we have to believe the

things (books?) of the law and the prophets, even against our

will (?).


The Jew said: And now speak, citing from the law and the 




For you promised to tell us from divine scriptures matters concerning

the wood (tree) on which Jesus was crucified, then he was buried.



The Christian said: You disobeyed him by provoking him to  

jealousy over those that are no Gods, as Moses said [Dt 32.21],

and again when that one says "I showed you many good works from

my father; for which of his works do you stone me?" [Jn 10.32].


And you said "you have a demon"; and again "crucify him"   

[cf. Jn 8.48 and Mt 27.22f. parr].


These are your disobedient and opposing acts just as also you did

similarly in the old covenant/testament.


The Jew said: Things mentioned in your scriptural books are  

not acceptable.


The Christian said: Which of these? For did you not do   

(things that are) not even in the old (??)--and things even worse

than those?



And again, Moses said to your ancestors with reference to the one

stretched our on these pieces of wood (trees): [{4}?] "And you [pl.]

will see your life hanging before your eyes and you will not

believe" [Dt 28.66].


The Jew said: You speak well, although you don't want the truth, 

for the same Moses himself said "cursed is everyone who hangs on a

tree" [Dt 21.23, cf. Gal 3.13]--notice then what you deify!


The Christian said: And the divine scriptures also say it all  

very (speak everything) well in saying: "He who teaches a fool is like

one who glues together a potsherd" [Sir 22.7], for such things as have

been spoken have been spoken into the ears of one void of comprehension.



And we find many things said about the holy spirit, but about this

son, I am waiting to hear convincingly (?) fully something from the

divine scriptures.



For it is written in the first book, thus: "And the Lord appeared  

to Abraham at the oak at Mambre, where he sat at the door of his 

tent at midday.



The Christian said, And if you concealed the truth, you will again be

refuted by many proofs from the divine writings. Know, therefore, O

Jew, that the divine writings did not conceal the oneness-in-substance

[homoousioteta] of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.


The Jew said, All things you have spoken rightly and in

order, that if all things divine scriptures spoke, they spoke

concerning this son - and I was persuaded.


30.7 [A]

But now as I will ask you, answer me briefly, asking nothing else for

yourself, if the one who is proclaimed in the covanent of the law and

in the prophets is Christ, that is, Jesus, concerning whom is the argument.



Now, Moses spoke thus concerning this son, 'The Lord your God will

raise up a prophet for you out of your brothers, /one/ like me.  Hear

him in all things he will say to you.' [Dt 18.15] 


Through David he also testified us a testimony, saying, 'Hear, my

people, and I am testifying [i.e. I will testify], Israel, if you hear

me: there will not be in you a new god, nor will you worship a foreign




The Jew said, What then?  Does the scripture lie in blessing



The Christian said, God forbid!  It does not lie.  For all

things the scripture said are true. 


But listen to the scripture speaking: 'Isaac smelled the smell of the

garments of Jacob.' [Gen 27.27] 



The Jew said, How, then, do all the scriptures want to call this Jesus

the son of David, and even your gospels we find the blind calling to

him and the Canaanite woman saying, 'O son of David.' [Matt 9.27,

15.21, 20.31 ?]



The Jew said: As you willed, you Christians perverted the



For you cited (named) many points (?) from the

different books which are not contained in the Hebrew but in the

Greek only; and with respect to this matter I wanted to know, why

is this so? 


Is it not that you Christians truly, as you willed, perverted the



The Christian said: It is well you ask, not knowing truly

the plot against the divine scriptures made by Aquila the

translator, and more the damage he brought to himself and the holy

scriptures (having perverted and translated them evilly - Paris)

just as it appeared to him. 


For this Aquila desiring to conceal the testimonies concerning Christ,

having learned the letters and the tongue of the Hebrews, in the

fortieth year of (his-P) life, perverted the scriptures. 


And in order that we might not omit (anything) we shall make inquiry

respecting the translation made by the seventy-two translators for

Ptolemy and the likewise make the inquiry concerining Aquila. 



And having received them and having unrolled them, he (the king) found

these books written in Hebrew letters and language. 



The Jew said: Who, therefore, is he having adulterated

the divine scriptures in which we do not find the majority of

points about which you have spoken?


The Christian said: He is Aquila; now listen intelligently

also about this man, how he became a translator and why; and how

many years after the seventy two, and for what (kind of) reason. 


And you yourself be the judge whether I should trust this man more

than the things (translations?) of the seventy two. 


This Aqulia was indeed from Sinope in Pontus; and (he lived) a long

time (after the seventy two). 


For it was after this Ptolemy who had commanded that the inspired

scriptures be translated, just as he reigned after the one having

reigned after Alexander the Macedonian. 



They, therefore, again having warned him from the divine scriptures,

and not at all being pleased by him, cast him out of the church,

admonishing (him-P) to abstain, out of honor, from the lawless

practice of astronomy. 


But this man,

filled with rage and having devised evil things in his heart seized

upon the wrong doing as a desirable goal and having cursed

Christianity and denied his life, he went away to the priests of

the Hebrews and having been circumcized, he became a Jew. 


And having patiently learned the power of the letters of the Hebrews

and having been instructed most excellently in their language he

prepared a second translation for himself (he translated an edited

version), desiring to conceal the testimonies concerning Christ.


Whenever, therefore, you should find the testimonies concerning

Christ shrouded, whether in the Hebrew (for he also obscured them

there) or in the Greek, know that the treachery is due to Aquila!


Surely, then, rather than Aquila, the seventy two will be

acceptable, who translated the scriptures authentically -- or

rather the Holy Spirit, who spoke though them as he chose? 


For I am of the opinion that they shared in the Holy Spirit, since

being in the separateness of the thirty-six huts, nowhere was a

difference of words found among them, but they all spoke with one

voice. (P,V with one mind)


The Jew said: Then you accept the seventy-two translators

as speaking from the Holy Spirit?


The Christian said: I accept them whole heartedly.


The Jew said: How then do the seventy two translators

translate in Isaiah, saying: 'The Lord swears to you, Jerusalem,

that I will no longer give your food to your enemies, and your

goods to those who hate you' and so on [Isa. 62.8]. 



The Christian said: It is in many places in the holy scriptures (?)

that God took the kingdom away from the Hebrews and gave it to the

nations through Jesus. 



The Christian said: The scriptures prove (this) to you for I do not

have to demonstrate these things out of inventiveness (?) do I? 


For it is written thus in the 88th Psalm: 'Your mercies, Lord, I shall

sing forever; with my mouth I shall declare your truth (faithfulness)

unto generation and generation. 



And Moses also [Conybeare conjectures that something has fallen out or

is missing at this place] of which he commanded (so P) (them) to make

(???) the antitype also. 


For he says:'See that you make all things according to the pattern

(type) shown you in the mountain.' [Ex 25:40] 



The Christian [P omits]: Then don't you know what has been

written in the minor prophets?  For it says thus: 'As I live says

the Lord (that) every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall

confess to God.' [Ezk 48.3, Is 45.23]  



In Psalm 21 it is written thus: 'They pierced my hands and

feet, they counted all my bones; they observed and looked upon me.

And they divided my garments among them and cast lots for my

clothing.' [Ps 21(22).17(16)-19(18)] 



And again in Psalm 68 it is written thus: 'They gave me gall for my

food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.' [Ps



Again it was said [so V; P: there was found] in Psalm 21: 'God, my God,

attend to me; why have you forsaken me?' [Ps 21(22).1] 



The Jew said: You promised me you would prove from the

holy scriptures that he is the one who is going to judge the living

and the dead; and now fulfill your promise.



And saying this the Christian rose, weeping; and bowing his

head toward the east he said to the Jew: Pay attention, fellow;

see, this is about the End.



And he gave him other presbyters and deacons for the service of the

liturgy, and they gave him a parchment inscribed with the invocations

and prayers of the rite.








Books by name (apart from the initial list):


Moses (40 total)

Genesis (4)

Exodus (4)

Deuteronomy (2)


Joshua (person; 2)

Kings & Chron 9.21 βίβλος τν παραλειπομένων βασιλειν, (9.5 [2C 7.17])

Kings (1) (9.2 [2S 7.14]), (9.3 [2S 12.25 Heb]), (9.10 [1K 11.34]), 11.10 [1S 2.10 allus], 43.17-18 [2K 17.17], 44.4 [2K 23.27]

TSol (1) 9.11-13 [TS 26.5]


Psalms (about 60)

Proverbs (2) 5.5 [P 8.27-30], 10.30 [WSol 5.2], 10.31 [WSol 5.2-5]

Songs (2) 10.46 Sol [S 3.11], 33.14 Sol [S 5.1], (39.28 letter [S 4.12]), 50.3 Sol [S 2.14]

Job (2) 4.18-19 (Aq) [J 38.7],

Solomon 10.32-39 [WSol 2.12-22]

Solomon (name; 25, Canticles of, Prvbs of, Testament/Covenant 1)

[Sirach: 24.6 [S 22.9], 39.28 letter [S 20.30], 55.15 [S 22.10]]


The Twelve (2 + 21) 12.13 [Am & Hag], 48.12 [Isa 45.23]

 Hosea (9+) 10.23/25 [H 10.6], 12.15 [H 1.10], 37.11-14 [H 2.1-2 & 2.13-14], 37.15 [H 1.10], 37.16 [H 2.18], 37.17 [H 2.23], 38.13 sic [Hab 1.5 !], 41.8 [general], 41.19 sic [Mic 6.3], 49.4-9 [H 2.1-11], 54.9 [H 6.1-2] – possible that he knew all XII under “Hosea”?

 Amos (0) 12.13 XIIPr [A 9.11], 53.7 Isa [A 8.9]

 Micah (2) (6.5a [M 5.1]), 8.4 [M 5.1], 41.19 Hos [M 6.3], 49.14 [M 3.12]

 Joel (0)

 Jonah (1) 54.21 [J 2.9]

 Nahum (0)

 Habakkuk (4) (18.11/13 [H 1.5]), 19.8, 19.9, 19.10 bis [see Bel & Dragon 1.33-39]; 38.13 [H 1.5 “Hosea”],

 Zephaniah (0)

 Haggai (0) (5.11 [H 2.5]), 12.13 XIIPr [H 2.9]

 Zachariah (8) 10.14 [Z 11.12], 10.16-17 [Z 9.9], 11.5&12.1 [Z 3.1-5], (34.23 [Z 13.2]), 46.21 [νδρα νατολν, Z 6.12], 52.3-4 [Z 13.3-4], 54.14 [αώνιον πένθος, ??], 54.22-24 [Z 12.10-14]   

 Malachi (0)

Isaiah (50)

Jeremiah (13; but in 10.5 & 32.8 & 47.3 = Baruch) 47.6 [J 17.9], 55.4-5 [J 11.19]

  Epistle of Baruch (2) (6.5b [B 3.37-38]), 10.5 Jer [B 3.36-38],  32.8-11 Jer [B 3.36-38], 47.3-5 Jer [B3.36-38]

  Lamentations (2) (6.5b [L 4.20]), 11.8 Jer [L 4.20], 43.13 Jer [L 1.20],

Ezekiel (3)

Daniel (15) 19.7 [D 6.18], 19.17-19 [D 6.19-22], 29.16-17 [D 3.92], 34.21 [D 2.34-35], 48.12 [7.14], 54.8 [D 12.2], 56.4-12 [D 7.1-9], 56.14 [D 7.9-14] – all passages follow “Theodotion”

 Bel/Dragon 19.9 [B 1.33-39] – summary similar in Th and OG

Ezra (2) 10.24 [1E 1.36-38?], 10.27 [1E 1.36-38]





Book/Books (selected; omit some refs to particular books):

01.8 δι πάντων τν προφητν διδάσκει μς κα ν τος στορικος βίβλοις

03.2 (T) κ το νόμου τν προφήτων βίβλον

03.7 (A) ποαι δ κα ποαί εσιν βίβλοι, φ’ ν τν διάλογον βούλεσαι ποιήσασθαι πρός με;

03.8 (T) πειδ εσίν τινα κα λλα πόκρυφα βιβλία, δι τοτό σε πέμνησα

03.11a αται ον εσιν α θεόπνευστοι βίβλοι, κα παρ Χριστιανος κα παρ’ βραίοις.
03.11b πρώτη βίβλος τς Γενέσεως . . . Ε δ βίβλος στ τ Δευτερονόμιον . . .  ϛ βίβλος στν ησος το Ναυή . . . etc 

03.18 Αται α εκοσι δύο βίβλοι εσν α θεόπνευστοι κα νδιάθετοι, εκοσι πτα μν οσαι, εκοσι δύο δ ριθμούμεναι δι τ

04.19 οδ ν τ βίβλ τς Γενέσεως, οτε ν τ Δαυίδ, οτε ν τ ώβ, οτε ν τέρ γραφ

05.4 (T) τς βίβλους πάσας πηγγελκς

10.10 (T) πιστολ Βαρούχ, κα ο θρνοι ερεμίου, κα προφητεία ατο νέα βίβλος ναγορεύεται

12.13 οτως γέγραπται ν τ βίβλ τν δώδεκα προφητν

22.5 (A) τ ν τος σος γεγραμμένα βίβλοις οκ στιν δεκτά.
37.3 α
τό τε τ βιβλίον το νόμου ρράντισεν 

39.2 (A) πολλ γρ κεφάλαια κ διαφόρων βιβλίων νόμασας

39.14 ν τ ουδαί εσν βίβλοι περιεκτηκς

39.21 οκ ες γέλωτα κα μπαιγμν βούλομαι τς βίβλους [see Jason/Pap]

48.12 (T) γέγραπται ν τ βίβλ τν δώδεκα προφητν


03.22 (T) πρώτη βίβλος στ τ Εαγγέλιον . . .

56.3 (A) ν τ πιστολ Παύλου, ο κα τν βίβλον ναρίθμιον νέαν διαθήκην χετε







“Psalm” (10 hits) and “David” (60 hits, minus 20) as passages [not (20) 09.5, 09.10, 12.13, 17.7-8, 18.9, 27.3, 35.1, 35.8, 35.13, 35.14, 44.25, 45.2, 45.5, 46.5, 46.7, 46.15, 46.16, 54.24, 55.21]


03.15 (T) ΙΒ τ Ψαλτήριον το Δαυίδ [12th section of scriptures]

04.17 (A) κα πάλιν δι το Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 101.26]

04.19 (A) οδ ν τ βίβλ τς Γενέσεως, οτε ν τ Δαυίδ, οτε ν τ ώβ [general]

06.9 (T) κα Δαυδ μοίως λέγει [Ps 109.1]

06.10 (T) κα πάλιν [Ps 2.7]

08.2 (T) κα πάλιν Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 117.27]

08.7 (T) λλ κα ν τ δευτέρ ψαλμ οτως λέγει

09.1 ουδαος επεν· τ ν τ δευτέρ ψαλμ περ το Σολομντος γέγραπται

10.2 (T) λέγομεν γρ τι [resumptive, Ps 2.7]

10.3 (T) περ δ τν μάγων . . . οτως λέγει Δαυίδ [Ps 71.15]

10.12 (T) περ γρ τν γίων ατο μαθητν Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 44.17]

10.13 (T) περ δ το μαθητο το προδώσαντος ατν οτως λέγει [Ps 40.10]

10.15 (T) Δαυδ λέγει ν τ γδό ψάλμ [Ps 8.2-3]

10.18 (T) περ δ το συμβουλίου . . . Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 73.8]

10.19 (T) κα πάλιν ν τ τεσσαρακοστ ψαλμ οτως λέγει [Ps 40.8]

10.22 (T) Δαυδ δ ξουδενν ατος μα λέγει [Ps 2.3]

10.28 (T) περ γρ το μπαιχθναι ατν . . . οτως γέγραπται Δαυδ μν γρ λέγει [Ps 38.6-7]

10.29 (T) κα πάλιν [Ps 101.9]

10.42 (T) περ δ το Πιλάτου, . . . Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 72.13-14]

10.43 (T) περ δ το ποτισθναι ατν ξος κα χολν λέγει [Ps 68.22]

10.44 (T) περ δ τς τν ματίων μερίσεως ατο οτως γέγραπται [Ps 21.19]

10.45 (T) περ δ το στεφάνου το κανθίνου . . . πρτος Δαυδ . . . λέγων [Ps 57.10]

10.49 (T) περ δ τς ες τν δην συγκαταβάσεως ατο Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 87.7]

10.51 (T) περ δ τς ναστάσεως ατο ατς Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 67.2]

10.52 (T) τι δ νέστη . . . ατς προφήτης Δαυδ επεν [Ps 77.65-66]

10.53 (T) περ δ τς ναλήψεως ατο οτως λέγει [Ps 17.11]

10.54 (T) μοίως δ κα περ τς ες ορανος φίξεως ατο ατς προφήτης επεν [Ps 46.6]

10.55 (T)  περ γρ τς εσόδου ατο τς ες τν ορανν α γγελικα δυνάμεις κέκραγον λέγουσαι [Ps 23.9]

10.56 (T) περ δ τς ν δεξί το πατρς καθίσεως ατο παντοκράτωρ, δι στόματος Δαυίδ, επεν [Ps 109.1]

11.9 (T) κα Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 2.2]

12.9 (T) κουε το θεο λέγοντος δι το Δαυίδ [Ps 39.7]

12.9b (T) κα [Ps 49.13]

15.18 (T) τ κατ τν τάξιν Μελχισεδκ ερατεύειν, καθς επεν Δαυδ τι [Ps 49.13-14]

23.13 (T) οτως στιν ς κα Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 73.12]

32.6 (T) δι δ το Δαυδ διεμαρτύρατο μς λέγων [Ps 80.11]

33.13 (T) γρ σμ τν ματίων στίν, περ ς σμς επεν Δαυίδ [Ps 132.2]

35.5 (T) κα τ Δαυδ πάλιν τ [Ps 131.11]

41.5 (T) κα πάλιν Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 116.1]

41.5b (T) κα πάλιν [Ps 46.2]

43.11 (T) δι μν Δαυδ λέγων [Ps 136.5]

44.7 (T) κα πάλιν δι το Δαυδ διαμαρτυρούμενος μς κα επν [Ps 80.9-13]

45.1 (A) τ Δαυδ μοσεν κύριος θες λέγων [Ps 88.36-38]

45.3 (A) ν τ ατ ψαλμ λέγει [Ps 88.31-35]

45.6 (T) ες τν αἰῶνα γρ γράφει ατν εναι [Ps 88.37]

46.2b (T) γέγραπται γρ ν τ ατ γδοηκοστ γδό ψαλμ οτως [Ps 88.2-6]

46.8 (T) καθς ν τέρ ψαλμ γέγραπται [Ps 17.50]

46.9 (T) τ δ λέγειν [Ps 88.3] . . . τοτο σημαίνει

46.10 (T) κα πάλιν ν τ Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 85.11]

46.17 (T) περ ο κα μοσεν κύριος τ Δαυίδ [Ps 88.23-29 +/-]

47.7 (T) κα πάλιν ν Δαυδ οτως λέγει [Ps 86.5]

48.13 (T) κα πάλιν ν τ Δαυδ λέγει [Ps 85.9-10]

50.1 (A) καθς επεν Δαυδ κα σαΐας, ς κα σ επας [back ref]

50.3 (T)  περ γρ τς ερουσαλήμ, περ ς επεν Δαυδ τι [Ps 121.3]

50.3b (T) πρτον επε τν τόπον ατς λέγων [Ps 47.3]

54.4 (T) πρτον μν γρ δι τν ησον . . . κουε το Δαυδ λέγοντος [Ps 67.7]

54.10 (T) τατα πάντα προιδν Δαυδ λεγεν τ ξ θνν λα [Ps 30.5]

55.6 (T)  καί γε ν Δαυδ λέγει περ τούτου [Ps 93.8-11]

55.17 (T) ν τ εκοστ πρώτ ψαλμ οτως γέγραπται [Ps 21.17-19]

55.20 (T) κα πάλιν ν τ ξη ψαλμ οτως γέγραπται [Ps 68.22, abbrev.]

55.23 (T) πάλιν ρρέθη ν τ κα ψαλμ [Ps 21.2, abbreviated]

57.8 (T) να κούσς μετ τν κουόντων παρ το εροψάλτου βασιλέως κα προφήτου κα πατριάρχου Δαυδ λέγοντος [Ps 32.1]


Formula περ δ(21, 11 with Pss in chp 10) & περ γρ (13, 3 with Pss in chp 10 and one in 50.3), & similarly


04.22ρ δέ σοι περ τς κτίσεως

05.11 περ δ το γίου πνεύματος λέγει [Hag 2.5]

05.12 περ γρ το ησο τούτου, καθς τ πομνήματα ατο περιέχουσιν

ν τος λέγετε εαγγελίοις

05.13 περ γρ τούτου λόγος νν το κα φυγόντος τε πεκεφαλίσθη ωάννης π το ρώδου

06.3 Περ το ησο Χριστο το υο το θεο γώ σοι ποδώσω

ποδείξεις νν, κα περ ν σ οκ μνήσθης επεν . . .

07.2 περ δ το ησο τούτου, πηγγείλω μοι κ τν θείων γραφν ποδεικνύειν τι ατός στιν σύμβουλος το θεο

08.1 περ τς παρουσίας ατο πρτος Μωϋσς επεν τι

10.2b τατα περ τς γεννήσεως ατο λέχθη

10.4 περ δ τν βρεφν ν νελεν ρώδης, ερεμίας μν προεμήνυσε λέγων [Jer 38.15] (see Pss passages [11 + 3] for most of ch 10)

10.5 περ δ τς νανθρωπήσεως ατο ατς πάλιν ερεμίας επεν [Baruch 3.36-38] . . .

10.6 κα ν τέρ τόπ ατς προφήτης λέγει [Jer 17.9]

10.11  περ δ τν σθενιν κα νόσων ν ατς θεράπευσεν, σαΐας προεφήτευσεν λέγων [Isa ]

10.14 κα περ το μισθο ο λαβεν προδότης παρ τν ρχιερέων, οτως

επε Ζαχαρίας [Zach ]

10.21 δι κα περ τν δεσμν ατο μνησθέντες λέξωμεν πς διαφόρως περ τούτων λάλησαν ο προφται

10.47 περ δ τς σταυρώσεως ατο σαΐας λέγει [Isa 53]

11.2 (A) περ γρ το ησο τούτου, οτε νομα ατο μφέρεται πώποτε ες γραφήν, λλ’ οτε πάλιν σταυρο οτ’ ον ησο οτε Χριστο

11.5 περ μν το νόματος ησο κουε Ζαχαρίου λέγοντος

11.7 καθς τήσω περ τς νομασίας το ησο κα Χριστο κα σταυρο

11.8 περ γρ Χριστο οτως επεν ερεμίας [Lam 4.20]

12.13 περ γρ μν τν ξ θνν οτως γέγραπται ν τ βίβλ τν δώδεκα

προφητν [Am 9.11] . . . κα πάλιν [Hag 2.9]

21.2 τ νν περ τς ερουσαλμ παρεάσωμεν

21.3 πηγγείλω γρ τ περ το ξύλου φ’ ησος σταυρώθη, ετα

τανύσθη, λέγειν μν κ τν θείων γραφν.

21.5 (A)   ουδαος επεν· πηγγείλω περ το σταυρο, λέγε

21.5b (A) περ γρ το ησο πάντων ζήτησιν χομεν ποιήσασθαι

221.6a δο καθς ζήτησας περ το σταυρο

23.1 πειδ δ πώσω τν κ τς Γενέσεως συμβούλην περ το σταυρο

23.10 κα τί τούτου παραδοξότερον πόδειγμα περ το σταυρο;

24.3 (T) το γνναί σε σφαλς περ πάντων, κα περ τς πωνυμίας τν ξύλων. λέγει γρ σαΐας

24.21 περ δ ο μν λόγος, πάλιν Δανιήλ [Dan ]

25.13 κα πάλιν περ το γίου πνεύματος

26.4 (T) πειδ μπόνως ρ σε πιζητοντα περ τούτου, περ θέλεις δίδωμί σοι ν ποδείγματί τινι περ τς παρθένου κα το γίου πνεύματος.

27.4 κα πολλ περ το γίου πνεύματος ερίσκομεν επεν, περ δ το

υο τούτου περιμένω ως ο ντελεστέρως τι π τν θείων γραφν κούσω.

27.5 περ το συμβούλου το παντοκράτορος ποδείξεις διδόναι

27.6 κουε περ το υο το θεο

27.1 (A) περ μν το γίου πνεύματος πολλαχο ερίσκομεν ν τας θείαις γραφας κα νεργείας ατο κα εεργεσίας ατο

29.1 (A) περ τν δύο προσώπων

29.4 (A) περ το ησο κρίβειαν ζητ

30.1 (A) κα ν πρώτοις επον τι πεισάς με περ τν δύο προσώπων, λλ νν τ περ το ησο τούτου ζητομεν

30.3 ε πάντα σα επαν α θεαι γραφαί, περ το ησο τούτου επαν

32.5 δ Μωϋσς οτως επε περ το ησο τούτου, τι

33.15  σαΐας δ προφήτης οτως λέγει περ τς σμς ταύτης [Isa 65.9]

36.3 ς δ σ παρήγαγες περ το πάθους ατο, επεν προφήτης

37.15 περ δ μν τν θνν οτως λέγει δι το ατο προφήτου

38.2 ατς κύριος θες επεν τ Μωυσ περ τς σκληροκαρδίας μν κα πειθείας κα διασκορπισμο λέγων ατ

38.6 κα δ περ τν θνν ν ατ επεν

38.13 περ γρ τς τν θνν γενομένης π κυρίου σωτηρίας, οτως επεν δι σιέ [Hos ]

41.6 περ γρ τς ερουσαλμ πιεν τ ποτήριον τς πτώσεως, τ κόνδυ το θυμο, τος δ υος το σραλ ες κρίσιν μετ το κυρίου στήσεσθαι

43.19 κα μοσεν κύριος τ ερουσαλμ περ τν θνν λέγων

45.8 τι περ το βραίων γένους τατα λαλήθη π το κυρίου, κα ο περ τν θνν.

46.1 (A) οκον δύνασαι ποδεξαι τι περ τν θνν τατα επεν;

47.3 μαρτυρήσει δέ μοι περ τς νσάρκου παρουσίας το Χριστο κα ερεμίας προφήτης λέγων

47.8 καί γε σαΐας περ τούτου οτως λέγει

48.11 (A) περ τούτου τί επον ο προφται

49.3 κουσον περ ταύτης κα κουσον πάλιν κα περ τς νέας ερουσαλήμ

51.1 (A) περ το ακβ ερηται

51.3 περ γρ τς ερουσαλήμ, περ ς επεν Δαυδ τι [Isa 65.11-12]

52.3 ε μν γρ περ το προφήτου νετείλατο κύριος θες δι Ζαχαρίου

52.5 τί ρομεν περ το ησο τούτου τι προφήτης ν;

53.53 (A) μέλλεις γρ πάρξεις περ τν δύο κεφαλαίων τούτων σύστασιν διδόναι

54.7 περ δ τν νεκρν ατς σαΐας λέγει [Isa 26.19]

55.4 περ το πάθους ατο, κα ς κ προσώπου το ησο οτως λέγει

55.11 (A) πολλάκις δ ο περ το ησο γράφη τατα λλ περ τέρου τινός.

55.12 (T) περ τούτου εκοπον ποδεξαι τι περ το ησο τατα προφητεύθη

56.13 δο περ τς συντελείας


[older version]

The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila is more than a small drop in the large bucket of Christian Dialogues against the Jews.


(1) While it has the same disputational framework as many others, and ends, like most, with the conversion of the Jewish spokesperson, it is less one-sided along the way than most such writings, resembling Justin and Trypho in this respect.


(2) While T-A presents most of the same discussion points as the dialogues in general – Jesus is the expected Messiah, was involved in creation, and despite his predicted death is indeed deity – it also contains some unique nuances (e.g. . . .).


(3) While T-A uses most of the same passages from Jewish scriptures that are found in other dialogues – notably from Genesis, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalms, and Daniel – it also expands this area in interesting directions, including selfconscious use of “apocrypha” and of “Solomon’s Testament.”


(4) While T-A agrees with its companion literature in its general depiction of Jesus’ life, teachings, and death/resurrection, it does so often by using what seem to be more archaic – or at least noticably variant – forms of the traditions, not unlike Justin’s Dialogue as well.

 I’d like to offer a few examples of each, and then focus especially on the scriptural assumptions that seem to me to underlie T-A as a whole.


The author or compiler of T-A is probably responsible for at least some  of the formulas used to refer to Jewish scriptures. In general, he uses language indicating a plurality of authoritative works – “the holy scriptures,” “books” (22 or 27 or more) – although within this collection there may be sub-collections such as “the book of the twelve prophets” (12.13, 48.12) or even a “book of the prophets” (3.2) or the “new book” combining Baruch, Lamentations, and Jeremiah (10.10). Although Aquila knows that Paul’s epistles (fourteen; see 3.22) are numbered in the “new covenant” (56.3, see also 3.19, 3.21), similar language is applied only once to Jewish scriptures (17.2 “old and new covenant”; see also 22.4, 30.7 “covenant of the law”), which at least for Timothy include some “apocrypha” (3.17-18, quotations from Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Bel/Dragon; but not Tobit, although it is mentioned explicitly). Christian “apocrypha” are also mentioned, alongside the accepted gospel (singular), acts of the holy apostles, their epistles, and Paul (3.22) – indeed, Aquila wonders if the idea that Mary’s virginity after Jesus’ birth comes from Christian apocrypha (18.3).