Aquila's Secunda Editio: Evaluating the Appropriation and Evolution of a Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars have used the concept of a secunda editio (‘second edition’) of Aquila since the eighteenth century to address numerous cruces interpretum of reception history and rabbinic tradition, including Aquila’s relationship to Onqelos and more. However, Jerome is the only witness in Late Antiquity for Aquila’s second edition and he mentions it only in relation to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In this essay, I endeavour to answer the question, How should we understand Jerome’s testimony of a second edition of Aquila? After surveying how scholars have appropriated the notion of a second edition, I analyse the internal evidence of Jerome’s attributions to the first or second editions of Aquila, compared with external evidence, and then consider the relevance of dual attributions of Aquila apart from Jerome. Following a reappraisal of Jerome’s comments and their reception, I suggest tentative answers to the above research question and consider some ramifications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".