Hexapla

!! Introduction
Origen of Alexandria’s monumental work of textual criticism on the OT. The Hexapla,
so-called for its six columns, consisted of:
1. The Hebrew text
2. Greek transliteration of the Hebrew
3. Aquila
4. Symmachus
5. Septuagint (LXX)
6. Theodotion (for some OT books, but not in Psalms or the Minor Prophets)

The Hebrew column presented one word, or a short phrase, with each subsequent
column providing a Greek translation. Origen incorporated three other Greek versions at
times, i.e. Quinta, Sexta, and Septima (Field suggested Septima never existed (contra
Montfaucon); Prolegomena, 90). Though the work as a whole has not survived, its
estimated length based on the extant fragments would be at least 6,500 pages.
Probably never copied in its entirety, the ancient library of Caesarea housed this
massive work and allowed later scholars to consult it (notably, Eusebius and Jerome).

!! Background
Origen never mentions the Hexapla himself, but the name is of ancient origin (e.g.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6; or, Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus, 18–9).

!!! Date
The exact date of composition is uncertain. Origen likely began his task while in
Alexandria in the first half of the 230s and completed it while in Caesarea c. 245.
Approximate dates are suggested by analyzing Origen’s biblical quotations in his
commentaries. That is, dating can be estimated based on the dates of those
books which preserve pre-Hexaplaric quotations compared to those preserving
Hexaplaric ones (Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 209).

!!! Purpose
Origen primarily intended to establish a superior Greek translation of the Hebrew
Bible—a necessary component for both exegesis and apologetic. Origen may
have set out (as Origen’s own account suggests) to simply transcribe the Greek
versions, including the LXX, but upon closer comparison of the LXX and the
Hebrew text, he realized a simple transcription presented numerous difficulties
(Swete, Introduction, 68). For example, with some Hebrew clauses Greek
columns would contain clauses not in the Hebrew, and others would have
omitted clauses present in the Hebrew text. Further, transposition frequently
presented itself, the order of the Greek differing from the Hebrew with various
degrees. More importantly, in many places the LXX was found to provide a sense
at variance with the Hebrew text. This could arise either from the translator(s)
misapprehending the meaning, or through a different Hebrew text altogether.
 Orlinsky asserted that Origen intended the columnar order of the Hexapla to
serve as an aid in the learning of the Hebrew language. Orlinsky posed several
penetrating questions, particularly concerning the first two columns. E.g.: why did
Origen trouble himself with reproducing the Hebrew text when copies would have
been readily available (“Columnar Order of the Hexapla,” 141–2)? What value
would the Hebrew possess since rarely did any of his Christian colleagues know
the language (see Martin’s recent attempt to undermine this point: “Origen’s
Theory of Language”)? Orlinsky’s theory and argumentation for each column is
quite reasonable, with one exception—the last column. Each column has its
pedagogical purpose, the first two being obvious: Aquila gives the reader an
extremely literal rendering, even word-for-word, and occasionally even
etymology. Symmachus provides the reader a more polished literary Greek. This
prep work allows the student to tackle the all-important Septuagint column. What
then would the sixth column provide? Though the pedagogical outcome remains
a valid option, to see it as a primary objective of Origen falls short.

Origen’s own comments on his textual activity and purposes are of utmost
importance in determining his purposes for the Hexapla. First, in his Comm. in
Matt., Origen states, “there was a great difference among the manuscripts,
whether due to the negligence of some of the scribes, or the perverse boldness
of others, or due to those neglecting the correction of the text, or even to those
who either add or subtract the things they think right in their text-criticism. Then,
we overcame, with God helping, the differences in the manuscripts of the OT,
using the other editions as a criterion; for we made the judgment concerning the
places in dispute through the LXX by means of differences in the manuscripts
from the other editions, keeping that which is in agreement in them” (15.14; all
ancient texts are my own translation). Also, in Origen’s Ep. ad Africanus (11), he
states, “we take care not to be ignorant even of the Scriptures among these
[copies in use among the Jews], in order that when arguing against the Jews we
might not cite to them texts not found in their copies, and in order that we might
make use of those texts found among those even if they are not found in our
books.”

!! Critical Issues
Many issues remain unresolved in Hexaplaric studies. The two most discussed
problems concern the second (secunda) and fifth columns. Studies on the secunda
increased after the publication of the Milan palimpsest. Questions remaining include:
was it provided by Origen himself, or taken from preexisting Jewish liturgical texts?
Therefore, does it reflect the pronunciation of Hebrew in the third century, or some
earlier period? Finally, are the transcriptions of the secunda uniform throughout the
Hexapla (Mercati, “Il problema”), or do they differ because they originate from different
layers (Sperber, “Hebrew based upon Greek”)?

Many questions also remain regarding the fifth column. For example, whether the
Aristarchian signs were incorporated or not is still debated based on their absence from
the Milan palimpsest (see Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 213–15). The Aristarchian
signs themselves (the means by which Origen marked his changes to his Septuagint
text) are also a source of contention. Also, the origin of the fifth column is unclear. The
problem of the Tetrapla also presents itself. According to Eusebius, Origen later
published a separate work consisting of just the four Greek columns (Hist. Eccl., 6.16).
Orlinsky has argued against independent circulation of the Tetrapla (“Origen’s
Tetrapla—a Scholarly Fiction?”).

Another issue concerns Origen’s knowledge of Hebrew. According to both Eusebius

and Jerome (Hist. Eccl. 6.16 and De vir. ill., 54 respectively), Origen was the first
Christian known to have learned Hebrew. Opinion in this matter has varied across the
board with recent scholarship leaning in favor of Origen’s knowledge of Hebrew (see
review of recent arguments in Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 204–6). Regardless,
account must be taken of the biblical quotations and exegesis within Origen’s own
works.

The question of the very existence of the first column has been successfully refuted by
R. G. Jenkins in his chapter in the volume edited by Salveson (Origen’s Hexapla, 88–
102). (The present state of scholarship on the Hexapla and unresolved issues is in large
part represented in the work edited by Salveson).

!! State of the Text

The Hexapla was in all probability destroyed with the rest of the library in Caesarea
during the Arab invasions of the 7th century. Editions of Hexaplaric remains have been
compiled by Montfaucon (1713), Bahrdt (1769-70), and most notably, Field (1875).
Fragments of the Hexapla itself include the Milan palimpsest covering parts of Psalms
published by Mercati (1958, 1965) and the Cairo Genizah fragments published by
Taylor (1900). The recently formed Hexapla Institute, operating under the auspices of
The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, is preparing a new
critical edition of Hexaplaric fragments in both electronic and print format
(http://www.hexapla.org). The so-called Syro-Hexaplar refers to a translation into Syriac
of the fifth column. Its importance is most felt in that it incorporated Origen’s Aristarchian
symbols. Even though the remains are fragmentary, we are able to corroborate (and
correct in some places) information given in the ancient testimonia (i.e., Epiphanius, De
mens. et ponderibus, 18–9; and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6.16).

!! Impact on Textual Criticism

Successors of Origen (e.g., Eusebius and Pamphilus) circulated copies of Origen’s
corrected fifth column. In 330, Constantine had fifty copies distributed among his
churches (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 5.36). Origen’s fifth column affected the transmission of
the Septuagint profoundly, and not entirely in a positive manner. E.g., Origen, like
Jerome after him, mistakenly assumed that the Hebrew text of his day was actually the
original text—the Hebraica veritas. For his purposes, then, as Driver remarks, “This was
a step in the wrong direction. Where a passage appears in two renderings, the one free,
the other agreeing with the existent Hebrew text, it is the former which has the
presumption of being the more original: the latter has the presumption of having been
altered subsequently, in order that it might express the Hebrew more closely. Origen, no
doubt, freed the text of the LXX from many minor faults; but in the main his work tended
to obliterate the most original and distinctive features of the Version. To discover the
Hebrew text used by the translators we must recover, as far as possible, the text of the
Version as it left the translators’ hands; and Origen’s labours, instead of facilitating,
rather impeded this process” (Notes on…Samuel, 1913). Thus, his textually eclectic fifth
column eventually contaminated later editions. However, to Origen’s credit, he did use a
system of aristarchian signs to denote when he made changes to the Septuagint (which
are to a degree preserved in the Syriac translation). However, when Origen’s fifth
column was copied, it was not always with the signs. Despite this negative impact,
Origen’s Hexapla stands as one of the greatest achievements in textual criticism of the
Bible from antiquity.

!! Bibliography
Bahrdt, Karl Friedrich. Hexaplorum Origenis Quae Supersunt Auctiora et Emendatiora
Quam a Flaminio Nobilio, Ioanne Drusio, et Tandem a Bernardo de Montfaucon
Concinnata Fuerant Edidit Notisque Illustrauit. 2 vols. Leipzig, Luebeck: Christian Gottfr.
Donatium, 1769-70.

Cox, Claude E. Hexaplaric Materials Preserved in the Armenian Version. Atlanta, Ga.:
Scholars Press, 1986.

Driver, S. R. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel: With an Introduction on
Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions, and Facsimiles of Inscriptions. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1890.

Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt; Sive Veterum Interpretum

Graecorum in Totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964.

________. Frederick Field's Prolegomena to Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt,

Sive Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in Totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta.
Translated by Gerard J. Norton & Carmen Hardin. Paris: J. Gabalda, 2005.

Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1968.

Jenkins, R. G. "The First Column of the Hexapla: The Evidence of the Milan Codex
(Rahlfs 1098) and the Cairo Genizah Fragment (Rahlfs 2005)." In Origen's Hexapla and
Fragments, edited by Alison Salveson, 88-102. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

Kahle, P. E. "The Greek Bible Manuscripts Used by Origen." JBL 79, no. 2 (1960): 111-
18.

Kamesar, Adam. Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the
Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek
Version of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Martin, Matthew J. "Origen's Theory of Language and the First Two Columns of the
Hexapla." HTR 97, no. 1 (2004): 99-106.

Mercati, G. "Il Problema Della Colonna Il Dell'esaplo." Biblica 28 (1947): 1-30, 173-215.

________. Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae. Pars Prima: Codex Rescriptus Bybliothecae

Ambrosianae O 39 Sup. Phototypice Expressus et Transcriptus. Vatican City:
Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1958.

________. Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae. Pars Prima: "Osservazioni." Commento Critico Al

Testo Dei Frammenti Esaplari. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1965.

Montfaucon, Bernard de. Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt, Multis Partibus

Auctiora Quam a Flaminio Nobilio et Ioanne Drusio Edita Fuerint: Ex Manuscriptis et Ex
Libris Editis Eruint et Notis Illustravit. 2 vols. Paris: Ludovicus Guerin, 1713.

Nautin, Pierre. Origène: Sa Vie et Son Œuvre Christianisme Antique 1. Paris:

Beauchesne, 1977.

Norton, Gerard J. "Observations on the First Two Columns of the Hexapla." In Origen's
Hexapla and Fragments, edited by Alison Salveson, 103-24. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1998.

Orlinsky, Harry. "The Columnar Order of the Hexapla." JQR 27, no. 2 (1936): 137-49.

________. "Origen's Tetrapla—A Scholarly Fiction?" In Proceedings of the 1st World

Congress of Jewish Studies 1947, 173-82. Jerusalem, 1952.

Salvesen, Alison, ed. Origen's Hexapla and Fragments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

Sperber, A. "Hebrew Based on Greek and Latin Transliterations." HUCA 12/13 (1937-
8): 103-274.

Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1902.

Taylor, Charles. Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor-Schechter

Collection: Including a Fragment of the Twenty-Second Psalm According to Origen's
Hexapla. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900.

—John C. Johnson