we have mourned, and the most learned Joannes Boivinius, famous for his knowledge of all literature, and especially of Greek. The most excellent Abbot de Seignelay opened to us the treasures of the Colbertine library, and by his order the illustrious Monsieur du Chesne, custodian of the same library, lent us codices as we desired. At the request of our patron, the most eminent Cardinal d'Estrées, we obtained from the Reverend Jesuit Fathers a very ancient and most beautiful codex of the Prophets for only four days: and we were intending to excerpt many things from it, had it been allowed to spend more time on it. We also give our greatest thanks to the most learned and our very dear friend Michael Lequien of the Order of Preachers, who offered us the papers of François Combefis, from which we extracted not-to-be-despised readings of the ancients in Genesis and Exodus. In Italy we borrowed not a few things from the Vatican codices, intending to collect many more had he who was then the custodian of that most famous library granted us freer access. The library of the Reverend Fathers of Saint Basil at Rome, whose codices we always had at hand for our needs through the kindness of the most Reverend Father Petri Mennitii, prefect general of the entire order, who always favored our studies and never failed those who asked, provided a much more ample supply of readings.
PRAELIMINARIA IN HEXAPLA ORIGENIS
CHAPTER FIRST.
On the names and form of the Tetrapla and Hexapla.
I. Concerning the various names of the Tetrapla and Hexapla. II. Whether the Tetrapla was produced before the Hexapla. It seems certain that the Tetrapla was adorned before the Hexapla. IV. At what time he arranged the Hexapla. V. In what manner he arranged the Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla, and also the Enneapla. VI. In what books of Scripture he added three other editions to the Hexapla. VII. Concerning the notes placed by Origen in the margins of the Hexapla. VIII. Whether he placed Samaritan and Syriac readings in the margins of the Hexapla. IX. Whether at the time of Origen there were Greek versions by Samaritans and Syrians.
1. *Concerning the various names of the Tetrapla and Hexapla.* What we are about to say concerning the names of the Tetrapla and Hexapla has not yet, I think, been observed, wherefore it is to be hoped that it will be pleasing for its very novelty. The Tetrapla and Hexapla are expressed thus in the plural by Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, Τετραπλά, Ἐξαπλά, and they seem to have been called so primarily. But other Greek writers of a later age more frequently said Τετραπλοῦν and Ἐξαπλοῦν in the singular, namely Tetraplum and Hexaplum, as you may note here and there in the notes of this work. So, in the note on the last chapter of the book of II Kings, ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἐξαπλῷ, καὶ τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις τῶν ἀντιγράφων, "in the Hexaplo however and in the more accurate exemplars," etc. And elsewhere frequently, especially in the books of Kings. Now they indicate by Τετραπλά or Τετραπλοῦν, a quadruple [text], and by Ἐξαπλά or Ἐξαπλοῦν, a sextuple [text], the text of the Scripture placed at a single glance, as will be represented below for many. Furthermore, these are more significantly called by not a few Greek authors even Τετρασέλιδον, or quadruple column. For thus it is found in the notes on Psalm LXXXVI from the Coislinian codex: Μήτηρ Σιὼν τὸ ρ κατὰ προσθήκην ἔκειτο εἰς τὴν τῶν δ' ἐν τῷ Τετρασελίδῳ· ἐν δὲ τῷ Ὀκτασελίδῳ, μὴ τῇ Σιὼν ἤγουν δίχα τοῦ ρῶ. By which it is signified that in the Tetraselidon, or in the Tetrapla, the LXX had that vitiated reading, Μήτηρ Σιὼν, Mater Sion; but in the Octaselidon or Octapla it was so read and A amended, μὴ τῇ Σιὼν, nunquid Sioni, with the letter rho expunged. Therefore, the Tetrapla were called Τετρασέλιδον, but the Hexapla Ἐξασέλιδον, a sixfold column, as you may see in the note on chapter v of Micah: because the Tetrapla of Origen embraced the four versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX Interpreters, and Theodotion placed column by column side-by-side; but the Hexapla exhibited the Hebrew text in Hebrew letters, and side-by-side immediately next to it the very same [text] in Greek letters; afterward the four Greek interpretations placed by the same rite as above. Now σέλις signifies a page, τετρασέλιδον a quadrupled page, or of four columns, ἑξασέλιδον indeed a sextupled page, or of six columns. And as τετραπλά were called τετρασέλιδον, and ἑξαπλὰ ἑξασέλιδον, so also ὀκταπλά, ὀκτασέλιδον, or a work of eight columns, as you may see in the note on Psalm LXXXVI. The work of eight columns is indeed said [to exist], because besides the six mentioned editions, two others in certain books were represented in the mentioned arrangement of columns.
Item, once in the notes on Isaiah, ch. iii, v. 24, we read πεντασέλιδον, which is a work of five columns. But this note comes from a distinguished MS. of the Reverend Jesuit Fathers, and it has it thus: οἱ γ'. στίχοι οἱ ὑποκείμενοι οὐκ ἔκειντο ἐν τῷ πεντασελίδῳ, οὐδὲ Ὠριγένης ἐξηγούμενος τούτων ἐμνήσθη. That is: The three B subjuncti versiculi were not in the Pentasetidon, or in the book of five
columns A; nor did Origen, in his exposition, make mention of them. Hence, perhaps, comes the name, because certain scribes, having omitted the Hebrew column written in Hebrew—not being familiar with the shape of the characters—in some exemplars were satisfied to represent the Hebrew text with Greek characters. We have an example of this in the Barberini codex, Oseae xi, 1, where a fragment of five columns is produced with the Hebrew writing entirely omitted. But if anyone should object and say that it is not called a *pentasetidon* because the Hebrew writing was omitted in certain books, but rather because in the arrangement of the columns the Hebrew text, once in Hebrew characters and then once in Greek characters, counts as only one column, I will not strongly dispute this. For although I suspect this happened because of the omission of Hebrew letters, I do not deny that I am unable to affirm it safely, and that new examples are desired.
The name Hexaplorum, ἑξαπλῶν, is by its nature an adjective, but it is frequently used as a substantive by Greek writers, and sometimes retained as an adjective. Thus Epiphanius, in his book *On Weights and Measures*, uses Ἑξαπλὰς (sic) τὰς βίβλους, "Sextuple Books," to indicate the books of the Hexapla; and in a very ancient codex of the prophets belonging to the Rev. Jesuit Fathers, one reads ἑξαπλοῦς Ἱερεμίας, "sextuple Jeremiah," from the sextuple column. Furthermore, from the frequent mention of the Hexapla, which occurs in most ancient exemplars, it seems to have happened that B scribes, *πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολήν* (by way of distinction) from the Hexapla, began to call other books, which contained only the single edition of the LXX, *ἁπλᾶ* or "simple," and thus distinguished them from the sextuple ones. Thus, in a certain Coislinian codex of the tenth century, at the book of III Kings vii, 16, it is read, *ἐν τισὶ δὲ τῶν ἁπλῶν*, "in some of the simple," or simple exemplars.
It is certain and determined that in the Psalms, the Minor Prophets, and perhaps elsewhere, besides the two Hebrew columns—of which one was written in Hebrew characters and the other in Greek—there were six Greek columns of as many interpretations, namely those of Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX, Theodotion, the Quinta, and the Sexta, which together constituted eight columns, or the Octapla; and that there was also a seventh Greek edition, which ought to have occupied a ninth column, and thus produced an Enneapla, or work of nine columns. But it may perhaps seem strange that the name of the Enneapla is nowhere found mentioned among the ancients. Is it because Origen had placed that edition not in the series of columns, but at the bottom margin, and therefore the name Enneapla was never used, even when it was present? Or is it due to the neglect of the ancients that, even though that column occupied its place, the Enneapla is nowhere mentioned? That remains a matter of conjecture. There are also many other things which, from a mere view of the Hexapla and Octapla, would be at once known and manifest to anyone, but which we, deprived of them, can scarcely reach even by conjecture.
II. Why Origen adorned the Tetrapla and Hexapla.
With what intention Origen arranged the Tetrapla and the Hexapla, Jerome explains in the preface to the books of Chronicles, in these words: "And certainly Origen not only compiled copies of four editions, writing down each word column by column, so that if one disagreed, it might be argued at once, the others consenting among themselves; but, which is of greater audacity, he mixed the edition of Theodotion into the edition of the LXX, designating with asterisks what was lacking before, and with the *virgulae* what seemed to be added superfluously." Therefore, that the prudent reader might be able to discover from a collation of many interpretations which was the truer explanation, Origen placed all those editions in one view, so that those unskilled in Hebrew might be able to embrace the authority of the many C who agreed among themselves. But because the way to attain the path of the true sense is often uncertain and not without the peril of error—for it often happens that, while others deflect from the true limit, one expresses the genuine intent of the author—let us also say that this collection of editions was most useful to those learned in Hebrew: for they, according to the skill in Hebrew letters which they possessed, were able to understand which interpreter approached closer to the source. Origen also indicates another reason for this work he undertook in his *Commentary on Matthew*. Because, truly, he wished to apply a healing hand to the edition of the 70, the Vulgate/Common, which was corrupted by the audacity and ignorance of the scribes, he added with asterisks the things that had been omitted from other editions: and those things which were redundant and were not in the Hebrew he marked with obeli, as being improperly introduced. And so that he might ensure trust in his emendations, he placed the interpretations of others alongside the Hebrew, so that everyone might see that he had not corrected the text without authority and left it wanting, and had marked as interpolated those things which were superfluous by prefixing obeli.
III. Whether the Hexapla was before the Tetrapla.
It seems certain that the Tetrapla was adorned before the Hexapla. It is asked whether Origen arranged the Hexapla or the Tetrapla first. Many have deemed that the Tetrapla preceded; but Henry Valesius fights for the opinion that Origen published the Hexapla before he laid his hand upon the Tetrapla, relying on this testimony of Eusebius, *Hist. Eccl.*, lib. 6, cap. 16: Ταύτας δὲ ἁπάσας ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν συναγαγών, διελών τε πρὸς κῶλον, καὶ ἀντιπαραθεὶς ἀλλήλαις D μετὰ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς Ἑβραίων σημειώσεως, τὰ τῶν λεγομένων Ἑξαπλῶν ἡμῖν ἀντίγραφα καταλέλοιπεν· ἰδίως τὴν Ἀκύλου καὶ Συμμάχου, καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἔκδοσιν ἅμα τῇ τῶν ο' ἐν τοῖς Τετραπλοῖς ἐπικατασκευάσας. Which he translates thus: "These, therefore, when he had collected all the interpretations into one body, and had distinguished them per certain *cola* and members, together with the Hebrew text itself, he left to us as copies of the so-called Hexapla; but afterwards he arranged the edition of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion separately, with the version of the Septuagint Interpreters, in the Tetrapla." He believed that it should be translated in this way because he thought that the word *επικατασκευάσας*, which he himself replaced with *επεισκευάσας* from the manuscripts, signified that the Tetrapla were published afterward. But
A I believe the sense of this passage to be as follows: He left us copies of the Hexapla, after he had separately arranged the edition of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion together with the Septuagint Interpreters in the Tetrapla.
For the aorist, when placed in this position, denotes that the action resulting in the final result happened before the action indicated by the preceding verb. Indeed, this form of speech is so common among Greek writers that it is surprising that a learned man should have blundered in something so clear. Thus, in the following words of Strabo, book XIII: "Attalus received the rule, and he was the first proclaimed king, having won a great victory over the Galatians," they are explained thus: Attalus received the power, and was proclaimed the first king, after he had brought back a great victory over the Galatians. For although this victory seems to be mentioned in the last place, by clear and known usage here it is understood that the victory preceded the inauguration that followed. You must likewise understand this passage of Eusebius as if the series stood thus: *ἰδίως τὴν Ἀκύλου καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος ἔκδοσιν ἅμα τῇ τῶν Ο' ἐν τοῖς Τετραπλοῖς ἐπικατασκευάσας, τὰ τῶν λεγομένων Ἑξαπλῶν ἡμῖν ἀντίγραφα κατελέλοιπεν* — that is, after he had separately arranged the edition of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion with the Septuagint Interpreters in the Tetrapla, he left us copies of the Hexapla. And the compound word *ἐπικατασκευάσας* offers no hindrance to this interpretation; for the same rule applies equally to compound words as to simple ones when they are used in such a way.
This interpretation being established, Origen undoubtedly published the Tetrapla before the Hexapla. And this was the opinion of the learned before Valesius, supported by the mentioned passage of Eusebius, opened up a new view. Yet beyond this, Origen's note on Genesis chapter XLVII, verse 6, which Combefis unearthed from the Montpellier codex, seems to solve the whole question. We have published it in the same place as follows: *Ἐπειδὴ ἐν τοῖς Τετραπλοῖς, ἐξ ὧν καὶ τὸ ἀντίγραφον μετελήφθη, πρὸς τὸν εἰρμὸν τὸν ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐκδόσεσι δείκνυται καὶ ἡ τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα ἐν τισι τόποις μετατεθεῖσα, ὡς τὰ πρῶτα ὕστερα καὶ τὰ ὕστερα πρῶτα γενέσθαι· ὅπερ καὶ ἐνταῦθα εὑρέθη παθοῦσα· τούτου χάριν παρεθήκαμεν ἀκολουθίαν· ἔστι δὲ αὔτη. Τῷ, Κατοικήσομεν οἱ παῖδές σου ἐν γῇ Γεσέμ, συνάπτεται τὸ, Εἶπε δὲ Φαραὼ τῷ Ἰωσήφ, κατοικήτωσαν ἐν γῇ Γεσέμ. Εἰ δὲ πίστῃ, ὅτι εἰσὶν ἐν αὐτοῖς.* This is: Since in the Tetrapla, from which the copy was transcribed, it is shown according to the series of the Hebrew and other editions that the edition of the Septuagint Interpreters had been transposed in some places, so that things which were prior were placed later, and things that were later were placed prior—which also happens to have been found to be the case here—for this reason, we have set out the sequence; and it is this: To "We, your servants, will dwell in the land of Gesem," is joined, "And Pharao said to Joseph, Let them dwell in the land of Gesem." But if you know that they are in them, etc. In order to understand this note correctly, you ought to place a comma after the word *μετελήφθη*, so that the following *πρὸς* B is shown to be according to the series of the Hebrew and other editions, the text of the Septuagint [LXX] in some places had been transposed and put out of order; namely, in the note placed in the margin of the Tetrapla, which warned that in that place the series of the O [LXX] was disturbed and transposed: for the words that follow, *τούτου χάριν παρεθήκαμεν ἀκολουθίαν* ("for this reason we have provided the sequence"), openly indicate that that restoration was made after the Tetrapla were published. A note in the codex of the Jesuit College of Louis the Great, which we will see below, gives credence to what we are now saying. For there it is said that Origen corrected the Tetrapla and illustrated it with scholia: which scholia he who edited the note had seen described in Origen's own hand. Furthermore, there is no doubt that that note in the Montpellier codex pertains to Origen's Hexapla. For in his Hexapla, he restored to their proper order the places of the Septuagint Interpreters which had been transposed either by the error of scribes or by some other chance, as will be proved below.
That Origen did not amend the edition of the LXX in the Tetrapla, but applied a medical hand to them afterward—namely, when he was adorning the Hexapla and Octapla—is proven by many places. Thus, in Psalm LXXXVI, in the note cited above at number 5, it is said that that vitiated place *Μήτηρ Σιών*, "Mother Sion," which looks to the Hebrew, was held in the Tetraselido, or Tetrapla; but it was otherwise in the Octaselido, or Octapla, where it was read correctly, *μὴ τῇ Σιών*, "is it not Sion," because, clearly, Origen amended this place, which was faulty in the Tetrapla, afterward in the Octapla. In the book of Job, moreover, places are most frequently mentioned taken from the Tetrapla, by which it is demonstrated that the edition of the LXX Interpreters, which had been placed by Origen in the Tetrapla, had not been amended; but that the *σφάλματα* ("errors") and inverted readings that existed in the copies of the O [LXX] remained untouched, as anyone can observe in our notes. Therefore, it is thoroughly established that the text of the LXX Interpreters in the Tetrapla was not amended, but that Origen performed that later in the Hexapla. Therefore, where the amending of the LXX Interpreters' reading is discussed by the ancients, the Hexapla are always cited, the Tetrapla never. From this, it is clear that the Tetrapla were published before the Octapla: for if Origen had first published the Hexapla—with that edition of the O [LXX] purged of errors—would it be believed that he later published a Tetrapla, casting aside that edition which he had with such labor purified in the Hexapla, and substituted another one, unamended and full of errors? That would certainly conflict with sound reason: and besides, the passage of Eusebius which we described above, as well as the following one of Origen, tell this openly. We have addressed these matters at greater length because Henricus Valesius, having misinterpreted the passage of Eusebius, had deceived some learned men.
C D IV. At what time he composed the Hexapla. Regarding the time when Origen adorned the Hexapla, Epiphanius relates things that are entirely *ἀσύστατα* (inconsistent), who says that Origen...
flourished from the time of Decius up to the reign of Gallus and Volusianus and beyond: and that in the persecution of Decius he suffered much, although he was not finished by martyrdom, having yielded to Caesarea: thence to Jerusalem, and later to Tyre: where, he continues, having stayed for a space of twenty-eight years, he composed the Hexapla. This is Epiphanius, who has strayed a wonder-wondrous distance from the truth. For since, by the testimony of Eusebius, Origen died in the reign of Gallus and Volusianus, who were slain in the year of Christ 254, he could scarcely have lived three years after the Decian persecution of the year 251. A Justly, therefore, the most learned and illustrious Huet, having rejected the notes of Epiphanius, attempts to seek a calculation from another source: and in order to establish a more probable opinion on the matter, he brings the work of the Hexapla back to the time of Maximin: and he opines that it was begun at Caesarea, but finished at Tyre. He thinks that Origen had already thought of publishing so great a work while he was staying at Alexandria: and that in the same place he had collected and compared several interpretations of Scripture: which could be regarded as the rudiments of the whole structure; then that he applied his hand seriously to the matter at Caesarea in Cappadocia; and finally finished it at Tyre. Thus he [writes] in *Origeniana*, lib. 1, cap. 3, num. 2. I shall not regret citing his words:
‘It is not easy to state the time of the Tetrapla and Hexapla, which Eusebius mentioned in *Hist.*, lib. vi, cap. 16, to which time the description should be joined. Eusebius seems to signify that the fact occurred long before Origen had left Alexandria, namely, when he was converting Ambrose to the faith of Christ. Epiphanius, however, asserted more than once that it was produced at Tyre. I, however, assign a different time to this affair, specifically when, with Maximin harassing the Christians, Origen fled to Firmilian at Caesarea in Cappadocia. B For, being liberally received by Juliana both into her house and into the library once furnished by Symmachus, and later transmitted to her by right of inheritance, he there obtained the copies of holy Scripture which Symmachus had used. Then indeed it is probable that he compared and joined the codices together: but since he could not finish the projected work there due to the straits of time, he put the finishing touch to it during his leisure at Tyre. Not that I think Origen had only then thought of them; but I suspect that it was perhaps first mentally formed at Alexandria, begun at Caesarea in Cappadocia, touched upon at Athens and Caesarea Maritima, and finally completed at Tyre. Thus Epiphanius is reconciled with Eusebius, of whom the latter seems to signify that some labor was put into preparing the Hexapla by Origen at Alexandria; the former openly teaches that they were composed at Tyre; which is to be understood in this way, that Origen did not work them out only at Tyre, but also in those places where he resided for the twenty-eight years before his death, which Epiphanius mistakenly believed were spent at Tyre. Our conjecture is confirmed by what Eusebius says in *Hist.*, lib. vi, cap. 17, that Origen found the interpretation of Symmachus in the Julian Library. Thus he had not yet prepared the Hexapla or Tetrapla, of which a great part was C the interpretation of Symmachus. Epiphanius is supported in the same way by an author writing in *Heresy* 64, cap. 3, [who relates] that Origen began his lucubrations on the Scripture, undertaken at the urging of Ambrose, from the Hexapla: "First," he says, "he zealously strove to bring together the six interpretations." Yet at that time he was staying in Alexandria. Someone will retort the argument and say that at this time Origen could not have collected the six interpretations into one, as he still lacked the interpretation and the Sixth edition of Symmachus. I answer that he mentally pre-formed the joining of the Hexapla while he was at Alexandria, not that he joined it himself, since he did not yet have the copies at hand: but that he had already applied effort to searching them out. Therefore, Epiphanius does not say *συνέταξεν* (he joined); but *ἐφιλοτιμήσατο συναγαγεῖν* (he strove to assemble).’
Thus the most learned man attempts to assert his opinion. However, Tillemont opposes these things, who nevertheless himself treats the matter as if by divining, so that the dubious reader does not know where to fix his foot. His words we render thus into Latin:
‘After Valesius, Huet thinks that Origen published the Hexapla before he arranged the Tetrapla. If the case be so, Origen could not have applied his hand to the Hexapla before he returned to Alexandria, which happened in the year 231, since the Sixth version, which he placed in the Hexapla, was found in the seventh year of Alexander Severus, as Epiphanius narrates, that is, in the year of Christ 228, or a little time before. D Since, however, he placed in the Hexapla the Seventh edition also, which was found under this [Sixth one], and, agitated by diverse business, before he went to Caesarea, he seems to have found no leisure; it is certainly probable that he began the Hexapla in this city. Yet this timing seems to agree with the narrative of Epiphanius, who says that he began the Hexapla when he betook himself to Tyre, and perspired at this work for twenty-eight years. But for these things to be consistent, one would have to read eighteen years instead of twenty-eight, and for Tyre substitute Caesarea: where Origen seems to have fixed his seat from the year 231 to 250. For if you attend to the series of his life, you would immediately say that Origen could not have stayed at Tyre for 28 years: and much less can these Tyrian delays be reconciled after the Decian persecution, even though Epiphanius may have done so: since Origen lived scarcely three years after that persecution. But with this order of events and times posited, a huge difficulty arises from this, that Origen seems already to have published his Hexapla or Tetrapla when he wrote to Julius Africanus, which letter, however, seems to have been given in the year 228. In that letter, indeed, he tells Africanus that he had collected various readings of the Hebrew and the LXX interpreters with immense labor, having made a collation of both, and for that reason had examined all the various editions, where he certainly seems to indicate the Tetrapla clearly enough. But if these words of Origen could be understood of the edition of the LXX with obels and asterisks, which he commemorates in the same letter, this edition certainly could be prepared only after the Tetrapla.’
A For this work could have been done conveniently with the Tetrapla, but without the Tetrapla it could have been done only with great labor.
It is certain, however, that Origen wrote this letter to Africanus from Nicomedia; and since he undertook a journey to Greece twice, he seems to have visited Nicomedia and given the letter during one of those journeys, and more likely the first than the second; for he undertook the first in the year 228, and the second twelve years later. Africanus, however, calls him by the name of "son," which may be more aptly referred to the second.
That these things may stand, it must be said that Origen had compiled the Tetrapla before the year 228, but after this had discovered the Sixth edition, he published the Hexapla, where he placed the fifth and the sixth: although it cannot be sufficiently understood why he did not place the fifth in the Tetrapla, if it was discovered in the year 217, as Epiphanius relates; unless perchance it be said that the Tetrapla had been completed even before this year, to which opinion Eusebius seems to lean. The most illustrious Huetius thinks that Origen began the Hexapla in the year 235, relying on the testimony of Eusebius, who says that Origen received the interpretations of Symmachus on Scripture from Juliana. From this he infers that since he had not yet received the version of Symmachus, he could not have adorned the Hexapla, which undoubtedly included the edition of Symmachus. But it does not seem likely that Origen came so late by the version of Symmachus, which had been elaborated 60 years earlier. It is possible for Eusebius to be understood conveniently either as referring to the autograph of Symmachus itself—for Juliana had received it from Symmachus—or to a certain commentary of Symmachus on Scripture, not his version. Behold the very words of Eusebius: "There exist certainly even now Commentaries of Symmachus, in which, relying upon the Gospel according to Matthew, he seems to argue for the aforementioned heresy (of the Ebionites)." Origen records that he received these, along with other interpretations of Symmachus on the Scriptures, from a certain Juliana. If "interpretations" (ἑρμηνείαι) can be understood here as commentary, which I think no one will deny, the word "other" (ἄλλων), used by Eusebius, suggests that it is understood in this way in this place.
It is certainly likely that Origen started the work of the Tetrapla in the very time of Caracalla, since Eusebius, moved by no other occasion, narrates these things as having been done while Caracalla was emperor. And Huetius seems to admit this, at least in part.
Thus far Tillemont, who seems to have translated the last-cited passage of Eusebius far better than Henricus Valesius. The Greek is: *“And the commentaries of Symmachus are still carried/exist, in which he seems, by applying himself to the Gospel according to Matthew, to strengthen the aforementioned heresy.”* These, Origen signifies, he received together with other interpretations of Symmachus upon the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, whom he also says received the books from Symmachus himself. B Henricus Valesius translated these thus: *“There exist certainly even now Commentaries of Symmachus, in which, arguing sharply against the Gospel according to Matthew, he seems to build up the aforementioned heresy.”* But Eusebius here, in arguing above, seems to build up this same heresy. And Origen testifies that he received these Commentaries of Symmachus, together with other interpretations of Holy Scripture elaborated by the same, from a certain Juliana, to whom those books had come by right of succession; where that remark—in which, arguing sharply against the Gospel of Matthew, he seems to build up the aforementioned heresy—brings forth an opinion diametrically opposed to Eusebius. For that is the sense of the Greek words, where he is not "relying upon the Gospel of Matthew" or "intending toward the Gospel of Matthew," but rather "applying himself to the Gospel of Matthew" in order to support the aforementioned heresy. For it is certain that the Ebionites used the Gospel of Matthew to defend their heresy; and Jerome seems to regard this place of Eusebius when he says in his *Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers*, speaking of Origen: "namely of Aquila the Pontic proselyte, and Theodotion the Ebionite, and Symmachus of the same dogma: who also wrote Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew, from which he tries to confirm his own dogma." C In this, however, Valesius and Tillemont err, if I am not mistaken, in that they translate the word *dokei* (δoκεῖ) as "he seems," whereas it is proved by six hundred examples that *to dokein* (τὸ δοκεῖν), especially among ecclesiastical writers, does not diminish an affirmation; concerning which matter see our Onomasticon to the Works of Athanasius, under the word *dokei*. Jerome correctly expresses this in the cited passage. *Dokei*, therefore, does not prevent it from being said that Symmachus openly and professedly defended the heresy of the Ebionites, and I consider this to be the full sense of this place.
Having observed these things cursorily, let us now come to the notes of time. Eusebius has brought almost nothing from which one might calculate; Epiphanius, however, an unfaithful master of times, confused almost everything. Nevertheless, what Tillemont says seems to have some probability, namely that it is likely that Origen put his hand to publishing the Hexapla after he had discovered the Sixth edition; he discovered it, according to the testimony of Epiphanius, in the seventh year of Alexander Severus, that is, of Christ 228. And because from then until the year 231, when he withdrew to Caesarea, he seems not to have had enough leisure and convenience to undertake so arduous a matter, the work of the Hexapla is opportunely remitted to the year 231, when he was staying at Caesarea. D As for what Tillemont objects to himself from the letter of Africanus, where he calls Origen "son," it seems to be of no great moment; for it is likely that he called him "son" because he was much younger in age: which reason in the first as well as in the second journey of Origen was undoubtedly the same. Nor are there wanting examples by which this may be confirmed: for Eusebius of Vercelli was wont to call Dionysius, Bishop of Milan—a man already mature in age and conspicuous in dignity—"son," even though he himself was younger. Furthermore, from those things which we have said, the prudent reader will properly notice that the time when the Hexapla were published can be indicated only by the lightest conjectures: wherefore, since by no testimony of the ancients can either a certain or even a very probable chronology be established here, let us hasten to establish more certain things.
V. On the manner in which he arranged the Tetrapla, Hexapla, Octapla, and likewise the Enneapla.
Concerning the order of the Tetrapla and Hexapla, and the placement of the translations, no controversy can now arise. These things are clearly and without ambiguity described by Epiphanius and Jerome: there is added also the specimen of the Barberini codex, where the order of the columns is accurately exhibited. In the Tetrapla, therefore, the edition of Aquila took the lead, next to it followed the interpretation of Symmachus, then that of the Seventy Interpreters, and lastly that of Theodotion. In this arrangement, however, the sequence of time in which the individual interpretations were edited was not observed: for just as it is certain that the edition of the LXX is the most ancient of all, so it seems proven that the edition of Theodotion preceded the interpretation of Symmachus in time, which, God willing, will be proven below. B But for this reason Origen assigned the first place to Aquila, and placed his edition before the others, because he had endeavored more scrupulously than all the others to render the Hebrew Scripture word for word. After him, however, he placed Symmachus, because he approached the Hebrew truth more closely than the LXX and Theodotion. Then he placed the LXX before Theodotion, because Theodotion seemed to follow the LXX Interpreters almost step by step. Origen, however, amended his Tetrapla with his own hand and illustrated them with scholia. To these same Tetrapla, Eusebius added new scholia, at least in certain books of Scripture: and this occurred in another copy, as it seems, than in the Origenian exemplar, which was lastly amended by the labors of Pamphilus and Eusebius, as Eusebius himself testifies in a certain note in the exemplar of the Rev. Jesuit Fathers, which we edited in [i]Palæographia Græca[/i], p. 226. Furthermore, it seemed proper to transcribe here this note, as well as the other which precedes it, inasmuch as they contribute no little importance to confirming many of the things said above. Therefore, before Isaiah, in the codex mentioned above, it is written:
"Isaiah was copied from a manuscript of the abbot Apollinarius, the coenobiarch, in which the following is set down: Isaiah was copied from those versions according to the Hexapla. It was also collated with another Hexapla, having this annotation: 'All the editions have been corrected accurately; for they were collated with the Tetrapla Isaiah, and also with the Hexapla. Moreover, from the beginning up until the vision of Tyre, it has been corrected more accurately.' Having obtained the exegetical volumes of Origen on Isaiah up to the end of the vision of Tyre, and having diligently considered in what sense he received each individual word, we corrected, as much as our ability allowed, all that was doubtful and perplexed according to his understanding. Besides these, the edition of the Seventy was collated with those things which Eusebius wrote on Isaiah: and in those places where there was variance, having investigated the sense of the exposition, according to his manner of reasoning, I corrected it."
And before Ezekiel this note is read: "Isaiah was copied from a manuscript of the abbot Apollinarius, the coenobiarch, in which these things are set down: Isaiah was copied from the Hexaplar versions, and corrected according to the Tetrapla of Origen himself, which also had been corrected by his own hand and annotated with scholia. I, Eusebius, added the scholia. Pamphilus and Eusebius made the corrections." C
Such works of such great expense could never have been executed by Origen, a man of modest fortune, had not Ambrosius, a man born for the highest things, supplied the means; he always added spurs to Origen, that he might write many things for public use, and he supplied everything lavishly, so that there were always at hand for him seven tachygraphers or scribes, as many calligraphers, and girls likewise trained in calligraphy.
The order of the Hexapla, as we said above, is so accurately described by Epiphanius and Jerome that no difficulty now remains regarding the matter. It is pleasing, however, to append here the words of Jerome from his [i]Commentary on the Epistle to Titus:[/i] "Whence we had the care to transcribe all the books of the old law, which the learned man Adamantius had arranged in the Hexapla, from the Caesarean library, and to correct them from the very originals, in which the Hebrew words themselves are written in their own characters, and near them expressed in Greek letters. Aquila also and Symmachus, the Septuagint and Theodotion, keep their order." Some books, however, and especially those which are composed in verse among the Hebrews, have three other editions added: which they call the Fifth, and the Sixth, and the Seventh translation, having obtained authority without the names of the interpreters. It is therefore plain that the Hexapla was so arranged that the first column occupied the Hebrew text, described in Hebrew letters; the second, the same Hebrew text written out in Greek letters; the third, Aquila; the fourth, Symmachus; the fifth, the LXX Interpreters; the sixth, Theodotion. A clear example of this fact is provided by the Barberini codex, where, at chapter 11 of the prophet Hosea, that...
pattern was followed and described here. There have been those who have thought that the arrangement of the columns was different; but since they have long since been refuted by learned men, and no one nowadays contradicts such manifest testimonies of the ancients regarding this matter, there is no reason for us to dwell any longer on proving them.
The Hexapla, therefore, were so called because they contained the six columns mentioned: but because in some books of Scripture, two other editions—namely, the Quinta and the Sexta—were joined to the others, those eight columns, being placed side-by-side in the same books, were called A Octapla. For pray do not think that the Octapla were adorned separately by Origen, in such a way that he composed three distinct works: of Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla. Indeed, in the passage of Jerome already cited, it is clearly stated that three other editions—namely, the Quinta, the Sexta, and the Septima—had been added to the Hexapla themselves. For since those two superadded editions were found only in some books of Scripture, Origen could not have prepared an integral Octapla for the Scriptures. Furthermore, no one has ever said that Origen published more than two works, namely the Tetrapla and the Hexapla, to which last he added two editions in only a few books: and those very same things which were called Hexapla were termed Octapla on account of the two introduced columns. But when he joined a seventh edition as well in some books, they could there be called Enneapla, although B no one among the ancients, when dealing with that work of Origen's, used this term. For easier understanding, however, we give here specimens of the Tetrapla, Hexapla, Octapla, and Enneapla.
TETRAPLA. Gen. 1, 1.
[For the text of the table here, see the facsimile]HEXAPLA. Osee, xi, 1.
[For the text of the table here, see the facsimile]OCTAPLA. Psal. ii, 6.
[For the text of the table here, see the facsimile]ENNEAPLA. Habac. ii, 4.
[For the text of the table here, see the facsimile]Origen labored on all these things in the manner I have mentioned above. C But if there were any copies where, the Hebrew column being omitted, only five columns remained written in the Hebrew character—which is what those who mention works of five columns seem to argue—those copies were undoubtedly transcribed not by Origen, but by others at a later time, as we said in section 1.
VI. In which books of Scripture he added three other editions to the Hexapla.
It is established that the Quinta, Sexta, and Septima editions occupied their columns not in all books of Scripture, but only in some. As for *which ones* these are, neither ancient nor modern authors have ever said. For Jerome only says this: "But some books, and especially those which among the Hebrews are composed in verse, have three other editions added." For this reason, it will be worth the effort to review here the books in which the Quinta, Sexta, and Septima editions appeared; and to inquire whether the Sexta always followed the Quinta, and the Septima followed both. It is certain that those three superadded editions
A were placed beside the others in the book of Psalms and in the twelve minor Prophets. In the Psalms, indeed, that those three editions were added throughout the entire book is suggested by the frequency of the individual fragments that are observed here and there; but in the twelve minor Prophets, according to the testimony of Jerome, besides Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX, Theodotion, and the Quinta, two other editions were placed, namely the Sexta and the Septima, of which we exhibit the fragments; those of the Quinta are indeed most frequent, while those of the others are rarer. We represent the Canticle of Habakkuk complete according to one of these latter editions, and since it can belong neither to the Quinta nor the Sexta, it follows that it is taken from the Septima.
In the Canticles, only the readings of the Quinta and Sexta are cited; not even a trace of the Septima is found, whence perhaps a suspicion might arise that the Septima was not present here with the others, which, however, can only be asserted rashly: for it could have been present and yet neglected by the collectors.
In the Pentateuch, however, that the Quinta and Sexta editions occupied their place is testified by not a few examples: thus, Gen. ch. xxxiv, v. 15, from the Royal codex is cited a reading of the Quinta edition, where the interpreter translates the word [*Hebrew word*] as εὐνοήσομεν; and ch. xxxv, v. 19, on this place—Ambrosius in his epistle to Horontianus says: *The Quinta tradition, Ephrata, is the same as the house of bread:* this is a passage in other traditions, where he uses the term "traditions" for "editions." And Lev. i, 16. A. [Quinta], τὴν σιτίζουσαν. Θ. [Sexta] E., τὴν ὀστὸν ἣν ἡμεῖς καλοῦμεν φύσαν. Likewise Lev. ch. ii, v. 3, in the Appendix. Σ. [Quinta] E., ἀπὸ τῶν καρπωμά-των Κυρίου. And Lev. xi, 17. A. O'. Θ. [Sexta] E., νυκτικό-ραξ. 5. [Sexta] γλαῦξ. E denotes the Quinta, 5 denotes the Sexta, and the interpretation of both is offered. And in the same place, v. 31. O'. Θ. [Sexta] E., αὐτῶν τεθνηκότων. No one, it seems, can gainsay such clear testimonies. But it is strange that the Quinta and Sexta editions have not been mentioned anywhere by any of the ancient Greeks who published so many Commentaries on the Pentateuch. Regarding the Septima in the Pentateuch, nothing exists today; but whether it was present long ago is unknown. B Besides these books, where we find traces of the three later editions, Jerome indicates they existed in others also, in his Comm. on the Epist. to Titus: *Some books,* he says, *and especially those which among the Hebrews are composed in verse, have three other editions added, which they call the Quinta, and the Sexta, and the Septima translation, having obtained authority without the names of the interpreters.* Yet of the books written in verse, only the Psalms show the remains of the three later interpretations. In Job and Proverbs, however, although a broad harvest of other editions is offered, nothing remains today of those three later interpreters.
If we stand by the words of Jerome, in those books where these later editions were utilized, all three were always present, nor did the Quinta ever have a place without the Sexta, nor both without the Septima. But Jerome narrated this very perfunctorily; nor does it seem that his testimony can entirely square with what was said above; since he says that in some books, and especially those which are composed in verse, three other editions—namely the Quinta, Sexta, and Septima—had been added; so that from his words it might appear that the greatest part of the Hexapla, where those three editions had been added, consisted of metrical books: namely Job, Psalms, and Proverbs; and yet it has been proven by the clearest examples above that those editions were present in the Pentateuch, in the minor Prophets, and in the Canticles; whereas, of the metrical books, only the Psalms present the remains, and indeed the most frequent ones, of those three editions; but Job and Proverbs, of which a great forest of Hexaplaric readings survives, do not have even a trace of those three editions. With these viewed, no one would deny that it is extremely difficult to reconcile the examples brought forward above with the words of Jerome.
Since, however, it is entirely certain that Origen did not add those three interpretations in all the books of Scripture, it may be asked whether those three interpreters translated the whole of Scripture, or only those parts which were used by Origen in the Octapla. Truly, since they at least—the two predecessors—translated the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and, according to Jerome, Job and Proverbs; since they likewise translated the Canticles and the minor Prophets, I do not see what cause there might have been for them to have omitted the intermediate books, and, what strikes more sharply, since those three interpreters are for the most part found in the same books of Scripture, even though without doubt they wrote in different places, why they should have translated the same books from the Hebrew and omitted the same: this certainly seems as if it could not have happened by chance or by design. If you should ask, why then did Origen add those editions in certain books, and not in all, I shall reply, why in the *Threni* or Lamentations of Jeremiah did he place only Symmachus together with the edition of the LXX, even though Aquila and Theodotian had adorned an interpretation of this book just as of others, as we prove in the *Monitum* in the same place. From this it is clearly evident that it cannot be concluded from this omission by Origen that those editions were not complete, but rather that they comprehended only certain books of the Hebrew Scripture. Furthermore, we leave this matter, not fully explored, to the judgment of the reader.
VII. Concerning the notes in the margins of the Hexapla placed by Origen.
It is known to us that the margins of the Hexapla were filled with Origenian notes: but a not insignificant part of these was occupied by the Greek explanations of proper Hebrew names. This is indicated by Origen in a certain note to ch. xxxvi of Genesis, v. 36, where he has it thus: C Τοῖς μὲν περὶ Ἀκύλαν καὶ Σύμμαχον Φουτιφὰρ εἴρηται ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ· ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑτέρῳ Φουρτιφαρέ. Καὶ ἡ μὲν τοῦ παρόντος ὀνόματος ἑρμηνεία παράκειται τῇ λέξει· ἡ δὲ ἔκθεσις τοῦ ἑτέρου ἐν ταῖς ἑξῆς φανεῖται· that is: *Aquila and Symmachus said Phutiphar in this place, but in the other Phurtiphare: yet the interpretation of the present name lies beside the word; but the exposition of the other will appear in the following:* D
Hence it is that in the most ancient manuscripts, from which we have excerpted the main part of the Hexapla, those interpretations of Hebrew proper names appear in the margins; as for example, in that most ancient Coislinian codex, which is written in uncial square characters and is thought to be of the sixth or seventh century, where for almost every proper name notes of this kind are found, indicating the force and etymology of the name; for example, the gloss in the margin, *Edem*, A *haimasis* or *truphē*, septum or pleasure; *Phisōn*, *stoma korēs*, mouth of a maiden; *Euidat*, *ōdinēsen*, she travailed; *Gōn*, *stēthos*, breast; *Aithiopia*, *skotōsis*, darkening; *Tigris*, *harpagē* or *tapeinōsis*, rapine or humiliation; *Euphratēs*, *auxēmenos*, increased; *Adam*, *gēgenēs*, and *anthrōpos*, *chous*, earth-born, or man, or dust. And there are very many such: of which we have noted in the course of the work only those which seemed to be of better quality; others we have deemed could be neglected without any harm; both because a great part of them is published in the book of Hebrew Names; and also because etymologies of this kind are for the most part light, distorted, and of no value. But the loss of the other annotations, which Eusebius indicates that Origen placed at the beginning of each edition, is most to be deplored. For there he traced the history of each edition and indicated the place where it had been found. Although Epiphanius in his book *On Weights and Measures* may have in some way repaired that loss, yet he mixed many things and weakened the historical notations, as will be said more fully below.
VIII. Whether the Samaritan and Syriac readings were placed in the margins of the Hexapla
Samaritan and Syriac readings are very often observed in the margins of the most ancient exemplars which exhibit fragments of the Hexapla; Syriac indeed in most books of Scripture; Samaritan, however, in the Pentateuch only: where you may not infrequently notice interpretations of the Samaritan, sometimes alone, more often collated with the readings of other interpreters. Since those Samaritan readings occur not only in ancient codices, but also among the Fathers of the fourth, fifth, and following centuries, it seems probable indeed that Origen himself placed those Samaritan readings in the margin of the Hexapla. Furthermore, the same must be said of the Syrian, whose interpretations are found here and there in Genesis and Exodus, likewise in the Psalms, in Jeremiah, in Lamentations; also in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hosea. Moreover, Syriac readings are brought forward by Eusebius of Caesarea, more frequently by Diodorus of Tarsus; by Eusebius of Emesa, Jerome, Theodoret, and others. And what is to be noted is that they, and especially Diodorus, often join the Syrian with the Hebrew in this manner: *ho Syros kai ho Hebraios*, or *ho Hebraios kai ho Syros*, when of course the interpretations of both agree, which often happens. These readings, moreover, just as those of the Samaritan, could have been placed by Origen, that most diligent collector of versions, also in the margin of the Hexapla: although this is by no means certain. B We say this indeed only by guessing: for until some part, however small, of the Hexapla, as they were originally written, emerges from the shadows, as we have already said, we shall not be able to fish out a full and perfect understanding of them.
IX. Whether there were Samaritan and Syriac Greek versions in the time of Origen
It is asked whether Origen, or if any others in their commentaries on Scripture, used Samaritan and Syriac readings in Greek, and expressed them in Greek from the Samaritan and Syriac versions where it was necessary; or whether they borrowed them from some Greek translation of the Samaritan and Syrian, adorned beforehand. Epiphanius hints that there was a Greek version of the Samaritans when he says that Symmachus, in order to turn the interpretations of the Samaritans, had published a third translation. For if anyone should contend that this is to be understood of a Samaritan interpretation made in the Samaritan vulgar idiom, why would Symmachus, a man most learned among the Samaritans, publish a Greek interpretation in order to overturn and refute the Samaritan translation of his own tribesmen? Certainly it seems entirely consistent that he published a Greek version so that he might set it against the other Greek one, which was of the Samaritans. This objection would certainly be very pressing, if indeed what Epiphanius relates concerning the disagreement of Symmachus with the Samaritans were true: for we do not trust his testimony very much. But there are not lacking other arguments by which this might be demonstrated; for it is argued from the fragments themselves of the Samaritan edition that they were taken from some Greek translation: indeed, in Exodus XXVIII, 4, and Leviticus VIII, 9, the Hebrew word *mitznefet*, mitra, is thus expressed in the Samaritan version, *tēlion*, pileum (cap). But the word *tēlion* or *pilion*, for it is the same thing, for *pileus*, is already found used by Plutarch: whence we conclude that the Greek version of the Samaritans used that word to express *mitra* or *cidaris*. Nor could anyone think that a Latin-Greek word of this kind had a place in any version composed in the Samaritan-vulgar idiom, when the modern version of the Samaritans, although considered most ancient, exhibits something far different. And in Exodus ch. VI, v. 2, Theodoret says the word *Iao* is expressed in the Samaritan as *tabē*, because evidently he who adorned the Greek version of the Samaritans had expressed it thus. For this variant reading could not be culled either from the Samaritan text of Scripture, or from a version described in Samaritan, where it is read even today *Iao* without distinction. If anyone accurately weighs the other readings of the Samaritan interpreter brought forward by us in the Pentateuch, he will detect that they were taken, if I am not mistaken, from a Greek interpretation. D Nor does a certain note in Numbers ch. XIII, v. 1, which, as I suppose, is Origen's, hinder this opinion of ours; where, when the Samaritan text of the Scriptures preferred certain things taken from Deuteronomy, Origen testifies that he himself had translated the same into Greek, and indeed in a manner accommodated to the edition of the LXX.
A And if, therefore, anyone should argue that the expression "the Syrian" indicates a Greek version made from the Syrian, then by the same logic, the expression "the Hebrew" would signify some version made from the Hebrew into Greek; yet it is not probable that such a version, distinct from all other interpretations of Scripture, should have existed. On the other hand, however, passages can be brought forward—whether they are said to be merely of the Syrian, or of the Hebrew and the Syrian—which appear to have been taken from some Greek version. Thus, in Jeremiah XXXI, verse 2, where in the Hebrew we read *charum*, and the LXX have interpreted it as *thermōn*, "warm," but Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion translate it as *charin*, "grace," Theodoret has these words: "the warm; the Syrian and the Hebrew, *oiktirmon*," that is, "compassionate," they have placed. And in Ezekiel XXVII, 24, where in the Hebrew we read *,* Aquila translates it, *egkataskeuais elēmmasin*, "in constructed coverings"; Symmachus, "in precious coverings"; Theodotion, *en machalim kai galima*, "in machalim and galima." But Theodoret brings forward the reading of the Syrian with these words: *en apokryphois skeuesi; houtō gar kai ho Syros noēsas hērmēneusen*, that is, "In hidden vessels: for thus the Syrian, having understood it, translated it." And in Ezekiel, chapter XXXVIII, verse 2, where we read *Rōsh*, Theodoret notes: "The B *Rōs* as head, the Syrian translated; and Aquila also translated *Rōs Mosoch* as *kephalēn Mosoch*," that is, "Ros Mosoch, head of Mosoch." There, indeed, S., LXX, Th. have interpreted it as *Rōs Mosoch*.
These passages, certainly, and many others far more numerous which we could adduce, seem to indicate some Greek version made from the Syrian. For I would not easily believe that those ancient writers and commentators who cite the passages of the Syrian, or Origen, who perhaps placed these interpretations of the Syrian in the margins of the Hexapla, always had the Syriac version itself at hand, and translated passages which differed from other interpreters. This, however, I do not consider to be so well established that I could safely affirm it.
As for those readings which occur most frequently with this prefixed note, "the Hebrew," it is indeed certain that they are not Aquila's, contrary to what some have thought, as anyone who peruses this collection of Hexapla will instantly perceive. For it often happens that after the interpretation of "the Hebrew" is brought forward, the reading of Aquila immediately follows, far different from it. Otherwise, that man—whoever he may eventually have been—the Hebrew, does not pursue individual words and phrases as scrupulously as Aquila. Furthermore, by the name "the Hebrews," those Hebrew doctors can perhaps be understood whom the ancients used in explaining the Scriptures, and especially Origen, of whom Jerome says in his *Apology against Rufinus*: "Nor does he disdain, when interpreting Scripture, to insert throughout individual passages what seems C right to the Hebrews." Likewise, Eusebius, Jerome, and others used Hebrew doctors. But Origen, who frequently visited the Jews so that he might be instructed about the letter of Scripture, perhaps placed thence the frequent interpretations of "the Hebrew" in the margins of the Hexapla. D
Nor, however, does it seem that all the readings of the "Hebrew" which have come down to us emanated from Origen; for it is likely that Eusebius, Diodorus, Jerome, and others received some from their own Hebrew teachers, which perhaps have been mingled in this collection with the Origenian readings. But I offer these not without some hesitation. For in certain passages, especially in the book of Job, the readings imputed to the "Hebrew" interpreter are so frequent that one can easily believe they were taken from some Greek version. Thus, until some clearer testimony of the ancients shall emerge from the darkness, we can speak of these only by hazarding a guess.
CHAPTER TWO. Concerning the Hebrew text.
I. The Hebrew text, described in the Hexapla, was the same as the present-day one, not that ancient Samaritan one. II. Certain specimens of the ancient Hebrew characters. III. How great a variety of readings and interpretations has arisen from the resemblance of certain letters to one another. IV. Concerning the ancient manner of reading Hebrew scripture. V. Concerning the ancient pronunciation of the letters. VI. Concerning the vowels of the Hebrews.
I. The Hebrew text, described in the Hexapla, was the same as the present-day one, not that ancient Samaritan one. B Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, book vi, says that Origen, for the consolidation of the Hexapla, had obtained *prōtotypous*, that is, primordial and authentic Hebrew scriptures for himself, and had made the *ta para tōn Ioudaiōn empheromena prōtotypa autois Hebraiōn stoicheiois graphas* his own possession. Where Valesius well notes that Eusebius calls the Hebrew codices of the Sacred Scripture *prōtotypous* or "primordial," not because they were in truth the primordial exemplar and autograph written by Ezra, but he calls them *prōtotypous* and "authentic" by way of comparison with the Greek editions, both that of the Seventy interpreters and others, which were translations prepared according to a Hebrew exemplar. Nor, likewise, should it be thought, as a certain learned man once opined, that those *prōtotypous graphas* were the Samaritan script, which Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, having been taught by those most expert among the Hebrews, assert to be the ancient form of the Hebrew characters. C For Eusebius says clearly and without any ambiguity that they are the letters which circulate among the Jews. And it is a most certain fact of that time, with no one dissenting, that the characters of the Hebrew scriptures were the same as those which are found in the Hebrew Bibles of today. I do not mean to suggest that not even the slightest difference has occurred between those ancient and present-day ones, such that not even the smallest alteration was introduced in any of the Hebrew letters with the passage of time. But I say they are the same in such a way that they have only slightly departed from the ancient form. Jerome once complained about the excessive smallness of the Hebrew letters: "There is added to this difficulty of dictation," he says (*in the Prologue to chapter xx, in Ezekiel*), "the fact that, with our eyes dimmed by old age, and enduring a little, being blessed Isaacs, we are in no way able to reread the volumes of the Hebrews by night-light, which even in the splendor of the sun and day are hidden from us by the smallness of the letters." D Which perhaps ought to be understood only of Jerome’s own exemplars. For it is credible that among the Hebrews, just as among the other nations of the world, some exemplars were written with a smaller, and others with a larger, form of letters.
II. Certain specimens of the ancient Hebrew characters.
It is held as certain among the learned that the Hebrew manuscript codices of the Bibles which are preserved in various libraries of Europe are not of very remote antiquity, and that few exist which exceed four hundred years. We know of no older one than the Bononiense volume of the Pentateuch, concerning which we have said much in the *Diario Italico*, pp. 399 and 400, which was offered to the Jews about four hundred years ago as the autograph of Ezra by Aymericus, a master of the Dominican order. Yet although no person of sense would admit to the forged antiquity of this kind, it is likely that it had been written some centuries before Aymericus received it. Furthermore, in all these codices, the very same form of characters is found as in our modern Bibles, so that no difference intervenes. We see other, older forms on two small stones of the Basilidians, which are in my possession, written in the Hebrew character, as it is thought around the third century of Christ: where, beyond the figures of a few letters, you can scarcely fish out anything; as happens also when Abraxean symbols of this kind are described in Greek, which can scarcely be read and are rarely understood. But we append a Hebrew alphabet from an MS of the Rev. Fathers, the Jesuits of the College of Louis the Great; where, in the book of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, the form of the letters is depicted many times by a Greek calligrapher; but so carelessly that he does not agree with himself, and when he repeats the same alphabet, he often deflects from the form he had placed before. From these forms, however, we have chosen those which leaned more toward the figure of the Hebrew letters.
Having brought forward these more ancient specimens of the Hebrew letters, it will have been worth the effort to discuss briefly each one as they were written of old. A
א. It seems to have always been depicted in this way, nor is any difference in writing observed between the ancients and the moderns. The same form occurs upon the gems of the Basilidians.
ב. That it has not departed from its ancient form is suggested both by the specimen brought forward and also by its similarity to the letter כ, which was observed of old by Eusebius in *Psalm* XXXIII, and is found today in Hebrew books. For Eusebius says that these letters are distinguished by a small apex, as we also see today, which Jerome confirms in many places. Furthermore, from this similarity of form, it has come about that as some read one way and others another, a great variety of interpretations has arisen, as is shown below in more detail.
ג. According to modern forms, it has a great affinity with the letter נ. But we believe these letters were described long ago by a more dissimilar figure; not so much because they are formed variously in the alphabet depicted above—for we do not trust this much—as because we have perceived that hardly ever was one read for another in the interpretations of the ancients, unlike what occurs in similar letters.
ד. That it has retained its form is argued both by the older specimens and especially by its similarity to ר, which even today is such that they can often hardly be distinguished; and of old it was so great that we observe almost countless interpretations having arisen from the permutation of one with the other: wherefore Jerome says in *Ezekiel*, chap. VI: "It can also, on account of the near similarity of the Hebrew letters *Daleth* and *Res*, which are distinguished by a small apex, be called either *Deblatha* or *Reblatha*." B
ה. In the alphabet above, it differs much from the form of the letter *Heth*, otherwise than today in the Hebrew Bibles, where these letters are very similar. But that a conspicuous difference existed between the two letters in the past is suggested both by the alphabet above, where 𐤇 is depicted as II, but 𐤄 as h, and especially by the consensus of interpreters, who were not accustomed to take these letters one for another, and yet were wont to confuse letters similar to each other here and there. Indeed, other manuscripts, and those very ancient—such as the Colbertinus in a note to *Psalm* LXXI, v. 18, and the codex of the Jesuit Fathers, often in Isaiah—indicate that the letter 𐤄 was once closed at the top. In these, indeed, the word 𐤄𐤉𐤄𐤉, by which the Hebrew 𐤉𐤄 𐤉𐤄 is most certainly expressed, exhibits the letter twice, closed at the top in the manner of the Greek letter II, in which matter they agree with the alphabet above. C
ו. That it was often read incorrectly of old is suggested by Jerome, who says in his *Epistle to Sunia and Fretela* on the Psalms: "For *pro nomine*, or *lege*, among them is read *THIRA*, which Aquila interpreted as *phobon*, that is, *fear*; Symmachus and Theodotion, *nomon*, that is, *law*, thinking it *THORA*, on account of the similarity of the letters 𐤄 and 𐤅, which are distinguished only by size." In the alphabet above also, the same similarity is detected, such that two points are superscribed to distinguish the letter, like this: 𐤅. We also often detect one letter read for another by interpreters. However, it is probable that the line by which 𐤅 was formed was, in some books at least, reflected from the upper part, like this: 𐤅; whence it happened, as will be seen below, that it was often taken for 𐤄 by interpreters: certainly the mentioned codex, from which we extracted the alphabet depicted above, in the other alphabet (for it repeats the alphabets, as we said) delineates it almost as 𐤅. Nevertheless, in the word 𐤉𐤄𐤉𐤄𐤉 often repeated in Isaiah, as well as in the alphabet above, neither letter 𐤅 or 𐤄 is reflected from the highest apex. D
ז. Concerning the letter ז, we observe nothing, except that its form in the alphabet above appears thoroughly corrupt. But that it was confounded with any other letter has nowhere been observed by us.
ח. We have made comments on 𐤇.
ט. It is found written in almost the same form in the alphabet.
י. This letter has been discussed.
כ. On 𐤊 in 𐤊 see above. 𐤊 is written in the specimens and in the alphabet approximately with this figure.
ל. It does not seem to have departed much from the ancient form.
מ. We have spoken of 𐤌 in 𐤌. In the alphabet, to which not much trust should be given, a far different form is painted.
נ. The form is delineated in the alphabet almost triangulated, like this D.
ס. It has a form almost similar to this in the alphabet above.
ע. It is written very often in the mentioned codex without an intermediate line, but with a ring.
פ and 𐤑. They have vitiated forms in the alphabet; whether they have departed from the ancient form, and in what, we do not know.
ק. On 𐤒 see 𐤓.
ר. It is sometimes confused with 𐤃, not because of similarity of form, but because of affinity of sound. Its ancient figure is similar to the modern one.
ש. If the alphabet is to be trusted, it has departed a little from the ancient figure.
III. From the similarity of certain letters, how great a variety of interpretations has arisen.
Furthermore, it is incredible how great a variety of readings and interpretations has arisen from the similarity of certain Hebrew letters to other letters: for from the permutation of a single letter, words signify things far different, and proper names are confounded with others.
Indeed, Eusebius treats of the similarity of the letter 𐤃 with 𐤊 in *Psalm* XXXIII, where he speaks of the changed *Achimelech*, 𐤌𐤋𐤊, into *Abimelech*, 𐤊𐤋𐤊, in these words: "The Scripture of Kings contains *Achimelech*; a change of a letter having occurred, there is no need to be disturbed; for on account of the similarity of the letter called *Beth* (sic) among the Hebrews and the *Khaf*, the name was edited differently; for the two letters are almost identical, with the shortest apex alone being interchanged." That is: The Scripture of Kings has *Achimelech*: ne
A in the confusion between the letters Beth and Chaph, as the Hebrews call them, by similarity, the name was published differently; for there is almost one and the same likeness of the two elements, distinguished only by the shortest apex. Yet from that change of ם into ם there arises a difficulty which Eusebius attempts to solve in the same place. Jerome says the same thing everywhere regarding the similarity of the letters ם and ם. A similar variety of reading is observed in Josue xvii, 2, in the word םםםם, *Abiezer*, which another interpreter reads *Achiezer*. From the same interchange of ם into ם, widely different interpretations proceed. I Reg. ii, 5, where the word םםם is found, which the Vulgate translates *they have settled*, and another interpreter, in the same sense, םםםםםםם, *they were hired for pay*; Aquila, who reads םםם, translates םםםםםםם, *they were crushed*, and the LXX, who translate םםםםםםם, *they were diminished*, seem to have followed the same reading as Aquila. And in IV Reg. xxiii, 7, םםם, *houses*, the LXX, who read םםם, translate *webs*.
And in Job xxxvi, 11, the word םם, which the LXX םםםםםםם, the Vulgate *they shall fulfill*, translated, Symmachus, who without doubt reads םם, translates *they shall grow old*. But in Psalm xc, 11, where םםם is read, *in oil*, Symmachus without doubt reads םם; for he translates םם םםם, *as if oil*. Prov. xiv, 7, ם, for םםם, which others translate *and thou shalt not know*, the LXX read םם, for they translate םםם םםםם, *weapons of senses or of knowledge*. Likewise Prov. xxi, 29, where םם is read, Aquila and Symmachus translated םםםםםם, *shall prepare*. The Vulgate interpreter also, who translates *corrects*, reads ם. But the LXX read םם, which they translate םםם (*).
And in Isaiah iii, 6, where םםם is read, Symm. and Th. םםםםםם, *infirmity*, Vulgate *ruin*. But the LXX, who render םםם, read םםם, for םם is *to cook food*.
And in Isaiah v, 18, םםם the Vulgate translates *with ropes*, and follows the reading which exists in Hebrew even today. But Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion read םםם, for they translate םםםםםם, *as if with ropes*, and the LXX, םםם םםםם, *as if with a rope*. I could produce many more examples for either letter; but I must hasten to a greater source of varieties.
The substitution of ם for ם and, conversely, for ם, is found throughout Scripture. Thus Gen. iii, 17, םםם is read in the Bibles today, and so Aquila read it in the past, who translated םםםם םם, *on account of thee*. The LXX read it with a ם, םםםם, םם םםם םםםם, *in thy works*, the Vulgate, *in thy work*; Theodotion, however, like Aquila, reads םםםם, םם םם םםםםםם, *in thy transgression*. Exod. vi, 16, the word םםם, *Gerson* (is the name of the son of Moses), a certain ancient interpreter reads twice םם, *Gedeon*. Leviticus xix, 26, where it is read, *do not eat with blood*, the Hebrew has םםם. And a certain ancient interpreter, םם םם םםםםם, *upon the blood*; the LXX for םם read םםם or םם םםם םםםם, *upon the mountains*. And Levit. xxv, 10, םםם by the Hebraizers is translated *liberty*; the LXX םםםם, and the Vulgate *remission*; Theodotion, however, when he read םםםם, and did not know the meaning of this word, expressed it in Greek letters, םםםם, *dador*. But Numbers xvi, 15, םםם is read; and it signifies an *ass*, or, as the Vulgate translates, *ass*; the LXX, however, with a ם at the end, םםםםם and translated םםםםםםם, *desirable*, or *desire*, another, םםם, *gift*. I Reg. xiv, 21, ם םם םםםם, *Hebrews*, it returns, Vulgate, *Hebrews*; the LXX truly read םםםם, and translated םםםםם, *servants*. I Reg. xv, 7, and xxii, 9, םםם, *Idumean*: in the first place some ancient interpreter, in the second, the LXX read םםם, *Arami*, and translated םםםם, *Syrian*, and I Reg. xxi, 15 and 19 םםם םם other translators rendered, םם םם, or םם, *forest*; the LXX truly, who read םםם, םםם םםם, *new*. II Reg. iii, 4, and sometimes at the beginning of the same book, םםם others, *Adonias*. The LXX truly, ם for ם, *Ornias*. Job ix, 25, םםם, *runner*; Symmachus and the LXX seem to have read םם םם, for they translate םם םםםם, *they did not know*. But the place is worthy of note of that Psalm xxix, 8, *Lord, in thy will thou hast granted virtue to my decor*, where ם-םם, *to my decor*, corresponds to the Hebrew word of the present day םםםםם, according to which Aquila and the Fifth translated, םם םם םם םםםם, *in my mountain*; Jerome, *to my mountain*; the LXX who translate, םם םםםם םם, *to my beauty or my decor*, without doubt read םם; Symmachus, however, who translates םם םםםםםםם םם, *to my progenitor or my first parent*, seems to have read םםם. םם is *progenitor*, nor does it infrequently happen that ם is interchanged with ם, as we shall say below. The same change of ם into ם is observed in Psalm cix, 3, where that, *in the splendors of the saints*, expresses the Hebrew reading of the present day םםם, and so A. LXX, Th., V. read it. But Symmachus reads: for he translates םם םםםם, and Jerome, *in the mountains*, Job vi, 10, םם, which others translate םם, *still*, the LXX, having changed םם in םם, translated םםם, *city*. Item Job cap. xxxvi, 30, the word םםם, *their light*, the LXX read םםם; for thus they express it in Greek letters םםם, where the change of ם in ם and of ם in ם is observed. And Job xxxviii, 4, where the Hebrew has םםם, how else reads also Symmachus (**): there the LXX and the Vulgate interpreter read םםם. See in its place. Psal. lxxvi, 3, the LXX for םםם, *it flowed down*, read םםם, *in his sight*. Eccles. vii, 25, םם, as it is read today, the Vulgate translates, *evil*; but Aquila reads םם, who translated םםםםםםם, *acts wickedly*, the LXX indeed, םםםםם, *he shall harm*. And in the following chapter, verse 6, םםם Symmachus, םםםםם, *affliction*, Vulg. *affliction*, LXX and Theod. םםםםם, *knowledge*, because they read םםם. Jerome indeed on this place: *In Hebrew, it has malice, not knowledge; but because םם and the םםםםם letter of Hebrew, except for a small apex, are similar, for םםםם they read םםם, that is for malice, knowledge.* He will know this better who (**) The Hebrew text has םםם, not however םם. Cf. various readings of B. De-Rossi. Drach.
A 30, today’s Hebraizers translate this difficult passage as "Son of perverse rebellion"; the Vulgate, "Son of a woman who carries off a man of her own accord"; Symmachus, "Son of undisciplined ones who are failing"; the LXX, "Son of fugitive girls," or otherwise "fugitive," "Son of girls coming of their own accord." For it seems they read "girls," namely for, as above.
Beyond these varieties of interpretation arising from the commutation of letters, others are observed where some letters are found substituted for others that are not even similar, or where one is formed out of two, as Gen. xxv, 8, where [Hebrew] is read, "to his people," but another ancient interpreter translated it, "to his transients," who seems to have read [Hebrew]. And Num. xiii, 34, [Hebrew] Symmachus translated, "portentous," as if [Hebrew] were read. Joshua iv, 3, [Hebrew] "priests," the LXX translate "stones," because they read [Hebrew] (*). And II Kings xviii, 33, [Hebrew], "in his going," a certain ancient interpreter seems to have read [Hebrew], who translates, "in his weeping," or "when he wept." And Psalm lxxii, 14, [Hebrew], "their blood," the LXX read [Hebrew], for they interpret, "their name." Proverbs xxvi, 17, [Hebrew] is read; and all others express "ears," as is fitting; but the LXX, who translate "tail," undoubtedly seem to have read [Hebrew]. We could well cite many similar instances where those ancient interpreters, whether they read differently or thought it should be read differently, gave widely disparate interpretations. But having deliberately passed these over, let us move on to other matters.
From the manner of dividing words also, a variety of interpretations arises, as in Prov. xviii, 10, Aquila and Theodotion, "tower"; but the LXX and another, having as it were the preposition [Hebrew], with the [Hebrew] rejected, translate, "out of greatness" or "out of magnitude."
From similarity of sound also, sometimes letters that are in no way similar are taken for others, as in Psalm lxxxix, 11, [Hebrew], "quickly," Aquila interprets as "man," as if he had read [Hebrew]. Exod. iv, 26, he translates "he sealed," as if he had read [Hebrew]. A most singular example is found in Ezech. xiii, 5, where [Hebrew], "to stand," they translated in such a way, the LXX, as if they had read [Hebrew], for they interpret, "saying."
IV. On the ancient manner of reading Hebrew Scripture
All scholars admit that a great difference intervenes between the ancients and the moderns in the reading of Hebrew Scripture; nay, that the same variety in reading was observed even in his own time, says Jerome in his epistle to Evangelus: "It does not matter," he says, "whether Salem or Salim is named: since the Hebrews very rarely use vowels in the middle letters, and according to the inclination of the readers and the variety of regions, the same words are pronounced with different sounds and accents."
It is not surprising, therefore, if the Massoretic reading does not fully agree with that more ancient one, since the Massoretes noted down what was in use in their own age and the place where they lived, which differed greatly from that earlier one and from that which was used in various regions. Indeed, even today, in the reading determined by the Massoretes with certain vowels, there is generally no sufficient agreement among the Rabbis as to how it should be read. Hence it is that those ancients do not always agree among themselves in their readings, but one person pronounces the same word in one way and another in another, a fact which is confirmed by the following examples. Furthermore, we begin with the Greek alphabet, which, along with the names of the letters written in Greek letters, is found in Eusebius, *De praep. evang.*, book x, and in the codex of the Reverend Fathers of the Jesuit college of Louis the Great in *Lamentations of Jeremiah*; as well as in the alphabet of the Murbach codex, approximately a thousand years old, which we published in *Palaeographia Graeca*, p. 221.
V. On the ancient pronunciation of the Hebrew letters.
A Aleph. Eusebius reads *alph*, the Jesuit codex *alapha*, the Murbach alphabet ALEPH. Jerome says in the *Questions on Genesis* that this letter is often read as *e*, but more often as *a*. Sometimes it is found read as *o*, as in III Kings i, 5, וּ וַיִּירָא. LXX: *Ornias*.
Beth. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex B *beth*. It corresponds entirely to the Greek *b*, and today, like the Greek *b*, it is often read as the consonant *v*, when it is not *daghessatum*.
Ghimel. Eusebius reads *gimel*, the Jesuit codex *giml*, the Murbach alphabet GEMEL. It is always expressed by the Greek *g*.
Daleth. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex read *deleth*, with the final vowel suppressed; the Murbach alphabet DELETH. It is read with *d* everywhere.
He. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex express it as one letter *he*. Both with the rough breathing *h*. Murbach alph. *he*. Furthermore, this letter was more often expressed as *e*, often also as *a*, according to Jerome, *Questions on Genesis*. In Canticles vii, 6, C בַּת רַבִּים, a certain ancient interpreter reads *berateim*.
Vau. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex *oou*, the Murbach alph. *vau*. This letter never functions as a consonant in the fragments described by the Greeks, nor does it seem to be able to do so, since at the beginning of words it is expressed by *ou*, *ouasseil* (וַיְחִי), "and he lived"; *ouessake* (וַיִּשַּׁק), "and he kissed." In the middle and at the end of words it is rendered sometimes by *ou*, and sometimes, and indeed more frequently, by *o*; of which matter more below.
Zain. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex read *zai*, with the final letter of the name omitted. Likewise, *zai* is read in the Murbach alphabet which we published in *Palaeographia Graeca* p. 221. But of our manuscripts, one of the 9th century, num. 3, has *zai*; another of about the 11th century, num. 42, likewise *zai*; a third of about the 11th century, num. 5, *zay*. But another of about the 9th century, num. 2, unlike that older one, has *zain*. The Coislin codex, likewise Greek, num. 191, has *zai*. Every day I come across other codices that have *zai*. Wherefore I would scarcely doubt that formerly it was read by all as *Zai*, not *Zain*, and that all rendered it with *z*.
D Heth. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex read *heth*, with the aspirate, that is, even if the breathing is not read at the end; the Murbach alph. HETH. The LXX read this letter with *ch*, *chi*, as Jerome notes in *Questions on Genesis*, as in חָם, *Cham*. And concerning the word חֶרֶשׂ in Jeremiah, chap. xix, 2, he has this: "But for 'potsherd,' Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion placed the Hebrew word itself, *charsith*; for which the LXX, according to their custom, instead of the aspirate of the letter HETH, added the Greek *chi*, so that they said *charsith* for *arsith*; just as that is, for *Hebron*, *Chebron*, and for *Jericho*, *Jericho*, and the like." Others, and especially Aquila, have it for the aspirate; and as is probable, at the beginning of words they indicated it with the rough breathing, although already many such commutations of breathings, especially in proper names, are detected: for because in the time of Origen, and for some centuries after Origen, all copies were written without breathings and accents; when these began to be noted, the calligraphers placed those breathings in proper names that first came to mind. However, in this matter we have followed the codices, not daring to correct the lenis breathings that were wrongly placed. In the middle of words they expressed the letter ח only by a vowel; yet a unique example is found where Symmachus reads the word תַּחְמַס, *techmas*, namely Isaiah xiii, 21. At the beginning of words, as I said, they were accustomed to aspirate the vowel by which they expressed the letter: furthermore, that vowel was sometimes *e*. Thus Gen. ii, 14, חִדֶּקֶל, *tidekel*, *Tigris*. Josue xv, 30, חָרְמָה, *Herma*, and the like: more often, however, *a*, as IV Kings i, 2. Aquila, *Aazia*, אֲחַזְיָה(וּ), who is called *Ochozias* by Jerome and the LXX; and Psalm ix, 7, *arbaoth*, חֲרָבוֹת; and Psalm cii, 17, *aeida*, חֲעֵדָה; and Jerem. xix, 2, A., S., Th., *charseth*, חֶרֶשׂ, as above. In the middle or after the first letter of the word, more frequently *e* or *e*. Gen. v, 6, *ouasseil*, וַיְחִי, "and he lived"; III Reg. i, 9, A., S., *ch...* [rest of page missing].
the word, but is read by the ancients as seen in these examples. Whence perhaps a suspicion may arise that the final letter, which is aspirated in all the cited examples, was once an aspirated , and was read as *tha* instead of the modern *ta*. For they did not aspirate the *v*. Thus Psalm cix, 4, *ta*, תָּ, "ros"; Psalm viii, 6, *par*, פַּר, "parum"; Deuteron. xi, 3, A., *settim*, שִׁטִּים; and Isaiah xxvi, 3 and 4, *batoû* *batoû*, בִּטְחוּ בָּטְחוּ. B Iod. Eusebius reads *iô* and the Jesuit manuscript *iôth*. In the Murbach alphabet it is also read *ioth*. Also the Greek Coislin codex, number 191, has *iôth*. The consensus of many on the final letter indicates that it was once read as *th*, which the Greek *iôta* seems to confirm, being undoubtedly derived from the Hebrew. I frequently encounter codices that have *iôth*, whence that which we said above is asserted. Be that as it may, [*i*] is rendered by *i* by everyone. On the quiescent [*i*], see below.
C Chaph, or Kaph, as modern grammarians and the Murbach alphabet call it. Eusebius and the Jesuit manuscripts, *chaph*. By the interpreters it is always aspirated, as can be proven by countless examples taken from this collection; if the contrary occurs twice or thrice, it can be ascribed to the carelessness of the scribes.
D Lamed. Eusebius and the Jesuit manuscripts, *lamd*, *labd*. I would believe that by a copyist's error *lamd* was written instead of *lamd*, because in manuscripts from the 9th or 10th century the *d* and *m* often have a similar form, making it sometimes difficult to distinguish one letter from the other, especially when the sense does not help, as happens here; but since the Jesuit codex, written about the 9th century, is in uncial characters, another solution to this knot must be sought: perhaps for euphony and easier pronunciation *lamd* was written instead of *lamed*. Murbach alphabet: LAMED.
A Nem. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex read *mêm*, the Murbach alphabet *mem*. All, however, express the [*m*], except at the end of words, where the Greeks most frequently place [*n*] for [*m*], because the Greek language abhors [*m*] at the end of a word.
Nun. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex, *noun*. All use [*n*]. Murbach alphabet: NUN.
Samech. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex, *samech*. Murbach alphabet: SAMETH. All, however, read it with [*s*].
B Ain. Eusebius and the Jesuit codex, *ain*. Murbach alphabet: AIN. The LXX translators not rarely express it with [*g*]. A., *gaê*, עָא. Elsewhere they often render both the letter and the motion with *e*, sometimes with *a*. Thus Gen. xi, 8, *taên*. Gen. xxviii, 19, *eip*, עַיִן; Josue vii, 24, *emach*, עֵמֶק; I Reg. xvi, 18. A., *erouba*, עֶרְבָּה; III Reg. iv, 12, *a*, LXX, *eér*; IV Reg. i, 2, *baal*, בַּעַל. Psalm xlvi, [*y*] ult., *eg*; *em*, cum, but when [*y*] signifies *people*, it is read *aam*. Psalm xc, 9, *eliôn*, עֶלְיוֹן. Isaiah lxiv, 5. Theodotion, *odôim*, עָדִים. And so elsewhere. But with *a*: Gen. iii, 1, *aour*, עָרוֹם, "naked". Josue vii, 24, *achôr*, עָכָר. Psalm viii, 1, *al*, עַל. Psalm lxxiv, 4, *amoudah*, עַמּוּדָה. (*) Modern Hebrews write and pronounce all... Psalm lxxv, 10, *ani*, עָנִי. Psalm xlviii, 6, *py*, [*e*], *aôn*... ibid. 12, *alê*, עָלֵי. Isaiah xv, 1, Theodotion, *ar*, עִיר. In the appendix Deut. ii, 23, A., *a*, עַ. In the middle of words, whether after the first letter, it is expressed sometimes by *e*, sometimes by *a*, and indeed more frequently; by *a* in Malachi ii, 13, *deah*, דְּעָה; Osee xi, 1, *neph*, נֶפֶשׁ; by *la*. Psalm viii, 6, *mali*, מַעַל. Psalm xi, 7, *baal* IV Reg. i, 2, *bal*, בַּעַל. Isaiah xxvi, 2, *saareim*, שְׁעָרִים. At the end of words they almost always read it with *e*, unless a paragogic or heemantic [*h*] follows: for then it is read with *a*. I Paralip. vii, 26, *iêsoue*, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. IV Reg. xi, 4, *ia*, S., LXX, *iôdaé*. IV Reg. xviii, 34. A., *ané*, עֲנָה; sometimes, however, with *a*: Deut. i, 38. O. *iêsoua*, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, and Josue xv, 26, *samak*, שְׁמַע. It is certain, however, that [*y*] had some guttural pronunciation among the Hebrews. It is generally given a soft breathing when it lies at the beginning of a word in the fragments of the ancient translators that remain: to which, however, full faith should not be given, as we said regarding the letter [*h*]. Jerome reads it without the aspirate more often: sometimes, however, with the aspirate. The LXX sometimes with *r* or *t*. Sometimes with *ch*, as Amos i, 5, *Eden*, where the LXX read [*y*], and translate *charan*. Where Jerome: In that place indeed, where we said, etc. See in the note ibid.
Pe. Eusebius and the Jesuit manuscript, *phê*, Murbach alphabet *phe*. All ancient translators always pronounce [*p*] with *ph*. And Jerome says, Comment. in Isaiah, vol. III: The Hebrew language does not have the letter *p*; but uses the Greek *phi* instead. And Comment. in Daniel, cap. xi, 35, he says that in the word *aphédno* alone it is read with *p*; in others, always with *ph*.
Tsade. Eusebius and the Jesuit manuscript *tsadê*, Murbach alphabet *sade*. All translators read it with [*s*].
Quot. Eusebius and the Jesuit manuscript *kôph*, Murbach alphabet *koph*. The ancients express it with [*k*]. If it is observed to be rendered differently at times, namely with [*ch*], I think that happened through the carelessness of the scribes.
Resch. Eusebius and the Jesuit manuscript *rhês*, Murbach alphabet *res*.
Schin. Eusebius and the Jesuit manuscript *sên*, Murbach alphabet also *sen*. The ancients always read it with [*s*] whether it is to be noted with a right or left dot.
Tau. Murbach alphabet also has *tau*; but Eusebius and the Jesuit manuscript read *thau*. The ancients always render it with [*th*], not [*t*].
VI. Concerning the vowels of the Hebrews. As for the vowels of the Hebrews, it is a matter of dispute among the learned whether the letters [*a, h, y, w*] formerly performed the duty of vowels, as Jerome seems to have believed; or whether they had the place of consonants, as most modern men teach. Surely if these letters had the use of vowels, it would have been absolutely necessary for there to have been other vowels among the Hebrews, which, although not noted in the books, were nevertheless used by custom. For since no voice, no word can be pronounced without a vowel, and countless [*m*] among the Hebrews... Drach
A voices do not show any of the letters yodh, he, waw, it is certain that they had other vowels besides these letters, which, indeed, were not written, but were used by custom, even though there was great variety in reading. Moreover, the letters aleph, he, waw, yodh, especially those which are aspirated, did not have a fixed vowel, but sometimes one, sometimes another, in the usage of reading and speaking, so that both the aspiration and the vowel would be sounded as one: which no one could deny. Whether that aspiration ought to be called a consonant seems to be a mere question of terminology. Regarding the yodh and the waw, it is not—as I think—the same case: for it is likely that they, for the most part at least, functioned as vowels; but to those who think otherwise about this matter, I leave the investigation of greater details, as it is a matter of very slight importance.
Now let us come to comparing those vowels of the ancients with the current motions of the Hebraists. Modern grammarians, following the Massoretes, express the vowel A by *camets*, by *patah*, or by *scheva patah*; E by *tsere*, by *segol*, or by *scheva segol*. But they express the very thinnest E by *scheva*; I by *hhiriq* magnum thus B or by *hhiriq* parvum, or a dot placed under the letter it affects, thus; O by *hholem* plenum, or by *hholem* deficiens, or a dot written on the upper side of the following letter thus; likewise by *camets hhatouph* or by *hhateph camets*; U they express, when grave, by *schourec*, and when thin, by *kibbus*. I shall not speak of the gravity or thinness of the individual vowels, because nothing of this kind is observed in the reading of the ancients.
Furthermore, a great variety in reading is discovered between those ancient interpreters and the Massoretes, so that where the former read A, the latter read E, and vice versa; as in 1 Kings xvii, 18, *’aruba*, Aquila reads *eroubá*, while the Massoretes read *’aruba*, with *scheva patah* in the first and *kibbus* in the second; and very often where the letters yodh and he are noted with the vowel A, they read E. Psalm xlvii, 3, where the Massoretes read that *’elet*, they read *’et*. In ancient codices it is read *’ele*, and in the same psalm, 10, *dimmion*, the Massoretes have *dimminou*, they have *dimmion*; and psalm xlix, 4, C *becha*, they read *bé*. When, however, the preceding vowel is E and ends in E, as above, *lehebebhéx*. Sometimes also, but rarely, the ancients read O or for A, and vice versa. Thus Gen. xxxv, 24, in the note *makor*, the Massoretes have *makor*, the old reading is *moxor*, unless it is a mistake for *moxor*; and Joshua vii, 24, *’Achor*, the Massoretes have *’Achor*. Some read *’Achar*, notwithstanding [the punctuation]. Others *’Achor*. 1 Kings xvii, 1, *Dammim*, the Massoretes have *Dammim*; they have *dammín*, and Psalm xlviii, 2, *haled*, the Massoretes have *haled*; they have *haléd*.
Regarding *scheva*, some things must be observed by us. In the Massoretic manner, it is sometimes read, sometimes silent. It is always read at the beginning of a word under a letter with *daghesh*, in the middle of a word after another *scheva*, and after a long motion. Elsewhere it is accustomed to be quiescent, and it sounds like E when it is read. Furthermore, the ancient interpreters did not stand by these rules: for they often did not read *scheva* at the beginning of a word; as Gen. i, 1, *bereschith*. The Massoretes read *bereschith*, they read *bresith*. Gen. i, 8, *beheden*, Massor. *beheden*, they read *bedén*. Leviticus xiii, 2, *seeth*, Massor. *seeth*, Theodotion reads *seth*. Psalm xi, 9, *cherum*, Massor. *cherum*, they read *chrám*. Psalm cxvii, 25, *beschem*, Massor. *beschem*, they read *beschém*. Frequently also, for a modern initial *scheva*, they employ the same vowel that is had in the following syllable. Gen. xiv, 5, *Rephaim*, Massoretes read *Rephaim*, Aquila reads *raphaeím*. Leviticus xix, 27, Massoretes *Pheath*, they read *phaáth*. Psalm xlv, 8, Massor. *tsebaoth*, the ancients often read *sabaúth*. Psalm xlvii, 9, D *lemaschal*, Massor. *lemaschal*; they read *lamaschál*. Psalm xlviii, 5, *pelagav*, Massor. *pelagav*; they read *palagaú*. Psalm xlix, 5, *lemoschal*; they find frequent examples of these in the LXX interpreters, such as *Schelomo*, *Solomon*, and others. There is also a place where, with *ou* following, they express that initial *scheva* by A, as Psalm xliii, 15, *ma'oud*, Massor. *la'aldutheca*, they have *teledeú*. Malachi ii, 13, *cassoth*, Massor. *cassoth*; they have *xassóth*. But far more often they read the Massoretic E as A, as Leviticus xviii, 13, *thobel*, Massor. with double *segol*, *thobel*: Theodotion read *thobél*. Judges iii, often *’Ehud*, Massoretes with *tsere* under the first *’Ehud*. LXX *’Aód*, others *’Aoud*. 1 Kings xvii, 1, *Ephes*, Massor. *Ephes*, they read *aphés*. 4 Kings xviii, 34, *Henah*, Massor. *Henah*, Aquila *’Ané*. 4 Kings xxv, 17, *Chothereth*, Massor. *Chothereth*, Symm. and Theodotion *xotháre*. Job xlii, 14, *keren*, Massor. *keren*, Aquila and Symm. *xárn*. Psalm vii, 13, *iehhabbel*, Massor. *iehhabbel*: the ancients read *iebál*.
Here, however, it must be noted that in the suffixes of the second person singular masculine gender, if a *camets* is supposed, the ancient interpreters read A before the O, namely *ac*. Thus Psalm xliv, 8, *’Eloecha*, where the Massoretes read *’Eloecha*, they read *’eloechá*. Psalm xlv, 10, *Hocalecha*, Massor. *Hocalecha*, they read *hocalechá*. Psalm cix, 3, *Leska*, Massor. *Leska*: they read *leská*, better *lesaká*. Isaiah xlix, 3, *massoretes*... Regarding the *yodh*, and regarding the vowel *hiriq*, these things must be observed; the ancients always express them by *i*, or indiscriminately by *ei*, unless by a copyist's error *ei* has been put for *i*, which is observed most frequently in almost all Greek manuscripts. Gen. i, 1, *bereschith*, *bresié*. Gen. xiv, 5, *raphaeím*, Aquila, *raphaeím*. Gen. xxviii, 19, *deir*, *deír*. Leviticus i, 1, *uicrá*, *uicrá*. Gen. xxxvi, 24, in the note *ammaím*, *ammaím*. 1 Kings iv, 18, *arbaím*, *arbaím*. 1 Kings xvii, 1, *dammím*, *dammím*. 2 Kings xiv, 26, *rabaeím*, *rabaeím*. 2 Kings vi, 1, *’Ochozias*, S. *’Ochozias*. 4 Kings xxiii, 7, *chadoseím*, *chadoseím*. 4 Kings i, 2, *’Ochozias*, A. *’Ochozias*. Job xlii, 14, A., S., *ieimá*. Psalm viii, 1, *haggeth*, *haggeth*. Psalm xl, 1, *deeirnim*, *deeirnim*. Where, however, the *yodh* is quiescent in *tsere*, they commonly express it by *e*, more rarely by *ae*. 4 Kings i, 8, *eezór*, *eezór*. Psalm vii, 8, *leá*, *leá*. Psalm xlvii, 3, *lepot*, *lepot*. Psalm xlvii, 10, *haldath*, *haldath*. We could bring forward many other examples, but let these suffice. When, however, the letter *yodh* is neither expressed nor understood, as in the word *David*, which is more often written *David* with the *yodh* suppressed, but with the *yodh* sub-understood, then it is noted by the Massoretes with *hhiriq parvum*, by the ancients
never read by an *i*, but more frequently by a *u*, Gen. XI, 8, מִקֶּדֶם, Massoretic *mikkedem*, they [read] *mekkedem*. Levit. VII, 18, פִּגּוּל, the Massoretes have *phiggoul*, but Theodotion *phegoul* or *phegoul*. Psal. IX, 17, הִגָּיוֹן, Massoretes *higgaion*, they *eggain*. Psal. CIX, מִשְׁחָר, Massor. *mischhhar*, they *meschaar*. Psal. CXVII, גִּבּוֹר, Massor. *ghibbor*; they *gebōr*. Osee XI, 1, מִמִּצְרַיִם, Massor. *mimmitsraim*. They *memmesraim*. Malachiae II, 13, דִּמְעָה, Massoretes *dimah*; they *dema*. When a short *hhiriq* lies after an *a*, they then express the vowel by an *a*. II Reg. XVII, 19, הָרִפות, Massor. *hariphoth*; they *araphōth*.
Regarding the letter *hholem*, *schurek*, and *cametshhathuph*, we have observed these. A An initial *scheva* is just as accustomed to be expressed by *o*, as is *schourec*, neglecting the modern *scheva*. Thus in Psalm XLVIII, 4, וְהָגוּת, Massoretes *vehaguth*; they *odaguth*, with a *v* for *v* as not infrequently happens. Isai. XXVI, 2, שֶׁלָּבוּ, Massor. *selabō*; they *oulabō*. Malachiae II, 13, וְזֹאת, Massor. *vezoth*; they *ouzōth*. Ibid. וְלָקַחַת, Massor. *velakakhath*; they *oulakath*. B Although an initial *v*, as being the converter of the future into the past, is affected by a *patabh* in the Massoretic rite, it is rendered only by *ou* by those ancient interpreters, without the *patabh* being expressed; thus they read *outxpa* for [וַתִּקְרָא], not *ouikra*, and *ouidabēth* for [וַיְדַבֵּר] *ouieddabber*, even though in modern Latin Bibles *Vaiera* and *Vaieddabber* are read at the beginning of the books of Leviticus and Numbers. Similarly IV Reg. IV, 35, *ouiesgar* for [וַיִּסְגֹּר], thus *ouiesgar*.
*Hholem* indeed, whether full or deficient, as well as *hhateph camets* and *camets hhathuph*, is found expressed by *o* and by *w*: and this, perhaps, by the fault of scribes who are accustomed to confuse these letters, especially in foreign words.
Where, according to the Massoretes, a *scheva* occurring at the beginning before another *scheva* is changed into a short *hhiriq*, then those ancients read both *scheva*s by *e* or *a*; by *e* in Psal. XI, 9, לִבְנֵי, Massor. *Libne*, or *livne*, they *debue*. Psal. CL, 2, בִּגְבוּרֹתָיו, Massor. *bigbourothav*; they *begecourothav*; by *a* in many places, Massor. *minhah*; they *mana* or *mana*. Psal. LXXV, 4, מִלְחָמָה, Massor. *milhame*; they *malama*. Psal. XV, 1, מִכְתָּם, Massor. *Michtham*; they *machtham*. Osee X, 9, גִּבְעָה, Massor. *Ghibah*; they *gabaa*. When after a long vowel *o* or *w* or *ou* follows, [it is expressed] by *a*. Num. XI, 34, קִבְרוֹת, Massoretes *kibroth*; they *kabroth*, perhaps better *xabroth*. Jerem. XLVIII, 1, מִשְׂגָּב, Massor. *misgab*. A., Th., *masogab*. C Ezech. XXIX, 10, מִגְדֹּל, Massor. *Migdol*: they *magdōl*. *a* is also found before *e*. III Reg. VI, 1, בִּשְׁמֹנִים, Massor. *bischmonim*; [they] *basemoneim*. III Reg. VII, 48, אֶת־מִזְבַּח, Massor. *Eth-misbah*: they *ethmasbah*. [1. ethmasbēth]. Whence you may infer that that modern *hhiriq* before a *scheva* was more frequently read by those ancients with an *a*. Origen, however, provides two examples at Gen. XXXII, where it is read with an *i*, namely *aiaim* [לָהַיִם] for *alaiaim* and *misoth* [מִשְׁלֹח] for *misloth*. But these and perhaps similar examples which can be provided from elsewhere by later Hebraizers [alt-version omitted] *Schurec* and *Kibbus* [are expressed] by *ou*, even though they are sometimes expressed by *o* or by *w*. Of such a kind is the word [מָּה], *operire*, the infinitive of verbs *Lamed He*, which is expressed as *xao* in the Barberini codex.
These things we have thought fit to preamble in few words concerning the manner of reading of the ancients. From here, further, you may see it to be difficult to hand down certain rules for the reading of the ancients, since they differ from the moderns, and even from their own equals and contemporaries, in the manner of pronouncing. But from those things which we have set forth above, those seem the more probable which are asserted by more numerous examples. The rest, indeed, we leave to the judgment of the learned reader.
CHAPTER THIRD.
De Historia LXX vel LXXII Interpretum, quæ Aristeæ nomine circumfertur.I. Aristeæ historiæ compendium. II. Quid de hac historia dixerint Aristobulus et Philo Judæus. III. Quid Josephus. IV. Quam longe ab Aristeæ narratione aberraverit Justinus Martyr, et quinam ipsum secuti sint. V. Epiphanius longe diversa ab Aristea et a cæteris refert. VI. Tota controversia in tres quæstiones dividitur. VII. Probatur Aristeæ exemplaria quæ supersunt, genuina, cæterorum autem additamenta respuenda esse. VIII. Post Hieronymum asseritur LXX vel eos qui Pentateuchum transtulerunt, non reliqua interpretatos esse. IX. Utrum Aristeæ primigenia historia vera sit, an ficta et supposititia : afferuntur argumenta utrinque. X. Disputationis conclusio.
Quæ ad historiam Aristeæ spectant, tot plenæ difficultatibus, tot agitatæ quæstionibus sunt, ut si luberet omnia prolixe tractare, singulorumque sententias expendere, longius a proposito nostro abduceremur: quia tamen eorum notitia D intelligendis iis quæ de editione τῶν Ὁ hexaplari infra dicturi sumus, prorsus necessaria videtur, rem ita compendio explanare statuimus, ut nihil debeat ultra studiosus lector desiderare.
Aristeæ epistola ad Philocratem, quæ hactenus exstat, et eruditorum manibus teritur, minutatim recenset ea quæ jussu sumptibusque Ptolemæi Ægypti regis, pro interpretandis ex Hebraico in Græcum sacris [Scripturis, gesta sunt. Hæc autem συντομῶς pro- A rissimi p…]
proferimus.
Demetrius Phalereus, prefect of the library of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, having sought out books from everywhere, had so increased it that it contained more than two hundred thousand volumes. When, upon the king's inquiry, he reported this in the presence of Aristeas, he added that he would ensure that the number of books would soon reach five hundred thousand, and said that he had learned from the accounts of certain men that the laws of the Jews were worthy of being placed in his library, provided that they were converted from the Syriac language (as many called it, although Demetrius disputes this) in which they were written, into Greek. Without delay, the king resolved to write to the high priest, so that he might obtain what he desired. Then Aristeas disclosed to the king those matters of which he had often spoken with Sosibius of Tarentum and Andreas, the commanders of the king’s guards; namely, that it was fitting, as he was about to send envoys to the high priest to bring the books of the Jews, that he should set free all those Jews who had been abducted into captivity by his father, and send them back to their homeland. The king, having inquired how many thousands of Jews had been enslaved in Egypt, heard from Andreas that there were more than one hundred thousand. Thereupon, the king’s expression turning to joy, he ordered all the Jews who had been enslaved—both those taken by his father and others taken into servitude earlier—to be released and delivered to their masters, who used such household help, at the rate of twenty drachmas per head. The total sum of the royal gift was 660 talents. C
Demetrius Phalereus then gave a petition to the king, in which he suggested that he ask the high priest of the Jews, Eleazar, for six elders from each tribe, distinguished for the honesty of their lives and their knowledge of the laws, so that the translation of the majority might be held more worthy of belief. The king sent as envoys Andreas and our Aristeas with the most excellent gifts, which are enumerated there, and with royal letters concerning the Jews redeemed from servitude, the sending of the elders for the interpretation of the Scripture, and the gifts presented. These letters were matched by an epistle from Eleazar to Ptolemy, in which he expressed, on account of the benefits, prayers for the king’s good fortune, for his wife Arsinoe, and for his children, and professed that he would send six elders from each tribe for the interpretation of the Scriptures. Then D the names of the elders of each tribe are recorded. The form and excellence of the gifts are then described in detail. There follows a narrative of what Aristeas had observed in Jerusalem: namely, the site of Jerusalem, the form of the Jerusalem temple, the ministry of the priests, the rite of Eleazar, the chief of priests, as he performed the sacred duties, the site of the Jerusalem citadel, the perimeter of the whole city, the fertility of the soil and the region, and the abundance and variety of the crops. Aristeas presents the river Jordan overflowing like the Nile and irrigating the lands, and in this matter he is refuted by many as false.
In addition, it deals with the elders selected by Eleazar from each tribe: they were most skilled in both languages, that is to say, Hebrew and Greek, and famous for their knowledge of the laws A, and were highly regarded. Afterwards, Eleazar discoursed at length on the proper maintenance of morals, the vanity of the gods of the Gentiles, and the excellence and superiority of the Mosaic law. Upon this, after a sacrifice had been offered, he sent the envoys and the seventy-two men chosen by him to the king with letters. The king, who was expecting their arrival, received them most kindly, and then, having had the membranes displayed to him upon which the Law was inscribed in golden letters, he adored them seven times with veneration, and wept with joy; and because at that same time he had obtained a naval victory against Antigonus, he declared that day would be a solemn and auspicious one for him every year, and invited the men to a splendid feast on that very day. While they reclined with him, he challenged the elders with various questions concerning the maintaining of life and the governing of the kingdom, to which each of the elders, interrogated in turn, replied most wisely, so that in the space of seven days, with the manner of the feast repeated, he received the responses of the seventy-two elders one by one, celebrated each man's statement with praises, and finally presented three talents as a gift to each.
After the three days of banqueting had passed, the elders were led by Demetrius to a nearby island, and located in a splendid house, where they applied themselves daily until the ninth hour to the interpretation of the law, with Demetrius performing the role of scribe. And also, every day they came into the court in the morning, and after greeting the king, they returned to their place. And so, with the copies collated and with them gathered together, they completed the translation in the space of seventy-two days. Demetrius recited the entire translation to all the Jews then present, who followed it with the highest praises. Then by common consent, at the prompting of Demetrius, they pronounced curses upon those who should dare to add anything to this version, or to take away, or to change anything in it. C
The king, happy with the successful outcome of the matter, and having admired the wisdom of the legislator after the reading, inquired why the poets and historians had made no mention of such a great work. Demetrius replied that the most holy Law could not have been used in the writings of outsiders without danger. For Theopompus and Theodectes, who had attempted it, had been coerced by divinely sent punishments. Having heard this, the king pursued the Law with religious veneration, and ordered it to be guarded with the greatest care, and asked the elders to meet together more often in the future, and sent them home with gifts and the most ample presents destined for the high priest Eleazar.
This is the whole history of Aristeas and the LXX Interpreters. Although all who have treated this subject are thought to have drawn from this source, yet they differ greatly both from each other and from that Aristeas whom we have just mentioned.
II. What Aristobulus and Philo Judaeus have said about this History.
He who first mentioned the History of Aristeas, though without naming Aristeas, is Aristobulus, cited by Eusebius of Caesarea (Præp. evang. p. 664), who of
Ptolemy Philadelphus, with Demetrius of Phaleron in charge, speaks piecemeal. Some think that certain men lived under Ptolemy Philadelphus, others under Philometor, and others under the last of the Ptolemies. Nor are there wanting those who think the fragments of Aristobulus brought forward by Eusebius were taken from supposititious works, fabricated in the first age of the Christian era.
Philo the Jew, in *Life of Moses*, book II, commemorates the History of the LXX Interpreters, and says first that Ptolemy Philadelphus, whom he extols with the highest praises, for the sake of adorning the interpretation of the Scriptures, sent to the high priest and king of Judea, who were one and the same person—A (*He sent to the high priest and king of Judea; for he was one and the same*). He indeed chose the most skilled men, who might translate the Law from Chaldaic into the Greek language (so he says). But of the number of the interpreters, Philo says nothing anywhere. He proceeds then, and says that the interpreters published their version in secret and without anyone present. But when this interpretation had been made on the island of Pharos, Philo testifies that the memory of so great a thing is celebrated every year even to his own time; so that not only Jews, but also others, crossing over to that island, might recall so great a benefit with acts of thanksgiving and banquets.
III. What Josephus says.
Josephus (Antiquit. Jud. lib. XII, 2), who professes that he borrowed the things he relates from Aristeas himself, changed the style of Aristeas entirely, so that he describes even the letters of the various people, which appear in the same history, B in a far different series of words. And he not only changes the words, but sometimes the facts themselves; he omits much, and adds not a few things of his own. Nevertheless, he seems to have used that very same copy which the modern Aristeas has been transmitted to us; for although he varies greatly in the recitation—this he did according to his custom—he corrupted the holy Scriptures, which he uses throughout almost the entire History, with similar changes here and there.
IV. How far Justin Martyr strayed from the narrative of Aristeas.
Justinus Martyr, in his *Exhortation to the Greeks*, related things far otherwise. For he says that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, while he was preparing the library at Alexandria and seeing to it that books were brought from everywhere, heard that ancient histories written in Hebrew characters were still in existence; and, desirous of reading them, he summoned seventy men skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages, that they might produce a Greek interpretation; and that they might perform the matter at a distance from the tumult, he had ordered as many cells or small houses to be built for the seventy men, with this purpose, that each one might prepare an interpretation separately and without consulting others: and he had given orders to the servants assigned to that business not to allow them to enter into conversation with one another, so that after the interpretations were compared, he could judge of their fidelity and skill. But when they all had performed the same interpretation, without the slightest difference in words, the king, astonished, D as if he had heaped the men with divine gifts, sent them back home. In confirmation of the matter, Justin testifies that he had seen with his own eyes the ruins of such small houses on the island of Pharos, and had received what he reports from the natives. Finally, he closes and refers the reader to Philo and Josephus, where, however, there is no mention of cells. But in his second *Apology* for the Christians, he says that King Ptolemy, when he was taking care that books for the library might be brought from everywhere, asked King Herod to transmit to him the books of the prophecies: and when he could not read the Hebrew books, he asked again from him for interpreters, who might translate the Hebrew things into Greek, etc. Thus he brings forward a vast anachronism; for Herod began to reign about two hundred and fifty years after the death of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
Furthermore, Cyril of Jerusalem reports the same history of the cells as Justin. But those who wrote immediately after Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, having said few things about the History of the LXX interpreters, related nothing of such cells: from which Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria assert that their version was made under the divine inspiration of the Spirit. But Eusebius, in *Preparation for the Gospel*, book VIII, reports the greatest part of Aristeas, and agrees for the most part with modern copies.
V. Epiphanius reports things far different from Aristeas and the others.
Finally, Epiphanius reports things far otherwise than the rest. And because his narrative has been held by many to be the most true and most sincere of all, we will not be loath to record it here. In the book *On Weights and Measures*, near the beginning, after he proclaimed the excellence of the edition of the 70, and asserted that it was done not without the afflatus of the Holy Spirit, he proceeds thus:
"For the seventy-two men were enclosed on the island of Pharos, which is called the Upper Land, from the region of the city of Alexandria, in thirty-six small houses or cells, two in each, from the first dawn until evening. But in the evening, they were ferried over in thirty-six boats to the palace of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and were invited to his banquets. Then they slept two in thirty-six chambers, lest they should be able to mix C conversations with one another, but might publish the interpretation they had received, not received from others (but [alt-version omitted]). For Ptolemy prepared those thirty-six small houses, which I said, on the island, and those double ones, in which he shut them up, two by two, along with two servants, who might prepare food and serve them, and at the same time tachygraphers or scribes. Furthermore, in those small houses, he made no windows in the walls; but he opened them from the top through the roof, which they call anaphotidas. In this manner they, with the doors locked (under lock), enclosed from the first dawn until evening, translated the sacred letters. But to each of the interpreters a pair of books was handed; for example, Genesis to one, Exodus to another, Leviticus to another: and so the rest. Thus, furthermore, twenty-seven books of the holy Scripture, which two
A dozen are counted according to the Hebrew alphabet, have been converted into the Greek tongue.
For the Hebrews have 22 letters, of which five are doubled: Caph, Mem, Nun, Phi, and Aleph. Wherefore, since the books are numbered as twenty-two in this manner, twenty-seven are found, because those five are doubled, etc. A
Therefore those twenty-seven books, which are counted as twenty-two..., were delivered to each of the interpreters in the manner I have mentioned, in order, from the first pair to the second, from the second to the third, until each had been translated into Greek thirty-six times, as is indeed narrated. To these twenty-two, the apocrypha are to be added. B
Finally, all things having been completed, the king sat upon a lofty throne: thirty-six readers were present with thirty-six copies, and another who held the Hebrew counterpart. With one reading and the others attending, no discrepancy was found. But a wondrous work of God took place, so that it might be known that men endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit had reached agreement in that solitude; in such a way that wherever something was added, it was added by all together; and where it was taken away, it was taken away by all equally. And whatever had been removed was discovered to be useless; but whatever was left, to be necessary. But in order that you may know that they interpreted in a miraculous way, and by the providence of God, and by the agreement of the Holy Spirit, I shall bring forward an example to you, etc. C
Under these things, however, Epiphanius, seeking the matter from the beginning, says: Ptolemy Philadelphus, a lover of beauty and a lover of learning, established a library in that part of the city which was called Bruchium, and placed Demetrius Phalereus in charge of it, who, when he had gathered a great supply of books of every kind, said to the inquiring king that fifty-four thousand eight hundred books had already been collected: yet he said that far more remained in the world among the Ethiopians, Indians, Persians, Elamites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Romans, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Greeks. And that there were besides at Jerusalem and among the Jews books of the prophets, and those divine, which discoursed concerning God and the creation of the world, which he urged the king to send for, and for that reason to write to the doctors at Jerusalem. The king acting in accordance with this, wrote to the Jerusalemites a letter, far different from all the Aristean ones, which is brought forward by Epiphanius verbatim. In it the king requests that the books of the prophets be transmitted to him, so that they might be placed in his library: he calls to memory past benefits, namely, in what manner he had released many of the Jewish people captured in war and deported into Egypt, free with travel money. Now, however, to send a golden table adorned with precious stones of the weight of five hundred talents with other gifts, so that he might obtain his wish.
The books having been sent afterward, since he could not read them written in Hebrew, he was compelled to write a second time and petition for interpreters. Afterward, Epiphanius brings forward a second letter, unlike that of Aristeas, even though he professes Aristeas or Aristeus (so he says) to be his author, where Ptolemy asks for interpreters most proficient in Hebrew and Greek, who might convert the holy books from Hebrew into Greek. The teachers of the Hebrews, after a reading was held, designate seventy-two interpreters—that is, six from each tribe—who in the island of Pharos, in the manner mentioned above, translated the sacred codices. Which having been completed, those books translated into Greek were stored in the former library, which was founded in Bruchium. After these, another library was again established by Serapio, far smaller than that one, which was called its descendant, into which the editions of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and others were gathered after 250 years. Thus far Epiphanius.
VI. The whole controversy is divided into three questions. B
Furthermore, having observed this variety of narratives, no one will wonder that such great discord of opinions has arisen from this. Although almost none of the aforementioned narratives agrees clearly with another; but each one differs from the others either in matters of greater moment, or in trivial ones; yet the whole controversy can be reduced to three primary questions, namely: which of the narratives is genuine or original; whether that which is circulated today under the name of Aristeas, and which asserts that the elders gathered together and adorned the interpretation, with no mention made of the special influence of the Holy Spirit; or truly that which commemorates that the elders, whether alone in seventy cells, or included in pairs in thirty-six little rooms, interpreted under the inspiration of the Divine. The second question: whether the LXX Interpreters, or those who were the first to convert the holy Scripture from Hebrew into Greek, translated only the Law, or the Pentateuch, or also the remaining books. Finally the third: whether the History of Aristeas, whether as it first appeared, or as it was later brought forward by Justin, and some centuries later by Epiphanius, be true, or forged and supposititious.
VII. It is proven that the copies of Aristeas which survive are genuine, but the additions of the others are to be rejected. C
As regards the first question, it is certain that one or the other of the narratives was adulterated; either that which asserts that seventy-two elders gathered together, and by holding mutual discourse issued that interpretation; or that which commemorates that those in the seventy cells separated, or included in pairs in thirty-six little rooms, as Epiphanius narrates, translated Scripture by the inspiration of the Divine, as is proven by the miraculous agreement of all. (Furthermore, we pass over the almost numberless other variations which intervene between those narratives, for the sake of brevity.) For this last opinion stand Justin, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, although he varies in the number of cells, Chrysostom, Augustine: to whom can be added Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria, who, although they have nothing to say about the LXX cells, nevertheless assert that that interpretation was made by the breath and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
A Among more recent writers, Leo Castro, Alfonso Salmeron, and others embrace the same opinion, arguing that the account of Aristeas, as it is found in present-day copies, is vitiated and adulterated, but that the other account concerning the cells and the miraculous interpretation is true and genuine.
Jerome, however, opposes this opinion; he accuses the account of the cells of being a falsehood and denies that the LXX Elders translated by divine inspiration. Thus he writes in his *Prologue to Genesis*: "I know not what was the first author who, by his own lie, built up the seventy cells at Alexandria, in which they were divided and wrote out the same things; whereas Aristeas, who was the same Ptolemy’s bodyguard, and long after his time Josephus, reported nothing of the kind. Instead, they write that the translators were gathered in a single basilica and conferred, and did not prophesy. For it is one thing to be a seer, and another to be a translator. The former predicts things to come by the Spirit; the latter uses scholarship and a command of language to translate what he understands." Unless, perhaps, we are to think that Tully translated Xenophon’s *Oeconomicus*, Plato’s *Protagoras*, and Demosthenes’ *On the Crown* having been inspired by a rhetorical spirit. Or did the Holy Spirit compile the testimonies differently through the Seventy and differently through the apostles, such that the things the former kept silent about, the latter lied were written? To understand these last words of Jerome, you must know that there are many things in the Scriptures which the LXX interpreters either passed over or deliberately omitted, which are cited by the evangelists and the apostles. Jerome affirms this in the same *Prologue to Genesis*, and throughout his commentaries, especially in *Jeremiah*.
Most learned men of our day embrace Jerome’s opinion, and they consider the account of the cells, that miraculous agreement, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to be entirely supposititious. Certainly Justin Martyr, who first wove the story of the cells and the miraculous agreement of the Elders, had received it from popular rumor, as he himself confesses in his *Admonition to the Greeks*: "For when we had been to Alexandria, and had seen the traces of the little cells there in Pharos, still preserved, and had heard from the inhabitants there, who had received this from their ancestors, we report these things to you: things which it is possible for you to learn from others as well, and most especially from those wise and reputable men who have written about these things, namely Philo, Josephus, and many others." That is: We ourselves who were in Alexandria saw the traces of the little houses in Pharos still remaining, and we have heard from the inhabitants, who received the matter from their ancestors; we announce these things, which you can learn from others as well, and most importantly from those who have recounted these things: Philo, Josephus, and many others. Hence you may certainly see that Justin Martyr speaks according to popular fame when he makes mention of the cells and that great miracle; for Philo and Josephus, whom he alleges, do not contain even a word about the cells and the miraculous agreement of the translators. It is therefore probable that Justin received what he relates concerning the cells from the same sources from which he had received the story that Ptolemy had requested from Herod, the king of the Jews, the interpreters to translate the sacred Scriptures. Those who follow Justin, having been carried away by his authority, seem not to have performed the least examination of the matter. Indeed Epiphanius, who altered the narrative of Justin in many points and added many things, is thought to have borrowed from other fabulists. B Assuredly, Josephus persuades us that the original history of Aristeas is that which today exists in our libraries; although he may have altered it in a few places, according to his custom, as regards style and sequence, yet he follows its footsteps closely as regards the sense and the events. Eusebius also persuades us, who published very long excerpts of the Aristean history in his *Praeparatio Evangelica*. Likewise Jerome, who indeed acknowledges the history of Aristeas, but rejects the later additions.
VIII. After Jerome, it is asserted that the LXX, or those who translated the Pentateuch, did not translate the rest. There is a second question: whether the LXX Interpreters, or those who previously translated the holy Scripture from Hebrew into Greek, translated only the Law or the Pentateuch, or the remaining books as well. The reason for doubting arose first from this: that those who wove the story of the LXX Interpreters say, some that only the Law was translated into Greek by them, others that they translated the histories, others the Prophets, and Epiphanius that they translated all the books of Scripture. But Jerome, in his *Commentary on Ezekiel*, ch. xvi, 13, says that it was the opinion of the learned of his time that only the five books of Moses were translated by the LXX. His words are: "This is not found in the LXX, who, perhaps, when they were translating the Scriptures from the Hebrew truth into the Greek tongue at Alexandria, feared to publish this, lest they should seem to offend the king of Egypt while they were commemorating that the kingdom was owed to Jerusalem from God: although scholars think that only the five books of Moses were translated by them." Moreover, the learned men of today think the same, as many of them, that is, as have compared the Hebrew with that edition which is called the Septuagint. For those who translated the Pentateuch seem much more skilled than those who translated the other books of Scripture into Greek: the style is completely different; words are often adapted that are far removed from the Hebrew terms. It would be easy to offer many examples of this kind of variety; but because the matter has already been discussed at length and by experts, and we are hastening to other things, it is not permitted to linger longer on these.
IX. Whether the original history of Aristeas is true, or faked and supposititious, arguments are brought forward on both sides. Lastly, there is a third question, and that the most serious one: whether the *History of Aristeas*, either that which is now circulated under his name and is handled by the hands of learned men, or that which is brought forward with additions and changes by Justin or by Epiphanius, is true and sincere, or whether it is faked and supposititious. But since it has already been demonstrated above that faith should not be granted to those additions, it remains that we should now deal with the trustworthiness of the original Aristean *History*. Many very learned men argue that that history is utterly fictitious and mendacious; among Catholics, Henri Valois, whom
A there follows Cardinal Joannes Bona, as well as Gilles Menage and others; among the heterodox, Joseph Scaliger, Humphrey Hody in his most learned work against the *History of Aristeas*, and most recently Antonius van Dale in his *Dissertation on the History of Aristeas*; along with very many others.
In the first place, it is said that this Aristeas, who pretends that he is a Greek by origin and parentage, is without doubt a Hellenistic Jew, as many things prove: for example, his full knowledge of the Jewish laws, the recognition of the one God, and a total lack of any mention of Serapis, Isis, and other gods who were then worshipped most fervently in Alexandria. In the narrative itself, very many Hebraisms occur, all of which betray that the author was a Jew in truth.
Furthermore, it is objected that Demetrius of Phalerum is introduced here as the prefect of the royal library of Ptolemy Philadelphus, when nevertheless Hermippus, in Diogenes Laertius, relates that Demetrius of Phalerum was a fugitive at the court of Ptolemy Soter, son of Lagus, and that, having opposed Ptolemy Philadelphus, he was relegated after the death of the Lagid and perished by the bite of an asp. To this, that Demetrius of Phalerum, a most eloquent man and easily the prince of Attic eloquence in his own age—a man who was a worshipper of the gods, and ruined by depraved morals B and luxury—is here portrayed by Aristeas as speaking scarcely Greek, or rather barbarian, in the letter which he writes to Philadelphus, and as a worshipper of the one God, inasmuch as he holds the law of the Hebrews to be divine and the most holy of all, and utters curses upon those who might dare to add, take away, or change anything in the translation of the LXXII Interpreters. There will perhaps be those who think that this argument can be countered by the narrative of Cosmas the Egyptian, recently published by us. For he, in his *Christian Topography*, which he published during the reign of Justinian, says that not Demetrius of Phalerum, but Tryphon of Phalerum was the custodian of the royal library under Ptolemy Philadelphus. If this reading is admitted, all those arguments which were of some moment while Demetrius of Phalerum stood fall away. But what value could the testimony of one writer, and one of an inferior age at that, have in this matter, when all from the beginning who mention Aristeas have Demetrius of Phalerum? Certainly, it can be doubtful to no one that the first Aristeas had Demetrius of Phalerum, too. Wherefore, Cosmas the Egyptian is either mistaken in his memory, or has borrowed the error from elsewhere.
Not only Demetrius of Phalerum, but also Ptolemy Philadelphus himself—a fratricide, married to his sister, whose softness, luxury, and crimes are celebrated by historians—is presented by Aristeas as such a pious and observant follower of the Mosaic Law that you would call him King David or Hezekiah. He followed the scrolls of the Law brought to him with such veneration that he adored them seven times and wept for joy. All the Greeks mentioned in the Aristean History show the same pious devotion towards the Mosaic Law, so that by a wondrous metamorphosis you would believe that everyone involved C in this affair had suddenly been made a proselyte.
D The liberality of Ptolemy Euergetes (not Philadelphus, as some have said) is praised, because, having borrowed the copies of Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus from the Athenians so he might have them transcribed, he returned very beautiful copies while keeping the originals for himself, and at the same time left the sum of fifteen talents, which he had deposited with the Athenians, to them as a favor. Truly, the sum of fifteen talents was considered great at that time; but what would you say if, calculating all that was spent by Philadelphus for the sake of obtaining copies of the Law—namely the price of the captives, the gifts to Eleazar, to the temple, and to each of the others offered—you should find a sum of more than twelve hundred talents? Would you not conclude that the royal treasury had been completely exhausted? No one will deny that this smacks of a fable.
It might also seem strange in what manner Eleazar could have had six men from each tribe at hand—men old, well-mannered, learned, and most experienced in the Law, and highly skilled in both languages, namely Hebrew and Greek—so that when asked, he sent them immediately, when nevertheless in the time of Eleazar it is believed that the distinction of the tribes was either non-existent or minimal. Add to this that the victory gained over Antigonus, at the same time as the LXXII elders arrived at Alexandria, as Aristeas narrates, is certainly known to have occurred many years earlier, during the reign of the son of Ptolemy Lagus. There are many other things that are brought forward against the sincerity of the Aristean history; but after we have brought forward the principal ones, we think it best to abstain from recounting the others for the sake of brevity.
Others stand for the history of Aristeas and strive to defend its authenticity: among Catholics, Serarius, Gretser, Paul Pezron, and many others; among the heterodox, Brian Walton, Isaac Vossius, and other distinguished men. I will not recount the argument which some bring forward to support the truth of the Aristean history based on the testimony of the Fathers. For when the Holy Fathers Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, and Cyril of Jerusalem seem to defend that part of this history which concerns the cells, the wondrous agreement of the Elders in translating, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—which part, however, we have rejected as supposititious and spurious, along with divine Jerome and other learned men, the authority of those Fathers cannot be opposed here for the defense of the Aristean History.
But I will bring forward something else, which is certainly considered very valid by many. Aristeas, as an eye-witness, narrates the affair in his own time, and as one present and playing his own part; a matter, I say, so significant and singular that it must necessarily have been celebrated by the mouths of all, nor could it easily have been obliterated from the memory of men. After Aristeas, Aristobulus, a distinguished man, writes at Alexandria, either in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus himself, or, as others think, under Philometor, and supports the Aristean History with his own testimony. If that had been false and completely supposititious, could he have deceived the kings of Egypt themselves, who were then familiar to him, even if it is assumed...
(this is the first page of the chain)
have flourished under the last of the Ptolemies? Alexander Polyhistor, likewise, who wrote around the 173rd Olympiad, praises the Jewish History of a certain Aristeas; namely, that which he wrote concerning the LXXII Interpreters, as the learned suppose. After him, Philo touches upon the same History in a few words, and although he has nothing to say about the number of the Interpreters, since he narrates the matter scrap-by-scrap, he nevertheless appears to have drawn what he said from Aristeas. After him, Josephus, and finally Eusebius, relate the Aristean History and offer it their patronage. I shall say nothing of Justin and others who used adulterated copies. If any history can be confirmed by the testimonies of subsequent times, surely nothing is lacking to this one for it to attain such firmness.
Others object that by the authority of Aristobulus and Alexander Polyhistor, this one thing is argued and proven, namely that the History of Aristeas appeared before the age of these writers: and that Aristobulus indeed lived long after Philadelphus; for the fact that he is said in Eusebius to have written now under Philadelphus, now under Philometor, came about through a slip of Eusebius, or perhaps of the scribes, who swapped the names: for Aristobulus himself calls the Philadelphus to whom he writes the A *progonos* [ancestor] of Philometor, and with this reading established, it is proven that the name of Philadelphus was erroneously inserted, and that Aristobulus, being a Hellenistic Jew, willingly embraced that history in which the translation of the Seventy Elders was highly commended; and even if he acknowledged the *theosebeia* [piety], he nonetheless entered into the fable: since all Hellenistic Jews held that translation in the highest esteem and wished it to be so held; that Alexander Polyhistor, if he truly wished to speak about this History of Aristeas, [merely] indicated that it appeared before his own age, which almost everyone confesses: B that Philo, Josephus, and others, as gregarious sheep are wont to do, followed in the footsteps of their predecessors, nor did they examine whether they were adopting a true or a supposititious narrative; finally, that the valid objections brought against the Aristean History above cannot be weakened by the testimonies of subsequent writers, since we discover many daily narratives to be supposititious, even if they are not D related by the authors of the following centuries, but rather by their contemporaries and peers.
X. Conclusion of the Discussion.
It is not pleasing to dwell on this longer and to agitate the question more broadly. Only certain things must be held by us in confession, and must be defended as true, namely that the interpretation which is called of the Seventy, or the LXX, whether it was made by seventy men or by fewer, is a true and holy standard of faith and morals, inasmuch as it is used more than once by the apostles, and has always been held as true Scripture not only in the Greek Church, but has also prevailed in the Latin Church C in the earlier centuries, when indeed the old Itala, which had been made from the Greek of the LXX Interpreters, was recognized as the sole sacred Scripture, before Jerome adorned the modern Vulgate; for although there was much variety among the editions that were in use at that time, all the editions nevertheless had flowed from the LXX; indeed, even today the Psalms from that same old Itala have a place in the catalog of sacred Scripture in the Latin Church; and it hindered the authority of the edition of the Seventy not at all that its author was unknown, or that who he might be was called into doubt, since it hindered the authority of the old Itala not at all that it was not known by what interpreter it had been produced. For versions did not derive their authority from the interpreters, but from the approval and admission of the Church.
But that Jerome detected many flaws in the edition of the Seventy, and refuted many things converted into Greek from the Hebrew otherwise than was proper, this in no way diminishes or weakens the authority of that edition: as Jerome himself admits in some places: for those passages which Jerome criticizes are of such a kind that, in whichever way you read them, an equally pious meaning remains.
Likewise, we hold as a certainty that the story of the cells, that marvelous consensus of the Elders, and those things which follow from it, are entirely supposititious and are rightly rejected by Jerome. And also, with Jerome and the crowd of the learned, we think the Greek interpreter of the Pentateuch is entirely different from him or them who interpreted the remaining books of sacred Scripture.
CHAPTER FOUR.
Concerning the version of the LXX Interpreters, as it was in the Hexapla.
I. Concerning the state of the edition of the Seventy before Origen adorned the Hexapla. II. Origen's edition amended with asterisks and obeli in the Hexapla. III. Concerning the use of asterisks and obeli in the Hexapla. IV. Concerning the lemnisci and hypolemnisci. V. In modern editions of the LXX Interpreters, many things are found to be taken from that Hexaplaric edition. VI. Concerning the changes which were introduced into the editions of the LXX Interpreters from the time of Origen. VII. Concerning those changes also which were admitted from the similarity of certain letters. VIII. Concerning the division of chapters and verses used in antiquity.
1. Concerning the state of the edition of the Seventy before Origen adorned the Hexapla.
It is indeed certain that the edition of the Seventy, in those copies which were admitted in the Church of God, could not have incurred any blemish, at least in those things which pertain to faith and morals. But as for the rest, use and experience teach that it underwent the same fortune as all other books. This had already happened in the time of Origen: for the copies of Scripture, both due to the negligence of the scribes...
he says, and due to the boldness of certain persons, as well as their perverse correction of the Scriptures; and also because of those who, while correcting, added or subtracted certain things according to their own judgment, in many places they were in a corrupted state. Jerome himself testifies to this not once, and adds that, besides the aforementioned causes of mutations, additions, and omissions, another is to be detected from the beginning: namely, because the LXX Interpreters, or those who first translated the prophets into Greek, A deliberately omitted many things expressed in the Hebrew in their interpretation, because they thought they should not be exposed to the eyes of the Greeks and other nations. To apply a healing hand for all these things, Origen amended the errors that occurred in the translation of the LXX Interpreters from other editions, added what was omitted, and cut away the redundancies; yet with such caution and scrupulosity that, while leaving the previous reading, he marked with asterisks what was to be added or changed, and with obelisks what was to be cut away. B Nor will it be irrelevant here to run through all the books of Scripture, so that the studious reader can observe at a glance what was done by Origen in each. In Genesis, as can be judged from the remaining fragments, not so many mutations were made as in many other books of Scripture, nor did Origen make use of such a mass of asterisks as in the following ones. In Exodus he added and changed far more: for besides the fact that in chapter xxviii he added six whole verses, not accurately placed in the LXX, with asterisks; furthermore, from chapter xxxvi to the end of the book, everything that had been shifted and confused in the translation of the LXX was restored to its own order, C with obelisks and asterisks added, as is related more fully in the note to chapter xxxvi, taken from an old Basilian manuscript. The books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were in almost the same condition as Genesis. In the books of Joshua and Judges, almost countless mutations were brought in by Origen: there, throughout, asterisks were observed for omissions, and obelisks for additions. In the effort to restore the books of Kings, the industry of our Origen labored: for in these, many places stood in need of correction; most of all, however, in the third book, where not a few histories were ejected from their own homes and were wandering in foreign places. In the books of Chronicles, what was done by Origen is not so easy to indicate, D because very few fragments of the Hexapla survive in this part of Scripture. In the book of Job, about eight hundred verses were missing in various places, which Origen added with asterisks from the translations of other interpreters, especially from the edition of Theodotion. But the cause of such a defect, if one may guess, must be sought from the fact that the interpreters, deterred by the difficulty of translating such obscure books, omitted many things. In the Psalms, however, which were in everyone's hands, far fewer things were added and subtracted than in the book of Job: yet obelisks and asterisks were not rare there. In Proverbs, it seems there was not such a crowd of asterisks and obelisks, except toward the end, where some things occurred placed in a preposterous order.
In Ecclesiastes many things were added with asterisks, a not insignificant portion of which remains in the daily editions of the LXX, as we shall say below. In the Canticles, as we indeed think, not many things were marked with obelisks and asterisks. In Isaiah, what Origen added with asterisks, and what he signified ought to be removed with the mark of an obelisk, anyone can see in the edition of Procopius on Isaiah, adorned by Joannes Curterius, where, even if a good many things of this kind appear, they will nevertheless be thought few if compared with those which occurred in Jeremiah and Ezekiel: for in Jeremiah many things omitted by the LXX Interpreters were added from Theodotion with asterisks: and furthermore, very many things from chapter xxv to the end, which had been transposed and confused, were restored to their native order: in Ezekiel, countless things passed over by those Elders were added with asterisks. But if anyone wishes to see the form of the three prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, according to the Hexaplar edition of the LXX, let him go to the most ancient codex of the Prophets, where that Hexaplar edition of the LXX is represented. In the edition of the prophet Daniel, Origen added some things with asterisks and marked some with an obelisk, says Jerome. But because, as the learned think, there were more frequent lacunae in that edition, he substituted Theodotion for it, who alone, as Jerome testifies, was read afterwards in the churches. In the twelve minor prophets, Origen noted few things. II. Origen placed the edition of the LXX, corrected with asterisks and obelisks, in the Hexapla.
That Origen distinguished that edition of the LXX Interpreters which was placed in the Hexapla with asterisks, where something had been added, and with obelisks to mark superfluities, Jerome clearly teaches in his epistle to Sunias and Fretela: "In which," he says, "I briefly advise this, that you should know that there is one edition which Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea, and all the commentators of Greece, call the *koinē*, that is, the common and vulgate, and by most it is now called Lucian's; another is that of the LXX Interpreters, which is also found in the Hexaplar codices, and has been faithfully translated by us into the Latin tongue, and is chanted in Jerusalem and the Churches of the East... Now this *koinē*, that is, the common edition, is itself the one that is also the LXX. But this is the difference between the two, that the *koinē*, on account of places and times, and the will of the scribes, is the old corrupted edition; but that which is held in the Hexapla, and which we translate, is itself the one that is preserved in the books of the learned as the incorrupt and immaculate translation of the LXX Interpreters." Whatever, therefore, disagrees with this, there is no doubt that it thus disagrees also with the authority of the Hebrews. Therefore, the Hexaplar edition of the LXX Interpreters was that which had been corrected by Origen according to the Hebrew exemplar, and was pure and immaculate, and did not disagree with the authority of the Hebrews: and it was distinguished by asterisks and obelisks: for which reason, in those parts of Scripture translated into Latin by Jerome according to the fidelity of that Hexaplar edition,
A which survive to this day, in Job namely and in the Psalms, asterisks and obelisks may be observed, as anyone can see in the edition of our Jean Martianay. To this is added the note of the 10th-century Basel codex, in whose margins the readings of the Hexapla and notes were written by the first hand. It holds as follows for Exodus ch. xxxvi: "When you come here, you will find much discordance between the text at hand and that which is cited in the Hexapla for the Seventy; and I do not say this as if that one differs from these in what is asterisked, for in many places it deviates from these; but because even in these things it overflows here more than according to the other bedrock of Scripture, and the things which the asterisks do not signal to be ignored by the LXX translators, even in these no less does the type of variation take hold." That is: When you arrive here, you will find much dissonance between this Scripture and what is held in the Hexapla in the Septuagint version: and I do not merely say that it differs from this regarding things marked with asterisks, since in those things too it often dissonates from this; nay, it abounds in these (asterisks) much more than the other text of Scripture; but even in those which the asterisks do not mark as having been omitted by the LXX translators, no less a difference is discovered. We have reported this word for word against certain moderns who think that those marks of obelisks and asterisks were not placed in the Hexaplar edition of the Seventy by Origen, but in another adorned separately. But against such open testimonies, one cannot contend in the presence of those who have studied the Hexapla; to which, for greater credibility, we add another from the notes to chapter xiv of the third book of Kings, where it is thus read: "After this, in the Hexapla lie the things regarding the sickness and death of Abijah, the son of Jeroboam, with asterisks." That is: Thereafter in the Hexapla lie those things which pertain to the sickness and death of Abijah, the son of Jeroboam, with asterisks. What could be clearer? This note, moreover, emerges from the most ancient Roman codex, which was either copied while the Hexapla survived, or flowed from another codex transcribed according to the fidelity of the Hexapla. We could produce more, but these shall be enough, I hope.
III. Of the use of asterisks and obelisks in the Hexapla
Origen used asterisks and obelisks in the Hexaplar edition of the LXX translators, so that he might indicate what was to be added or removed there: which he performed with such devotion that what had been added was prefixed with an asterisk, thus ✳, and with two thicker dots appended D in this form: ✳, so that it might stand out immediately: but that which was thought to be expunged, having been prefixed with an obelisk in this form † and with two dots added at the end; yet in the series, it remained distinguished by these marks. By this artifice, that old common or vulgate edition of the LXX translators appeared at once intact and emended: excepting, however, those places where the order of Scripture had been disturbed, so that many things were placed preposterously: for there Origen had restored the genuine series accommodated to the Hebrew exemplar. Things placed after the asterisk were for the most part excerpted from the edition of Theodotion; not infrequently from Aquila; sometimes, but more rarely, from Symmachus; never from two or three at once. For example: Job xxxii, 12, ✳ Θ. καὶ μέχρι ὑμῶν συνήσω· καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐκ ἦν τῷ Ἰὼβ ἐλέγχων, ἀνταποκρινόμενος ῥήματα αὐτοῦ ἐξ ὑμῶν· ἵνα μὴ εἴπητε· Εὕρωμεν σοφίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ προσθέμενοι: where you may observe, when something was added either from Theodotion or from others, whether it lay at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the line, it was always added with a preceding asterisk, having two dots appended after the addition. But if that addition extended to several lines, at the beginning of each line an asterisk was set until the whole ceased, and there two thicker dots were placed as is the custom: which, however, are usually neglected in manuscripts, especially when such additions are quite long: in which matter we have religiously followed the custom of the codices. In those things which were excerpted from Theodotion, frequently by those scribes who were copying Hexaplar readings into the margins of Bibles, was placed thus ✳ Θ. ʘ. or ✳ ʘ. Ơ.: this indeed signified that it was found in the Hexapla, taken from Theodotion. Thus Job xxxiv, 25, ✳ Θ. ʘ. γνωρίζων αὐτῶν τὰ ἔργα, etc. Similarly, a reading was taken from Aquila: thus Jerem. xxii, 24, ✳ Α. Sometimes from Symmachus, Job xxvii, 18, ✳ Σ. ὃ συνετήρησε: From Aquila and Symmachus: Jer. iii, 7, ✳ Α. Σ. ἡ ἀδελφὴ αὐτῆς: From Aquila and Theodotion most frequently: Jer. xi, 13, ✳ Α. Θ. αἰσχύνη: From Symmachus and Theodotion more rarely: Jer. xi, 22, ✳ Σ. Θ. κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων. From Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion most frequently: Jer. xi, 13, ✳ Α. Σ. Θ. θυσιαστήρια. Frequently also where a reading proceeded from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, after the asterisk ✳ οἱ Γ., that is the three translators, was placed: thus Isaiah xxxviii, 5, ✳ οἱ Γ. ὦ δὴ κύριε:
In the most ancient codices, the Coislinian, Claromontane, or those of the RR. PP. Jesuits of the College of Louis the Great and others, after the asterisks the names of the translators are described by their first letters as above, so that most frequently the asterisk precedes the name, but more rarely the name the asterisk. Whether Origen himself placed the names with the asterisks in the text of his edition, or whether this was done in the following age by those who collected the readings of the Hexapla and placed them in the Bibles, it is not so easy to divine. Certainly that codex of the RR. PP. Jesuits in Jeremiah and Ezekiel often places asterisks in the text itself, with the first letter of the translator's name generally appended, from whom that additive reading was taken, thus ✳ Α., or ✳ Θ., or ✳ οἱ Γ. Perhaps, however, because Origen usually brought in the readings of Theodotion with asterisks, he was not accustomed to express the name of Theodotion; but because he inserted the interpretations of Aquila more rarely, and those of Symmachus most rarely, with asterisks, he depicted the names by the first letter, so as to indicate that the words were not excerpted from Theodotion as is the custom. But this is said only by conjecture. Those things which, with asterisks, to the text of the LXX...
were being sown—sometimes they were appropriate for the integrity of the sense and a more accurate explanation; but for the most part they were useless and encumbered with excessive scrupulosity, so that they hindered more than they helped. For all the Hebraisms, which the LXX interpreters had deliberately omitted as being utterly abhorrent to the Greek language and diction, were everywhere expressed: how great a cacophony A these brought to the Hexaplaric edition is declared by this example. Jer. XLIII, 6, ☀ σὺν: τὰς γυναῖκας, καὶ ☀ σὺν: τὰ νήπια, καὶ ☀ σὺν: τὰς ψυχάς, where the Hebrew has את הנשים ואת הטף... את כל הנפש. There *σὺν* is inserted with an asterisk from the edition of Aquila to express the particle אֶת, the sign of the accusative case among the Hebrews, as if, indeed, if the article אֶת had to be expressed at all, it would not be aptly rendered by the Greek articles τὰς and τά. You will observe this kind of superfluous diligence, or, to put it better, *cacozelia*, hundreds of times. Thus also Levit. II, 2, καὶ δραξάμενος πλήρη τὴν δράκα ☀ αὐτοῦ: ἀπὸ τῆς σεμιδάλεως ☀ αὐτῆς: σὺν τῷ ἐλαίῳ ☀ αὐτῆς: where Origen restored with asterisks that repetition of pronouns which the LXX interpreters had rejected as inelegant and useless, as it is peculiar to the Hebrew language. The learned reader will notice innumerable similar things in the course of this work.
Other things also the LXX omitted in their version which, although they could have been enunciated, contributed nothing to expressing the sense aptly. Thus Jer. I, 18, the LXX translated these Hebrew words אֵת הִנֵּה נְתַתִּיךָ, *ἰδοὺ τέθεικά σε*, "behold I have set you," and nothing was desired for the sense; but Origen, thinking a word had been omitted, supplied the deficit with an asterisk from Symmachus: ☀ Σ. ἐγὼ δέ; so that everything might be expressed in this way: *Ego autem ecce posui te* ("I, however, behold I have set you").
He placed obeli similarly, often to mark those things which, since they did not exist in the Hebrew, had been introduced into the edition of the LXX; but most often he marked with obeli things to be excised which had been placed by the LXX translators for the sake of clarity or elegance, and which, although they might not be expressed word-for-word in the Hebrew, were nevertheless conducive to illustrating the sense. Things which are marked with an obelus are sometimes said to lie *amphibolōs*, that is, dubiously. Thus the Vatican Codex, on that passage of Psalm X, 4, *Oculi ejus in pauperem respiciunt* ("His eyes look upon the poor"), where that word *in pauperem* ("upon the poor") is not in the Hebrew, has: Τὸ εἰς τὸν πένητα ἐν τῇ σελίδι τῶν Ο' ἔκειτο μόνον ἀμφιβόλως · that is, "The word *in pauperem* lay dubiously in the column of the LXX translators only." Dubiously, of course, because even if it did not exist in the Hebrew in Origen’s time, it could have existed there in the age of the LXX translators.
Origen did not only supply with asterisks those things which had fallen out of the edition of the Seventy, but also, if the edition of the Seventy did not seem to express accurately the Hebrew truth, he would add—marked with an obelus in the former reading—another reading, marked with an asterisk, from other translators. Thus to that passage Ps. XXVIII, 4, הָבוּ לַיהוָה בְּנֵי אֵלִים, the former reading with the obelus, or better, B joined with a lemniscus: + *Afferte Domino, filii Dei* ☀ *afferte Domino filios arietum*: both of which remained in the LXX and in the Latin version. So also Isaiah XV, 9, [Hebrew text] Α., Ε., Θ., καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις αὐτῆς. Ο', καὶ ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις αὐτῆς.... But every reading taken from the Hexaplaric edition remained in the modern Bibles, καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις αὐτῆς: thus, the first version had been marked with an asterisk, the second with an obelus or rather a lemniscus, but all the signs have disappeared from the common exemplars. See a similar matter in Ezech. XXII, 5, and XXIII, 19, and in many other places which it would be tedious to recount. But I think that in these examples it was not obeli, but lemnisci that were used, as is proven in the following article.
IV. On Lemnisci and Hypolemnisci.
The lemniscus is called *lēmniscos* in Greek, or *līmniscos*, but the latter Greek reading is judged to be erroneous, having been introduced by that common change of η into ι. But the etymon of this word *līmniscos* is sought by Epiphanius from *dio to limnazein klyzomenon ton moton en tois topois hyprois*, that is, because that ribbon which physicians apply for the purpose of curing wounds is sodden with a quantity of humors in damp places. But this origin of the word is justly rejected by learned men. For *līmniscos* is corrupted, and *lēmniscos* is written. I shall set forth in a few words what that most learned man, Bernardus Moneta, thinks about the etymology of this name, as I received it from him: *Athenaeus*, page 200 of the Lyons edition, in a long passage from Callixenus of Rhodes, has the word *lēmniskois*, which is corrected in the margin thus, *lēmniskos*, and Eustathius reads it so in verse 570 of the eighteenth book of the *Iliad*, where he refers to this same passage cited by Athenaeus. Isaac Casaubon, however, in his notes, says that it should be read either *lēmniskois* or *līnitskois*, but he does not dare to prefer one reading to the other. But it is certain that the word *lēmniskos*, which originally signified a narrow ribbon, was derived from the word *lēnos*, wool, because by their very origin such ribbons were woolen. Hence, however, the Syracusans, by a unique formation, instead of *lēniscos*, with an inserted μ, made *lēmniskos*: which was the reason that this word was considered Syracusan. Hesychius: *lēmniskous tas stenas Syrakousioi tainias*, "the Syracusans [call] the narrow ribbons [so]," understand *legousi* (they say). Hence the word was used to signify other things, namely, the ribbons with which crowns were swathed; for a twisted line inserted into wounds; and finally for a sign of books, concerning which Isidorus says: *Limniscus*, that is, a small line lying between two dots, is placed in those places where translators of the Holy Scripture have translated the same sense but in different words. The word *lēmniskos* was used in this triple significance, namely C *lēmniskos* to signify things similar to narrow ribbons, which the Syracusans called *lēmniskous*.
Hence it was called a *lemniscus*, or a line depicted in the manner of a ribbon with two dots, one placed above and the other below, thus ⨭. Epiphanius says that lemnisci were used by Origen so that when in...
the edition of the Seventy some word was found that did not cohere or was not connected to the others, and was marked with this sign, you would know that it had been moved by one or two pairs of translators: namely, by one, when the line is signed with only one dot ⨪, and then it is called a hypolemniscus; but by two, when a dot is placed on either side like ⨭, and it is then called a lemniscus. That you may understand this, it is necessary to repeat the history of the thirty-six cells: where, as Epiphanius relates in his book *De Ponderibus*, the seventy-two translators labored in translating the Scriptures in pairs, or distributed by couples. This, therefore, is what Epiphanius means: that those discrepancies in readings which were marked in the Origenian edition with a lemniscus or hypolemniscus were various translations that had been produced by one or another pair of translators. He brings forward two examples of this; namely, from Psalm LXX, 15, “and my mouth shall declare thy justice,” where was added, “declare thy justices”; and Psalm LXXII, 14, “and thy name is honorable before him,” where, Epiphanius says, it was previously read, “and honorable is my name in his eyes.” And in the same book, after many things have been interposed, he says that those words are marked with lemnisci which vary in a few of the seventy-two translators by word only, not by sense, as if one, for instance, should say ἑφθέγξατο (“uttered”) instead of ἐλάλησεν (“spoke”), and ἐλήλυθε (“has come”) instead of ἦλθεν (“came”). B Hesychius relates similar things in Psalm XII, where the Hebrew words אשירה ליהוה כי גמל עלי occur; the translation in the Seventy is, “I will sing to the Lord who has benefited me, and I will sing to the name of the Lord most high.” These words, furthermore, “I will sing to the Lord who has benefited me,” express the entire Hebrew verse, whereas the others are redundant; wherefore the Vatican codex notes here: “The words ‘and I will sing to the name of the Lord most high’ were not in the quadrupled column, nor in that of Eusebius Pamphili, nor in the Hebrew.” That is: That, “I will sing to the name of the Lord most high,” lay before no one in the quadrupled column, neither in Eusebius Pamphili, nor in the Hebrew. But there Hesychius notes: “Two pairs of the Seventy translators spoke this verse; because a sign is placed by the ink, which is called a lemniscus; by the middle stroke it signifies the verse, and by the two dots, the one above and the one below, it indicates the two pairs of the translators.” That is: Two pairs of the Seventy interpreters expressed this verse, wherefore the sign delineated in ink was added, which is called a lemniscus. By the middle line it signifies the verse, and by the two dots, one above and the other below, it indicated the two pairs of translators. Accordingly, from Epiphanius and from Hesychius we learn that the lemniscus was used when two translations of the same word or passage were placed together, so that they might be distinguished by that note; but what is added concerning the thirty-six pairs of translators and the same number of cells is rejected by Jerome and almost all learned men as a fiction.
As this, being fabulous, is rejected, another truer and more sincere use of the lemnisci must be sought C. Joannes Curterius, in the Preface to Procopius’ Commentary on Isaiah, thinks that lemnisci signify that some interpreters agree in words but disagree in sense, whereas hypolemnisci signify that they disagree in both words and sense. But that is said gratuitously and without any authority, nor can it be understood how Origen would have destined lemnisci and hypolemnisci for such a use. Masius, however, thinks that lemnisci and hypolemnisci were added when more or fewer codices asserted various readings. But is it credible that Origen sent these notes to the exemplars of the Seventy containing various matters, or that he placed the various readings of the exemplars in the text itself with these notes, when neither Origen himself nor anyone else ever said so? I judge, therefore, that just as the asterisk was placed for things omitted that were to be inserted, and the obelus for things that were redundant, to be “strangled,” as Jerome says; so the lemniscus was applied where the Seventy interpreters did indeed express the Hebrew reading, but not so accurately and distinctly: which was the cause that, while it was left in the text, another which seemed better, having been sought from other interpreters, was subjoined to it. For it should not be thought that Origen, a most accurate man, who so diligently marked even the least things that were added with an asterisk and those that were to be removed with an obelus, would have left no note in those places, certainly frequent, where, while leaving the former reading, he nevertheless added a new one taken from one of the translators. The examples which Epiphanius brings are quite perplexing, so that you can hardly extract anything from them. Wherefore, disregarding them, I bring forward another thing from which you might perceive the use of the lemnisci, according to my own judgment at least. In Psalm XXVIII, 1, it is read in Hebrew הבו ליהוה בני אלים, where the Seventy D translated, “Bring to the Lord, O sons of God.” The other interpreters, however, [translated], “Bring to the Lord the sons of rams.” There Origen left the reading of the Seventy, with the lemniscus note placed before it, and added the interpretation of the others marked with an asterisk, in this manner: ⨭ “Bring to the Lord, O sons of God; * Bring to the Lord the sons of rams”; so that the lemniscus taught that it was the reading of the Seventy and of Theodotion, for two dots denoted as much. That this was the use of the lemnisci is persuaded by the passage of Hesychius brought above, where certainly what was marked with the lemniscus
A in the edition did not differ solely word-for-word from the preceding, “to the Lord who benefited me,” but in substance and sense; and this indeed had been excerpted from the Hebrew and from the other translators, while the other had remained from the Seventy. These things can only be said by conjecture: for since it is not permitted to use any guide other than Epiphanius, everything is certainly full of rough spots. The hypolemniscus, however, whose figure was this —, signified, according to Epiphanius, that the reading appended originated from only one pair of the translators, and that it was B *synamphoteron kai synadelphon*, that is, altogether synonymous; thus Epiphanius. But what is told concerning the thirty-six pairs of translators and as many cells has already been dismissed; wherefore I would rather believe that the hypolemniscus was then appended when that noted reading was only of the Seventy Translators, which was indicated by a single dot placed beneath the line; but the lemniscus, with two dots, when it was not only of the Seventy Translators, but also of Theodotion. Moreover, from the similarity which intervened between the obeli and the lemnisci and hypolemnisci, not only as to form, but also as to use, it came about that lemnisci were taken for obeli. For, one Hesychian passage excepted, which was praised above, I do not recall finding any mention of lemnisci anywhere since the time of Epiphanius and Jerome; namely, in manuscript Bibles, in Catenae, and in Commentaries.
V. In modern editions and in the manuscripts of the Seventy Translators, many things are found to have been taken from that Hexaplar edition. Jerome narrates that in his time the Churches used various editions of the Seventy Translators. Alexandria, he says, and Egypt, praise Hesychius as their authority; Constantinople as far as Antioch approves the copies of the martyr Lucian; the provinces in between read the Palestinian codices, which Eusebius and Pamphilus published, having been labored over by Origen: and the whole world struggles with this contrary variety among itself. And in the letter to Augustine, which is in the latest edition 74, speaking C ironically, he says: “Do you wish to be a true lover of the Seventy Translators? Do not read the things which are under the asterisks: rather, scrape them from the volumes, so that you may prove yourself a supporter of the ancients.” But if you do this, you are forced to condemn the libraries of all the Churches. For hardly one or another book can be found which does not have these. Hence we learn that already in the age of Jerome the copies of the Seventy Translators were numberless and burdened with both asterisks and obeli: these Origenian marks are observed to this day, scattered here and there in very many Greek manuscript copies; indeed even in some Latin ones, especially in the books of Job and the Psalms. From that Hexaplar edition, many things are found to have been transmitted into modern editions. Nor do I speak only of the Alexandrian codex, which almost follows that Hexaplar edition, as can be seen especially in the book of Judges; nor of the Complutensian edition, where the readings of other translators, and especially of Symmachus, occur in mixed form: but even in the Roman edition not a few readings are detected which flowed from that Hexaplar edition, as for example Job IX, 3, in these words Symmachus and Theodotion, *ou mē hypakousē autō*, which reading had been placed in the Hexaplar edition, because the ancient D interpretation of the Seventy, *hina mē anteipē*, did not sufficiently accord: however, both versions were left in the text, so that the one which preceded, of Symmachus and Theodotion, was marked with an asterisk, but the other with a lemniscus, as I indeed believe: then, the asterisks being neglected, both readings remained thus, *ou mē hypakousē autō, hina mē anteipē*. In Psalm XVII, 56, the Seventy had translated these words, *kai hē paideia sou anōrthōsē me*, but Theodotion, *kai hē paideia sou autē me didaxe*: and both readings, placed in that Hexaplar edition, are read conjunctively in modern Bibles. Many similar things occur frequently. In Ecclesiastes, however, the preposition *syn*, by which Aquila was accustomed to express the Hebrew particle *’ēt*, the mark of the accusative case, and which Origen in that Hexaplar edition had placed with an asterisk preceding, wherever it occurred, is not infrequently found in the Roman edition. Thus chapter II, v. 17, *kai emisēsa syn tēn zōēn*, and chapter III, v. 17, *syn ton dikaion kai syn ton asebē krinei ho Theos*, and certain similar things. But in chapter VII, verse 23, we detect a clause brought into the edition of the Seventy from Aquila, as you may see in the note in that place. From these mutations, furthermore, it results that the edition of the Seventy Translators, pure and such as it was before Origen, is sought in vain today. Hence it also happens that copyists, while they were writing out copies of the Seventy Translators, noted other readings in the margin with the prefix *O’*, that is, of the Seventy Translators; so that those less skilled in such matters might wonder where the text of the Seventy Translators has been written out, and in the margin it is noted that the Seventy Translators read it in another way.
VI. Concerning the mutations which have been brought into the editions of the Seventy Translators since the time of Origen. Very often also, especially in the book of Judges, in the Coislinian codices, written in uncial character, and in the Basilian, various readings are written in the margin with the note *O’*, because, namely, they had been brought from Theodotion into the edition of the Seventy with asterisks by Origen. Indeed, even in the book of Judges VI, 8, three readings of the Seventy Translators are observed for one and the same place. For besides that cause of variety of which we have treated, many others undoubtedly existed. Nor could it happen otherwise in a book written so often; whose many diverse copies were carried in different regions: for from one edition into another, readings were very often transferred. Not rarely also it happens that passages are cited from the edition of the Seventy either by writers or by scholiasts, which now do not appear in it, because, namely, those supplements which were added with asterisks were brought into some copies, and not into others.
VII. Concerning those mutations, also, which were admitted due to the similarity of certain letters.
Among the principal causes of the variants which are observed in the copies of the LXX, the frequent commutation of those Greek letters which are similar to each other holds a place. For since in the time of Origen and for some centuries afterward, all Biblical books were written in uncial characters without accents and breathings, and many letters were so similar to each other that they could scarcely be distinguished, from this it happened that one was often substituted for another: whence a great forest of diversities has arisen. Now, these letters were especially accustomed to be interchanged: A, Δ, Λ, α, δ, λ, and E, Θ, Ο, Σ, ω, σ, and sometimes M and N, of all of which mutations we here provide a few examples out of many.
A into Δ. Jerome has a clear example of this mutation in his *Commentary on Jeremiah*, ch. xxix, v. 17, where Theodotion had expressed the word *Sudrim* A, but later, through a scribe's error, it had become *Soudreim* B, with Δ changed into Δ; regarding which matter Jerome says: "Which Theodotion translated as *Sudrim*... which in Hebrew are called *Su-Arim*, but through the fault of the writers, the Greek delta grew into the middle syllable or letter alpha." In Judges ch. iii, 31, where the Hebrew has *Shamgar*, the LXX have *Ainach*, mistakenly, for *Ainad*, with Δ changed into Δ; another has *Ainad*, with Δ changed into Δ; another, *Anad*, better. And in Judges i, 34, where *Aialon* is read, the LXX today have *Aalaf* for *Aalab*, as others read it.
Δ into Λ. We have seen an example of this commutation above: furthermore, in Psalm xxx, 16, at the Hebrew word *ittai*, the LXX have *hoi kleroi mou*, my lots, with Δ changed into Λ: for that word signifies *kairoi mou*, my times, as the other interpreters and Jerome translated; and in Psalm lxxx, 5, at these words B *psalmon edun*, Symmachus translates *lyran heleian*, sweet lyre, where some copies, with Δ changed into Λ, have *auran*, breeze.
E into Σ. Psalm xxxviii, 3, in the version of Aquila, one codex has *siopes siges apo agathou*, instead of *siopes esiges apo agathou*, where the Hebrew reads thus C. Psalm lxxvi, 7, Eusebius reports the reading of Symmachus thus: *anero souno to pneuma mou*, instead of *aneureunon to pneuma mou*, I searched my spirit, where the Hebrew reads thus.
E into Θ. Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Septuagint, in the MSS have *Bethsabeth* for *Bethsabes*, where it is read in Hebrew D, Psalm l, 1.
M into N. The LXX translators four times have *omon* for *onom*, shoulders for donkeys, Joshua xv, 4, and xv, 18, where it is read in Hebrew *athon*.
Besides those causes of mutations, not a few others have occurred because of the similarity of words or sound. Thus Job xxxix, 21, in Hebrew is read *li-krat...*, in meeting of armor, Vulgate, "to meet the armed"; A., Th., *eis synantesin oplou*, in meeting of a weapon; Sym., *eis synantesin kataphrakton*, in meeting of cataphracts; where the LXX have *synantesin basilei*, meeting a king, mistakenly, for *beleis*, weapon, from the similarity of sound and termination. And indeed A *bedel* Origen had placed in the Tetrapla, as we note in the same place; because, clearly, that corrupted reading *basilei* had not yet flowed into the copies which Origen used. Psalm cxxxi, v. 15, the LXX translators had translated the word as *theran*, hunt, and thus Athanasius reads it, Jerome also "hunt"; Aquila, *episitismon*, food; Theodotion, *theran*, as also the LXX; which reading, according to these things, was changed through similarity of sound into *cheran*, widow, and hitherto it is so read in the vulgate copies. Likewise Isaiah xiv, 21, where in the Hebrew *le-pene...* is read, the LXX, *poleon*, as is clear: and later *poleon* was changed into *polemon*. Far more other things we could add to these, but these are sufficient for the present undertaking.
VIII. Concerning the distinction of chapters and verses used in antiquity.
The distinction of chapters was once neither similar to the modern one, nor was it uniform. Chapters were far smaller than the modern ones; of which fact you have an example below in Numbers iv, 2, in the note, taken from all the catena MSS, which is as follows: *To Samareitikon, epispastron kai dermata iakinthina; atina kalei to e' kephalaion Exodou diphtheras*. The Samaritan has, covering and hyacinth skins: which in chapter lx of Exodus are called *diphtherai*. In Exodus only forty chapters are contained, and the place cited here exists in the modern chapter xxxix. In that most ancient Coislinian codex, written in uncial character, where the Octateuch and the books of Kings are contained, two divisions into chapters for individual books are noted in the margin, each of which has far more chapters than the modern one. Receive the differences in a few words.
In Genesis, the first division in the Coislinian codex exhibits 106 chapters; the second in the same codex 99, the modern 50.
In Exodus, the first division in the Coislinian has 84 chapters; the second in the same codex 110, the modern 40.
In Leviticus, the first in the Coislinian has 54 chapters; the second in the same codex 61, the modern 27.
In Numbers, the first in the Coislinian has 50 chapters; the second in the Coislinian 51, the modern 36.
In Deuteronomy, the first in the Coislinian 68 chapters; the second in the Coislinian 91, the modern 34.
In the book of Joshua, one division of chapters is observed in the Coislinian, and because this book is missing a great part of itself, it arrives there only at the fourteenth chapter, which concurs with the modern ninth chapter.
In the book of Judges, no distinction of chapters occurs in the Coislinian. But as often as the Israelites are reduced to servitude on account of prevarication, there is placed in the margin: *douleia a'*, *douleia b'*, etc. Similarly, for the individual judges who are appointed, it is noted *Kritēs a'*, *kritēs b'*.
In the first book of Kings, the first division in the Coislinian is 53 chapters; the second 73, the modern 31.
In the second book of Kings, the first in the Coislinian is 50 chapters; the second 53, the modern 24.
In the third book of Kings, the division into chapters is perplexed.
PRELIMINARIA 79
80 PRELIMINARIA
[...the text above is the beginning of the volume...]
the book is in great part mutilated, such that the entire fourth book is missing. A We speak of the first division in the Coislinian codex as that which is with arguments, the second as that which is without arguments. But these matters will be treated more fully in the *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, to be published shortly.
Versicles, likewise, were once much shorter than the present ones, as we have proven in many places and by examples in the *Palæographia Græca*, and below in the notes on the book of Job, passim. But because even learned men have erred in this matter, thinking that the versicles of old were equal to the modern ones, I shall bring forward here a single example from the book of Job, ch. xxxi, v. 28, where thirteen versicles, calculated according to the ancient custom, make six modern verses. Thirteen versicles, *stichoi*, are thus found in certain of the most ancient manuscripts, written so that each one might begin from a new line:
For you will say: Where is the house of the prince, And where is the shelter of the tabernacles of the ungodly? Ask those who journey along the way, And do not reject their signs; For on the day of destruction the wicked is spared, They shall be led away on the day of his wrath. Who shall declare his way to his face, And he has done it himself? Who shall requite him? And he himself was carried to the graves, And he watched over the heaps. The stones of the torrent were made sweet to him, And every man shall follow after him, And there are countless ones before him.
But I note at the end of the Catena on Job published in England that the entire book of Job is held to be written *sticheros*, according to the faith of a certain ancient codex.
Chapter V.
On the editions of Aquila.
I. The history of Aquila. II. Aquila published two interpretations. III. Which of the two was placed in the Hexapla. IV. Whether Aquila distorted certain scriptural passages to a different sense on purpose. V. Examination of the places where Aquila is criticized as if he had translated poorly out of hatred for Christianity. VI. The question is asked whether Aquila is the same person as Onkelos, and whether the Targum of Onkelos has anything in common with the interpretation of Aquila.
Epiphanius states that Aquila was a *pentheridon*, that is, a kinsman, or as others translate, a father-in-law, or a son of a father-in-law or mother-in-law, to the Emperor Hadrian: but the *Chronicon Paschale* calls him *pentheron*, or father-in-law. But this is rightfully rejected by learned men as entirely fabulous. B Other things which Epiphanius reports about Aquila seem to be of a slightly better quality: but if any are sincere, they are thought to have been taken from the writings of Origenes himself; for, as we have already said, Origen had placed at the beginning of each version some account of the history of every interpreter in the Hexapla. However, among those statements of Epiphanius, there are some that appear suspicious to learned men, as is discussed more fully below.
Aquila, therefore, he says, when he was living in Jerusalem, was appointed by the Emperor Hadrian to oversee the restoring of the city; and seeing the disciples of the apostles, who had recently returned to Jerusalem from Pella, flourishing in faith and performing miracles, he was pricked in his heart and embraced Christianity: and after some time had passed, he sought and received the seal of Christ: yet he did not change his former habits. For indeed, since he had been instructed in the vain art of astronomy, which they called Apotelesmatic, and was accustomed to devote his labor to it; when his masters rebuked him, and forbade the pursuit as unworthy of a Christian man: he, on the contrary, resisting stubbornly, would not cease to discourse on fate and to observe his own horoscope. For which reason he was expelled from the Church by them, as one who would never attain salvation. He, as if affected by ignominy, and led by false shame, abjures Christianity, turns to the Jews, and is circumcised. Then, stirred by intense study, he gave himself over entirely to learning the Hebrew language; having attained a perfect knowledge of which, he composed his interpretation out of his own prejudice; C so that he distorted certain of the sayings of Scripture contrary to the mind of the LXX Interpreters to a different sense, and diverted the testimonies expressed in the divine Scriptures concerning Christ to another, preparing an absurd apology for his own disgrace. These things are from Epiphanius. But whether Aquila diverted Scripture passages that foretold Christ to another meaning on purpose, we shall soon inquire.
The fact that Epiphanius says that Aquila translated the Holy Scripture in the time of Hadrian is believed to have been borrowed from the writings of Origen himself. For it seems certain that Origen had placed a brief history of the individual editions in his Hexapla, as is argued from these words of Eusebius, who, in *Eccl. Hist.* lib. VI, cap. 16, speaking of the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh editions, has this: *He signified this alone, that he had found one at Nicopolis by Actium, but the other in another specified place.* And in the Hexapla of the Psalms, after those distinguished four editions, where he had placed not only the Fifth, but also the Sixth and Seventh edition, he noted for one again that it had been discovered at Jericho in a jar, in the times of Antoninus the son of Severus. This [is from] Eusebius, who was handling the very Hexapla of Origen. From whence you may infer that Origen had woven a brief history of the individual interpreters and translations in the Hexapla, where both other things pertaining to individuals, and especially D
A the time of each one, he noted down. From this, however, we must think that Epiphanius draws what he states, namely, that Aquila adorned his own interpretation under the Emperor Hadrian: which can also be confirmed from the testimony of Justin, who says in his *Dialogue with Trypho*: "But since you and your teachers dare to say that it was not even said in the prophecy of Isaiah: 'Behold, the virgin shall have [a child] in the womb and shall bear a son,' but rather: 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son.'" That is: "Since you and your leaders dare to say that it was not said in the prophecy of Isaiah: 'Behold, the virgin shall have [a child] in the womb and shall bear a son,' but: 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son.'" Where that [phrase], "Behold, the young woman," etc., is taken from the interpretation of Aquila: whence you might infer that in the time of Justin the martyr the edition of Aquila had already been published, and had therefore been made earlier, namely in the reign of Hadrian, as Epiphanius says, having borrowed it, as is believed, from Origen.
As for the other things that Epiphanius added concerning Aquila, he is not to be thought to have drawn them from the same source: for the story he tells, that he was put in charge by Hadrian of rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, seems just as open to suspicion as what he had said before, that he was the father-in-law of Hadrian himself. The rest concerning judicial astrology, or the use of genethlialogy, concerning baptism, concerning his later renunciation of Christianity, concerning his undergoing circumcision, and finally concerning the perfect knowledge of the Hebrew language he attained, would certainly demand greater authority, and may have flowed from the fabulous narratives of the Jews. Since the Jews greatly valued the edition of Aquila—that one, namely, which had been made *kata akribeian* (with precision)—and praised its author with commendations. Hence Origen to Africanus: "For thus Aquila, serving the Hebrew reading, published [it]: whom the Jews believe to have interpreted the Scripture most accurately of all: which those who are ignorant of the Hebrew dialect are most accustomed to use, inasmuch as he is thought to have grasped the sense of all most fully."
B There is, however, the *et* [Hebrew particle *’et*], the mark of the accusative case, which he seems to have overlooked, [or rather] he put *syn* in its place, because [*’et*] in some places signifies *syn* or *meta*, that is, *with*. And he repeated this six hundred times, which certainly brought great *kakophônia* (harshness of sound) into his translation. But one should hear Jerome to Pammachius, *De optimo genere interpretandi*: "But Aquila, a proselyte and contentious interpreter, who attempted to translate not only words, but also the etymologies of words, is rightly cast aside by us. For who can read or understand, in exchange for wheat and wine and oil, *cheuma opôrismon stilpnotêta*, which we might call 'fusion,' 'fruit-ripening,' and 'shiningness'? Or because the Hebrews have not only articles but also pre-articles, he, *kakozêlôs* (with bad zeal), interprets even syllables and letters, and says *syn ton ouranon kai syn tên gên*, which the Greek and Latin languages do not receive at all." An example of which thing we can capture from our own language. For how many things are well said in Greek, which if we translate word for word, do not ring true in Latin: and in turn, what pleases us, if they are turned according to the [Greek] order, will displease them. That very *cheuma, opôrismon, stilpotêta*, which one previously did not know where it was taken from, is now produced for the first time in the Appendix from the Coislinian codex.
Occasionally, too, holding no regard for genders, in order to express Hebraisms, he coupled the singular with the plural, as in Gen. v, 5, *kai ezesen Adam triakonta etos, kai ennakosia etos* ("and Adam lived thirty year and nine hundred year"), because, to be sure, the word *shanah* has a singular form, although it has the force of a plural, as C no one fails to see. By the same reasoning, he sometimes expressed plurals, which have the force of a singular, in the plural; thus Gen. vi, 2, *hoi huioi tôn theôn* ("the sons of the gods"), because *Elohim* naturally has a plural form, he translated it in the plural here: where the Vulgate [says], "The sons of God seeing the daughters of men." In addition to these, he pursues the etymologies of names and words in such a way that, without any regard for the sequence, the same Hebrew word is expressed by the same Greek [word] for the most part, not considering that the same word, if it is joined with other and diverse words, signifies something else.
II. Aquila published two interpretations. It is certain that Aquila published two translations: the first, more free, where although he was eager to express the individual Hebrew words in Greek, yet he took care to render the sense aptly, and did not follow all the little words so scrupulously, and when he saw that the sequence would be interrupted, he did not neglect to represent [the sense]: which was the true duty of an interpreter. Afterward, he prepared a second version, which was cited *kata akribeian*, that is, according to the exact method of translating, concerning which Jerome [says] in *Ezechielem*, page 716: "The second edition of Aquila, which the Hebrews call *kata akribeian*"; where he took care to render the individual Hebrew words D and syllables with such accuracy that he did not think at all about the barbarism of the style. We could produce many examples of such *kakozêlias* (bad zeal); but, so that I may pass over the rest, who would not take it ill to see these Hebrew words, *Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets*, expressed thus: *en kephalaiôi ektisen ho Theos syn ton ouranon kai syn tên gên*—naturally he took the particle...
III. Which of the two was placed in the Hexapla. Furthermore, from that double version of Aquila, a question can arise: which, namely, of the two was placed by Origen in the Hexapla, the first or the second, which was called *kat’ akribeian*: and whether Origen always used the same in all the individual books of Scripture; or whether he placed one, [and] at times the other. I do not doubt that he placed in the Hexapla the one which, because it was composed with excessive accuracy, was said to be made *kat’ akribeian*; namely, the second. And that is indeed persuaded by the particle *syn* being frequently placed in those fragments of Aquila's edition that survive, and other vestiges of excessive religious scrupulousness. From the same were also culled the readings of Aquila which were placed by Origen in the hexaplar edition with asterisks. But because in the places of Aquila, which frequently occur in this collection of the Hexapla, this too scrupulous method of translating is not observed everywhere, hence...
perhaps someone might suspect that those passages which are elegantly expressed were taken from his first version, which had been adorned with a freer style of translation. However, Aquila could, even in that version [κατ’ ἀκρίβειαν], not always use the same strictness in translating; nor is it unusual for translators to adhere now to the letter, now to proceed with a more elegant style of translation. I am certain, therefore, that Origen placed in the third column of the Hexapla that translation of Aquila which was also called [κατ’ ἀκρίβειαν], and that he drew from it those readings of Aquila which he placed in his hexaplaric edition of the [ο’] with prefixed asterisks.
IV. Whether Aquila deliberately twisted certain passages of Scripture into another meaning.
It was the mind and opinion of the holy Fathers and almost all the ancients that Aquila, because of the insult offered to him by the leaders of the Church, which we mentioned above (for he considered as an injury what they had done out of a true zeal for religion and piety), was afterwards hostile to the Christian religion; and that he deliberately corrupted the passages of the Old Testament which foretold the future coming of Christ, and twisted them into another meaning. But although the things which Epiphanius handed down about Aquila’s apostasy from Christianity are not free from suspicion, as we have said above, still, whether he defected from the Christians to the Jews, or was a Jew from the start, he was believed to have twisted some passages of Scripture on account of his hatred of Christianity. Thus Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and sometimes Jerome thought; so also thought Philastrius, Anastasius Sinaita, and others. But Jerome, who elsewhere had borne the same opinion about Aquila, says in a certain epistle to Damasus that he translated not contentiously, as others thought, but zealously. Nay, in his Commentaries on Habakkuk, he praises him because he translated these words, "You have gone forth for the salvation of your people, for the salvation with your Christ," according to the mind of the Christians; whereas, on the contrary, Symmachus and Theodotio, though Christians, inclined to another meaning. And elsewhere he also seems to take up his defense. Wherefore I believe that Jerome, in other places where he seems to criticize Aquila as hostile to the Christians, spoke according to the common opinion of those who preceded him; yet he himself, who had studied Aquila’s version more than all the rest, was of a different opinion. "Aquila," he says in the epistle to Damasus, "who does not translate contentiously, as some think, but zealously, word for word." And in the epistle to Marcella: "I have long since compared Aquila’s edition with the Hebrew volumes, so that the Synagogue might not have changed anything out of hatred for Christ; and, to speak my mind to a friend, I find many things that pertain to the strengthening of our faith."
V. The passages are examined where Aquila is criticized as having translated badly, as if out of hatred for Christianity.
It will be to the point to bring forward here those passages of Aquila’s interpretation which are censured by the Fathers as being repugnant to the Christian faith; so that it may be investigated whether Aquila truly twisted these passages to another mind. B The first who accuses Aquila and also Theodotio is Irenaeus, lib. III, cap. 24, where he says: "The interpretation is not true, 'Behold a young woman,' as Theodotio the Ephesian and Aquila of Pontus have translated." Hence the Ebionites say he was born of Joseph. This concerns the passage of Isaiah VII, 14: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." But whether Aquila adjusted his version to twist the passage, I do not know. It is likely, however, that he deliberately avoided the word [παρθένος], because the Christians used this prophecy most of all to defend their faith. Nay, he did not even wish to use the word [ἀπόκρυφος], "hidden," which he uses elsewhere to express the Hebrew [עלמה]; because perhaps this interpretation expressed a "young girl" who had remained hidden from the sight of men, and therefore a virgin.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Comment. in Psalm. XC, v. 9, criticizes Aquila and Symmachus, because, holding as suspect the doctrine concerning the Highest and the Lord, that is, the Father and the Son, they translated these Hebrew words [כי אתה יהוה מחסי עליון שמת מעונך] in a way leaning toward Jewish thought, [ιουδαϊκώτερον]. Aquila, indeed, translates: [Ὅτι σὺ, Κύριε, ἐλπίς μου, ὕψιστον ἔθηκα κατοικητήριόν σου] (For you, O Lord, are my hope; I have set the Highest as your habitation); Symmachus, however: [Σὺ γὰρ, Θεέ, ἀφοβία μου, ὕψιστην ἔθου τὴν κατοίκησίν σου] (For you, O God, are my trust; you have set the Highest as your habitation). C What harm such translations do to Christians, I do not sufficiently perceive. But Eusebius wishes these words, "For you, O Lord, are my hope, you have set the Highest as your refuge," as they are read in the LXX, to be understood in such a way that "Lord" signifies the Son; and "the Highest," whom the Son places as his refuge, signifies the Father: which interpretation being given, Eusebius seems to favor Arianism more than Aquila and Symmachus favor Judaism; for his goal is to establish that God the Son is far inferior to God the Father.
Jerome, in Isaiah cap. XLIX, 5, regarding these words [לא יאסף], where Aquila translates, "And Israel shall be gathered to him," notes these things. "But I do not wonder at Aquila, that a man most learned in the Hebrew language either feigned ignorance in this place or was deceived by the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, who wished to translate it, 'And Israel shall be gathered to him,' that is, to God: whereas the Hebrew word [Lo], in this place, is not written with [LAMED] and [VAU], which if it were, would signify 'to him' or 'to it'; but with [LAMED] and [ALEPH], which properly sounds 'not.' This variety of interpretations, moreover, undoubtedly arose from the variety of readings: for some exemplars had [לא], and others [לו], and today it is read [לא] in the Massoretic Bibles and [לו] in the margin. Nor can anything be gathered from this for the sake of the Jews, which is not found a hundred times in other places of Scripture."
Philastrius of Brescia, *De haeresibus*, calls Aquila into question because in Psalm II, v. 2, where the LXX trans
...against the Lord, and against His Christ, he translated: "against the Lord, and against His anointed." But Aquila did not translate the word A *māshīaḥ*, or "anointed," in this place alone, but also elsewhere; because, of course, he thought that *Christos* and *ēleimmēnos* meant the same thing. However, it does not appear that he deliberately abstained from the word *Christos*; for he uses one word at one time, and another at another, even where Christ is the subject. Thus in Ps. LXXXVIII, v. 52, "the footprints of your Christ," and Habakkuk 3, v. 13, "for salvation with your Christ." Still, it does not seem improbable that Aquila almost always used *ēleimmēnos* where *māshīaḥ* was found, out of hatred for Christianity, so as to intentionally avoid the word *Christos*, which was familiar to Christians, by which they called the Son of God.
Anastasius, in sermon 9 *in Hexaemeron*, accuses Aquila of impiety because he translated that passage in Gen. II, 18, *‘ēzer kenegdo*, as *poiēsōmen autōi boēthon kat’ enanti autou*; that is, "Let us make for him a helper opposite to him, or before him." Indeed, Anastasius wishes *kat’ enanti autou* to be understood as *antidikon kai polemion*, an adversary and enemy, as if, in Aquila’s opinion, God gave the woman to man as an adversary and enemy. But, as all who are skilled in Greek know, *kat’ enanti autou* here signifies "opposite him," or "so that it might stand by him": otherwise, the word *boēthos*, "helper," which precedes it, utterly refutes Anastasius’s interpretation. For who would think that Aquila wished to translate it thus: "Let us make for him a helper as an adversary"?
IV. It is asked whether Aquila is the same person as Onkelos, and whether the Targum of Onkelos has any affinity with Aquila’s interpretation.
A manifold question is stirred regarding Onkelos; and regarding the very name, it is asked whether Onkelos or Onkelus is the same as Aquila. Certainly, the word Onkelos is foreign to the Hebrews, and belongs to a foreign nation, which, when it began to be written in Hebrew, received some change and a new termination. That this cannot be denied seems evident. And no word is closer to *Onkelos* than *Akylas*, Aquilas or Aquila. For *O* and *A* B are often interchanged and confused; wherefore I would believe that Onkelos, or Ankelas, and *Akylas* are the same name. And this the Jerusalem Talmud confirms, where Aquila is often remembered by almost this form of name. Another question arises immediately, whether that Greek interpreter Aquila is the same as Onkelos, whose name, as we have said, appears to be the same as Aquila; or whether there were two Aquilas, of whom one issued the Targum on the Pentateuch, and the other, clearly the one with whom we are now concerned, issued the Greek version which was carried in the Hexapla. Some among the Rabbis think Onkelos, or Aquila, the author of the Chaldaic paraphrase, is much older than that Aquila who edited the Greek version in the time of Hadrian; concerning which matter, Brian Walton and Nicolaus Serarius are to be consulted, *Prolegom.* ch. 14, little question 4. Others think the Chaldaic paraphrast and the Greek interpreter are the same. But however that may be, it is certain that that Chaldaic paraphrase has no affinity with Aquila’s Greek version. For, to say nothing of other matters in which all interpreters agree, Aquila translates the word *bərēshīt* in Gen. I, 1, as *en kephalaioi*, "in a heading," but Onkelos as *bəqadmīn*, "in the beginning"; and furthermore, Aquila translates *tōhū wa-bōhū* as *kenōma kai ouden*, "emptiness and nothing," while Onkelos has *ṣādā u-rēiqānī*, "desert and void." § 2. Vulgata, and the Spirit of God was over-brooding; Aquila, *epipheromenon*, "was carried/brooding over"; Onkelos, *meraḥepā*, "was hovering." Genesis ch. II, 6, *‘ēd*, Vulgata, "a fountain"; Aquila, *kai epi-kephas*, "and a bubbling source or spring"; Onkelos, *‘ūbā*, "and a mist." V. 7, Aquila, *kai eplasen*, "and he fashioned"; Onkelos, *u-bərā*, "and he created." Gen. III, 16, Aquila, *hē synapheia sou*, "your association"; Onkelos, *reghīghataki*, "your desire." Gen. IV, 8, Origen says that Aquila expressed that saying of Cain, *dielthōmen eis to pedion*, "let us go out into the field," or "let us go out abroad," which, however, is not read in Onkelos. And Gen. ch. VI, 2, Aquila, *hoi huioi tōn theōn*, "the sons of the gods"; Onkelos, *bənē rabrabayyā*, "the sons of princes or magnates." I could gather countless similarities, from which it would be clear that there is no affinity between Aquila’s Greek version and the Chaldaic paraphrase. But these, if I am not mistaken, will be enough.
CHAPTER SIXTH
De Symmachi interpretatione.
I. Epiphanius errs in many ways and speaks inconsistently when he narrates that Symmachus translated the Scripture before Theodotion. II. The author of the *Synopsis* seems to have sensed Epiphanius’s error. III. The *Chronicon Alexandrinum* corrected the error of Epiphanius, as did Ado. IV. Whether Symmachus issued two interpretations. V. What kind of translating he used: and concerning the chronological years of the first and second age, as they were represented by Symmachus. VI. His edition is highly praised by the ancients. VII. It is not so highly regarded by Theodore the Heracleote.
I. Epiphanius errs in many ways and speaks inconsistently, when he narrates that Symmachus translated the Scripture before Theodotion. C Epiphanius, having observed the order of the Hexapla, where Symmachus is placed before Theodotion, and occupied the second place in the Greek editions, thought that Symmachus issued his edition before Theodotion D had compiled his. Therefore, he strangely perturbed and described as disorderly [the narrative], which he had received from the ancients, and partly, as it seems, from the writings of Origen themselves. He says, therefore, that in the times of Severus, Symmachus the Samaritan flourished among the wise men of his own nation, and, led by ambition and a desire for dominance, when he could not obtain his wish among his compatriots,
he turned to the Jews, and, having reduced himself to the practices of that time by uncircumcision and having again received circumcision, he was numbered among the Jews. These things are all consistent. However, he differs from Eusebius and Jerome in that they say he became an Ebionite—that is, a semi-Christian and semi-Jew—while Epiphanius relates that he turned to the Jews and was numbered among the Jews. But it seems we must stand by the testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome: for they had seen the book of Symmachus, where he endeavored to assert the dogma of the Ebionites from the Gospel of Matthew. This, indeed, can only fit an Ebionite. But soon Epiphanius overturns the chronological note accurately established by himself when he says: "After him, a little time having elapsed, that is, in the second Commodus, A *tou deutêrou*, reigning, who after Lucius Aurelius Commodus reigned thirteen years, a certain Theodotion, a native of Pontus, of the succession of the heresiarch Marcion, when he was angry at his heresy, defected to the Jews." If this calculation is accepted, the interpretation made under Severus would have preceded that which was composed under Commodus, which things are B *aprosdionysa* (irrelevant). Especially since he designates as Commodus the one who reigned for thirteen years, after whom, following Pertinax and Didius Julianus, who reigned for a few months, Severus succeeded. But the author of the Epitome of the book *On Weights and Measures* of St. Epiphanius (which we shall edit below) attempts to assert this chronological reasoning with another fabrication, when he says that Symmachus published his version under the Emperor Severus, but Theodotion under the second Commodus: which things certainly collapse and cannot hold together; for there was no Emperor Commodus Severus, and no second Commodus existed after him.
II. C The author of the *Synopsis* seems to have perceived the error of Epiphanius. The author of the *Synopsis*, whom we believe was falsely ascribed to Athanasius, seems to have drawn from Epiphanius, as is proven by the similarity of the words; but whether he perceived the error of Epiphanius, or whether he used another, more corrected copy, he departs less in his notes and calculations from the true chronological reasoning than Epiphanius. For he says that Symmachus interpreted under Severus, and Theodotion under Commodus, D *en autô tôi chronô*, at the same time; which is found to speak the truth if you add "approximately." Indeed, even without such addition and qualification, it might perhaps be said that Theodotion and Symmachus labored at the same time at translating the Holy Scriptures, but in such a way that Theodotion brought his interpretation to light somewhat earlier, and Symmachus shortly after.
III. The *Chronicon Alexandrinum* corrected the error of Epiphanius, as did Ado. The author of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, after he had assigned the edition of Theodotion to the sixth year of Commodus, and afterwards, proceeding in the order of time, had stated that the interpretation of Symmachus was made in the ninth year of Severus, thus concludes: "This Epiphanius the Cyprian related regarding the three interpreters, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion." He testifies that he received this genuine and true account of the times from Epiphanius; from which perhaps the suspicion arises that Epiphanius had been corrupted by some ignorant man in the copies that have come down to us, and that the author of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum* had used a far different and indeed a more corrected copy. But the modern edition of Epiphanius, whose words we cite here in Latin only for the sake of brevity, seems to cry out against this suspicion:
After Aquila and his interpretation, Antoninus, surnamed Pius, succeeds the Emperor Hadrian, and reigns for twenty-two years. Him succeeds Caracallus, who was also called Geta and Marcus Aurelius Verus, for seven years. In his time also reigned Lucius Aurelius Commodus, likewise for seven years. Pertinax for six months. Severus for eighteen years. Furthermore, in the times of this Severus, a certain Symmachus, a Samaritan, existed, from the number of those who are held among them to be wise, etc., as we related above.
But after he has woven the history of Symmachus, he proceeds thus:
After him, in the time immediately following, that is, around the reign of the second Commodus, who, after the aforementioned Lucius Aurelius Commodus, reigned for thirteen years, a certain Theodotion from Pontus, of the succession of the heresiarch Marcion of Sinope, etc.
That such an enormous overturning of correct chronology and such a preposterous enumeration of the Roman emperors was introduced into the text of Epiphanius by librarians or by some reckless man, I would hardly believe. And I judge it more likely that Epiphanius, certainly a negligent chronologer, when he thought that the edition of Symmachus, because it was placed before the version of Theodotion in the Hexapla, was older than this one, brought this confusion into the subjects and times in order to accommodate his calculation to this opinion: for when afterwards, with not many words intervening, he repeats the series of emperors, he restores them almost to their own order, because, with no mention made of Symmachus, nothing was presented that was repugnant to his opinion; but he holds it thus:
After Antoninus Pius reigned Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who is also Verus, for nineteen years. After him Commodus the other reigns for thirteen years, in whose time we said that Theodotion flourished, who published the fourth interpretation. Pertinax succeeds this Commodus, and reigns for six months. Then Severus with his son Antoninus, for eighteen years. After the death of Severus, Antoninus succeeds.
In this last review, he did not move Commodus from his place, because since no mention was made of Symmachus under Severus, nothing was repugnant to the opinion preconceived by him; which opinion was so deeply fixed in his mind that, although he might learn from the testimony of the ancients and perhaps of Origen himself, the edition of Theodotion under Com-
Amodo, Symmachus under Severus to have appeared, he would rather place Severus before Commodus than admit that Theodotion’s edition was older than the version of Symmachus. Wherefore, whereas a little later he warns the reader to beware, lest—because the LXX Interpreters are placed after Aquila and Symmachus in the Hexapla—he should think Aquila and Symmachus to be older than the LXX Interpreters, he by no means warns him not to think Symmachus older than Theodotion for the same reason. The author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, therefore, more skilled in calculations than Epiphanius, assigned the true age of both interpreters, as if he had borrowed it from Epiphanius, from the two imperial recensions mentioned above, which were edited by Epiphanius; for he could not be ignorant that the edition which appeared under Commodus was older than that which appeared under Severus. Item, Ado also described the true age of the interpreters in his Chronicle; for, speaking of the time of Hadrian, he says: "At the same time, Aquila the Pontic interpreter, second after the LXX, arises." And under Commodus, "Theodotion the Ephesian, the third interpreter, appeared." Likewise under Severus, "Symmachus is recognized as the fourth interpreter." That Theodotion published his edition before Symmachus, therefore, is clear from those things which have been said above. Jerome seems to have believed the same thing, who says in his Commentary on Isaiah, ch. LVIII, v. 6: "Instead of the LXX’s *syndesmon*, that is, 'binding' or 'bond,' they translated; Aquila interpreted it as an error, as above; Symmachus, conceding to the findings of Theodotion, used 'necklace' (torquem)." By which he indicates that Symmachus in his edition followed the interpretation of Theodotion, as being the older one; this is also confirmed by a passage in Irenaeus, where he criticizes only Aquila and Theodotion, because in ch. VII of Isaiah they translated the word [ha-almah] as *neanis*, "young girl," and not *parthenos*, "virgin," as the LXX interpreters did. But if Symmachus had by then published his edition, since he also translated it as *neanis*, should he not have been mentioned by Irenaeus? But since, from the Alexandrian Chronicle, Symmachus composed his interpretation in the ninth year of Severus, he could not be criticized by Irenaeus, who is thought to have suffered martyrdom in about the second year of that same emperor. From this, however, I would like you to correct our note on the Synopsis of Holy Scripture, where, following Dionysius Petavius, we said that Symmachus published his edition before Theodotion.
IV. Whether Symmachus published two interpretations. What cause, however, moved Symmachus to apply his mind to interpreting Scripture into Greek, the same Epiphanius teaches: because, namely, he was hostile to the Samaritans, he undertook a new translation, so as to overturn the interpretations of the Samaritans. In the Epitome of Epiphanius *On Weights and Measures*, which is soon to be published, it is read: [εἰς διαστροφὴν τῶν παρὰ Σαμαρείταις ἑρμηνευτῶν], "for the overturning of the Samaritan interpreters." We established above, from very probable conjectures, that there existed these Greek interpretations. That Symmachus published two editions seems certain; nor is it a wonder that Epiphanius omitted this, B since he made no mention even of the double edition of Aquila, which is asserted by many testimonies. Jerome, however, testifies that Symmachus also issued two, *Commentary on Nahum*, ch. III, 1, where he says: "In the Hebrew it is had, *Pherec malea*, which Aquila translated [ἐξαυχενισμοῦ πλήρης], that is, 'full of stiff-neckedness'; Symmachus, however, [ἀποτομίας πλήρης], which we can call 'full of harshness' or 'severity.' In his other edition I found [μυελoκοπίας πλήρης], that is, 'full of marrow-cutting and of pieces with members hacked off'." Two also equally diverse readings of Symmachus are brought forth for Isaiah XLVII, 2; Hosea XI, 11; Psalm CIX, 1. And in the Appendix, Exodus XXVIII, 14, interpretations of Symmachus are brought forth. See also, I pray you, Jeremiah XX, 3, and Jeremiah XXX, 32, in the note. But because such examples are not so frequent, there is room to conjecture that Symmachus did not issue two entirely different editions; but that he had amended in some places what he had published earlier, and had from time to time substituted other words for others. Otherwise, if he had composed two entirely different interpretations, just like Aquila, what is the reason why, though he has been held by many to be a much more elegant and better interpreter than Aquila, yet only a few readings from his other edition are brought forth, when so many and such great things survive from the second edition of Aquila? Let these things be said by way of conjecture only: for the matter has not been so fully examined that we may safely pass judgment.
V. What manner of translating he used: and concerning the chronological years of the first and second age as they were numbered by Symmachus. The interpretation of Symmachus is the clearest and most elegant of all. He expresses matters in the most part aptly and lucidly; he does not strive to report individual words scrupulously as Aquila does; he does not follow the LXX Interpreters with a close step as Theodotion does; but he presents the sense to the reader in even the most difficult places, so that it is understood immediately. He rarely follows Hebraisms. And he seems to have taken the greatest care that he might not place anything in the Greek series that might offend a Greek reader ignorant of Hebrew: yet with the caution that he proposed to himself the Hebrew copy alone to be followed, and might not infuse aught from the edition of the 70, where it did not square with the Hebrew, into his own interpretation. Wherefore, in the chronological years from Adam unto Abraham, having dispensed with the calculation of the Septuagint Interpreters, he always expressed the years of the Hebrew text, as Eusebius Emisenus testifies in the place which we have recorded in the notes to Genesis V, 5, excerpted from the manuscripts. "The Hebrew," he says, "and the Syrian and Symmachus always place one hundred years less in the genealogies; for example's sake, it is written in the LXX that Adam begat Seth in the 230th year of his life; there the Hebrew has 130." And these hundred years he adds to the remaining years of Adam's life. But it is a marvel that, in the enumeration of those who followed the Hebrew text in the calculation of the years, the Hebrew, the Syrian, and Symmachus are mentioned, but Aquila [τὸν δουλεύοντα τῇ Ἑβραϊκῇ λέξει] (the one enslaved to the Hebrew diction) D
sent; for he, as always, followed the Hebrew with more scrupulosity than the others, and it is not to be thought that he deserted it in his calculations of the years. But either in that recension of Eusebius of Emesa, it is possible that it dropped out through the error of the copyists, or because Aquila always follows the Hebrew, he may have judged it unnecessary to mention it, thinking it sufficient that the Hebrew be named, so that it might be understood at once that Aquila had translated in the same manner, inasmuch as he always clings to the footsteps of the Hebrew. Moreover, it is not unusual for those ancient writers, even when two or three interpreters prefer the very same reading, to commemorate only one of them, as you will notice six hundred times in the course of this work. A As for Theodotion, it is likely that in the genealogies, as also very frequently elsewhere, he followed the reading of the LXX Interpreters; for he had a place in the Hexapla after the LXX, and as it were set apart from Aquila and Symmachus, because they usually followed the Hebrew, while he followed the LXX Interpreters. Symmachus, therefore, follows the Hebrew, as does Aquila: but in such a way that the latter often strives to express the letter with excessive religious care; the former, however, clings to the Hebrew in such a way that he appears to take account of elegance and clarity.
VI. His edition is very much praised by the ancients. Jerome, Eusebius, and others praise this elegance and clarity of style everywhere; the former frequently admires his interpretations and extols them with praise, as in his *Commentary on Psalm 21*, v. 31: *clarius Symmachus* ("more clearly, Symmachus"), as also often elsewhere; and in the following verse, *admodum mirabiliter Symmachus* ("Symmachus, quite wonderfully"); and on Psalm 46, 10, *ita mirabiliter interpretatus est Symmachus* ("thus has Symmachus wonderfully interpreted"). Jerome, speaking of Symmachus, frequently says that he has translated more openly and manifestedly. And in his *Commentary on Amos 3*, 11, he says that Symmachus is not accustomed to follow the *kakozeleia* (bad zeal) of words, but the order of the intelligence.
VII. To Theodore of Heraclea he is not so pleasing. But, as opinions vary, Theodore of Heraclea, a man more notable for the perspicacity of his genius than for the integrity of his faith, in a fragment which we shall edit below, notes that Symmachus, while striving for excessive clarity, not infrequently strayed from the true sense of the Hebrew. For when he strove to render everything, even the most difficult things, clearly, it generally happens that he chooses those words B and modes of speaking which might offer greater clarity, but which did not square so well with the Hebrew. Moreover, Symmachus often did not express in his version the metaphorical meanings in which the Hebrew language abounds; and thus he enervated the force and emphasis of the dicta, as when, for example, that Psalm 67, 31, *‘edath ‘abbirim*, is thus expressed by the LXX Interpreters, *synagōgē tōn taurōn* ("congregation of bulls"), but Symmachus translates *synodō pammegalethōn* ("congregation of the very large ones"), so as to express the matter more clearly: and thus he took away that metaphor, which, although it endowed the discourse with a certain energy, nevertheless did not harm the sense. These things are noted by Theodore of Heraclea, who adduces another similar example from the same Psalm, v. 34, where those words are turned by the LXX as *tō epibebēkoti epi ton ouranon tou ouranou kata anatolas* ("to him who ascends upon the heaven of heaven toward the east"); but Symmachus, *tō epochoumenō epi ton ouranon tou ouranou ex prōtēs* ("to him who is carried upon the heaven of heaven from the beginning"). But as regards the first example, I do not doubt that there will be many who take the side of Symmachus: for *‘abbirim* is often translated by the LXX Interpreters as *ischyros* ("strong") or *dynastēs* ("powerful"); or more rarely, *tauros* ("bull"): but in this place Jerome translates "the strong," perhaps following Aquila, as is his wont in the Psalms. But as regards the second example, I confess to me also, just as to Theodore, the translation of the Seventy seems more accurate than that of Symmachus. Truly, other examples are not lacking from which it might be argued that Symmachus, while he strives for clarity and elegance, has strayed from the true scope of Scripture.
Nevertheless, it can be truly said that Symmachus has performed the duty of an excellent interpreter: for even if, while he strives to express a clear sentiment, he sometimes deflects from the true sense, what is the wonder, in a matter so very arduous? Who is so lynx-eyed, in such a great strangeness of sequence, and such great obscurity of words, as the Hebrew text presents in countless places, that he could always interpret everything accurately and without error? That, certainly, does not seem to be of human capacity. Otherwise, perhaps, Symmachus followed a more free and elegant manner of interpreting because he saw that Aquila, on account of his excessive *akribeia* (precision) and religious care, was often more obscure than the Hebrew text itself.
CHAPTER SEVENTH
De Theodotionis editione.
I. Who Theodotion was. II. On the method of interpreting which he used. III. He is held to be less learned than the other interpreters.
Theodotion, born in Sinope in Pontus, was a Marcionite, as Epiphanius says; but because he was incensed for some reason unknown to us with his own heresy, he fled to the Jews, and was circumcised. After he had learned the Hebrew language, he himself also undertook an *interpretation*. This is Epiphanius. Others, however, namely Eusebius and Jerome, say he had been an Ebionite; whether he fled from the Jews to the Ebionites, or whether, because the Ebionites were held to be Jews and were circumcised, Epiphanius believed he had fled to the Jews because he had betaken himself to the Ebionites. Jerome, however, who
elsewhere calls him an Ebionite in his Preface to the Commentary on Daniel, seems to leave the matter in doubt when he says: "But it is the custom to read the Churches according to Theodotion, who, though he was an unbeliever after the advent of Christ, is nevertheless said by some to be an Ebionite, who is a Jew of another kind." But he is called by the Greeks who have published commentaries on Scripture not once as A *Theodotos*, or *Theodotion*; you may see this in the notes to Ps. LXIII and Ps. LXV, whether this occurred due to a scribe's error, or whether both terminations were admitted in his name, so that he was called now *Theodotos*, now *Theodotion*; just as *Asklepas* and *Asklepios*, *Ischyras* and *Ischyrios* and *Ischyrion* were also called. That he was an unbeliever, however, and not a Christian Ebionite, is suggested by the interpretation of that most celebrated place in Daniel, ch. IX, 26, where the Hebrew words are: *aḥarei ha-shavu‘im shishim u-shenayim yikkareth mashi’aḥ*. Aquila interprets it thus: *kai meta tas hepta hebdomadas, kai hexēkonta dyo, exolothreuthēsetai elleimmenos*, "and after seven weeks and sixty-two, the anointed one shall be destroyed." Symmachus, a Christian Ebionite, [says]: *kai meta tas hebdomadas hepta kai hexēkonta dyo, ekkopēsetai Christos*, "and after seven weeks and sixty-two, Christ shall be cut off." But Theodotion undermined that notable prophecy concerning Christ as much as he could by his interpretation, and interpreted it in the fashion of the Jews with these words: *kai meta tas hebdomadas tas hexēkonta dyo, exolothreuthēsetai chrisma*, "and after sixty-two weeks, the anointing shall be destroyed," where he removed the mention of Christ and the anointed and the Messiah, even though *mashi’aḥ* is clearly expressed in Hebrew. But the Ebionites, even if they did not believe Jesus to be God, nonetheless held him to be the Christ and the Messiah; which fact induces the greatest suspicion that he was not an Ebionite, but truly an unbeliever and a Jew.
II. Regarding the method of interpretation which he used. B Theodotion, as we have already proven, brought forth his interpretation to light after Aquila and before Symmachus, during the reign of Commodus; and in his manner of translating he deviated less from the LXX Interpreters than the others did; indeed, he even followed the LXX very often: which was the reason that when the LXX were lacking, which happened frequently—especially in the books of Joshua, Judges, Kings, Job, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—defects of this kind were supplemented from Theodotion, who was more similar in style and kind of oration to the LXX Interpreters, with asterisks always placed at the beginning and on the side, until those additions were completed. But in the book of Daniel, because the whole series in the LXX Interpreters was placed out of order, although Origen attempted to apply a healing hand to it, that edition was eventually removed and the Church substituted Theodotion’s in its place: whence it happened that Theodotion’s edition of Daniel is read to this day in the Greek Churches, and the edition of the 70 has gradually perished. Other smaller additions, which Origen inserted into the edition of the 70 with asterisks placed in front, were for the most part borrowed from Theodotion, because of the aforementioned affinity of style; not C infrequently, however, from Aquila, and more rarely from Symmachus.
Although Theodotion almost always clings to the footsteps of the LXX Interpreters, he did not follow the same method of interpretation everywhere and in all the books of Scripture: for Aquila not rarely adopts an interpretation, as you will see in the course of this work, when A., Θ., is noted, and even also where A., Σ., Θ. are noted. For although Theodotion precedes Symmachus in age, he is placed after him because of the reason mentioned at the beginning. Therefore, where A., Σ., Θ. is prefixed, one ought to understand Symmachus; where he saw that Aquila and Theodotion agreed in translating, he often followed them in his own edition.
III. He is considered less learned than the other interpreters. Not infrequently, too, Theodotion fashions an interpretation peculiar to himself and different from all the others: and in those places he is found to be equipped with far less skill in the Hebrew language than Aquila or Symmachus. For besides other signs of a less learned interpreter, which we leave for the learned reader to explore, he very often expressed Hebrew words, whose interpretation was not so difficult, by Greek letters, in order to avoid the trouble of translating—for example, Levit. VII, 18, *piggul*, he himself translates *pheggōl estai*, or, as another codex has it, *pheggoul estai*, "it shall be *phengul*," where Aquila and Symmachus [translate it] *apoblēton*, "to be cast away"; the LXX, *miasma*, "defilement"; Symmachus elsewhere, *argon*, "useless"; others, "fetid" or "corrupt" or "abomination." And Levit. XIII, 6, Theodotion, *pasgas*—where Aquila, *exanathanthēsis*, "eruption"; Symmachus, *exbrasma*, "ebullition" or "ejectamentum"; elsewhere indeed *exthuma*, "pustule"; the Vulgate, *scabies* ("scab"): I consider the same to be the case in the same chapter, where *se’eth* is placed for *se’eth*, which is "tumor" or "scar." And in Levit. XVIII, 23, *tebel*, Theodotion [writes] *thabel*, *Thabel*; but Aquila, *epistremmenon*, "prohibited"; Symmachus, *aphēton*, "infamous"; the Vulgate, *scelus*. And in Deut. XXII, 9, Theodotion translates *kōluma*, "impediment," because this word in Greek reflects the Hebrew reading nearly, and Theodotion seems to have regarded the affinity of sound more than the meaning; Aquila, however, [translates] *anomoiyenes*, that is, "dissimilar in kind"; others interpret it as "mixture" or "mixing." D And in Isaiah LXIV, 6, *‘iddim*, Theodotion translates *Eddim*, where Aquila [translates] *marturiōn*, "of testimonies"; Symmachus, *parientōn*, "of menstruants"; the Vulgate, *menstruata*; others, "of rags." Perhaps someone will say that Theodotion purposefully omitted these very rare words—which other interpreters, namely the LXX and Aquila, seemed to translate by guessing—because he thought their meaning was as unknown to those ancients as it was to himself: for he could have borrowed from the others if he had thought they were well-translated by them. Furthermore, there were many words whose meaning, though not ignored, remained untranslated due to the usage of the Jews, and were expressed merely by Greek letters as they sounded in Hebrew; of which matter there are many examples in the LXX Interpreters.
[Latin column] 95 PRELIMINARY MATTERS 96 A occur to us. This objection is not lacking in plausibility; but although we may perhaps excuse as carelessness or inexperience some of those things that we have omitted in a few cases from the examples of Theodotion, yet in other very many cases which we have consulted [in some instances], it is possible that we have been able to provide only a weak defense.
CHAPTER EIGHT
On the remaining editions.
1. When the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh editions were produced. 2. When they were discovered. 3. On the Fifth edition. 4. On the Sixth. 5. On the Seventh. 6. On the excellence of the Latin Vulgate edition.1.
When the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh editions were produced.
At what time the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh editions were issued; whether one preceded another by a long interval of time, which was prepared earlier or later, and by which authors each was written; these things, I say, are all equally unknown, nor can any definitive conclusion be brought forward on these matters. Likewise, it is unknown whether those editions are older or more recent than the editions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. However, if the Fifth, which was discovered in jars in the seventh year of Caracalla, and the Sixth, which was similarly discovered in jars during the time of Alexander Severus—if both of these, I say, lay hidden in such jars, then the editions of Theodotion and Symmachus, which had been issued a little earlier, were prior in time. It indeed seems probable, even from the very manner of the account, that those editions which were discovered by chance lying hidden in jars were not hidden recently, but had lain there for many years. Furthermore, from this collection of editions, one may observe that in that age there were many who labored at translating the Hebrew books of the Holy Scriptures into Greek: for besides the LXX Interpreters, Origen obtained six other editions, and perhaps he was unable to find all that had appeared before.2.
When they were discovered.
Origen reported that the Fifth edition was found at Jericho in jars, [in pithois], as testified by Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* bk. VI, ch. 16, and indeed, as Epiphanius narrates, in the seventh year of Caracalla. The Sixth edition was similarly found in jars at Nicopolis near Actium, in the time of Alexander Severus. Eusebius likewise narrates in *Hist. eccl.* bk. VI, ch. 16, that Origen had obtained the Seventh edition and placed it in the Hexapla: "Ἐν γε μὴν τοῖς Ἑξαπλοῖς τῶν Ψαλμῶν μετὰ τὰς ἐπισήμους τέσσαρας ἐκδόσεις, οὐ μόνον Πέμπτην, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἔκτην καὶ Ἑβδόμην παραθεὶς ἑρμηνείαν." That is: In the Hexapla of the Psalms, after those four distinguished editions, he appended not only the Fifth, but also the Sixth and Seventh interpretations, etc. Recounting this in passing, Eusebius mentions only the Seventh edition in the Psalms. But by the testimony of Eusebius himself, it was also present in the minor prophets, for he himself produces a passage of the Seventh from Habakkuk ch. 3 in the *Demonstratio evangelica*; whether it existed in other books also was already explained in the first chapter of the Preliminary Matters. Jerome echoes Eusebius in his *De viris illustribus*: Furthermore, he says, (Origen) discovered with marvelous labor the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh editions, which we also have from his library, and compared them with the other editions. Therefore, from the testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome, which cannot B be gainsaid, it is certain that the Seventh edition was also placed by Origen himself in some books of Scripture. Eusebius certainly could not have been ignorant of this, he who handled the very autograph of Origen, along with the martyr Pamphilus, corrected it, and illustrated it with scholia. Nevertheless, Epiphanius nowhere mentions the Seventh; and as one who in other matters gave clear signs of being a less accurate writer, he is to be thought to have treated this matter also with negligence. But, what may seem strange, the author of the *Synopsis* among the Athanasian works speaks thus of the Seventh edition: The seventh and last interpretation is that of the holy Lucian, a great ascetic and martyr, who himself also, upon chancing upon the aforementioned editions in conjunction with the Hebrew, and having diligently inspected what was missing or superfluous, and having corrected it in their respective places in Scripture, issued this version to the Christian brethren—which interpretation, or the book written by his own hand, was discovered after his struggle and martyrdom, which he sustained under the tyrants Diocletian and Maximian, at Nicomedia under the Emperor Constantine the Great, among the Jews, in a walled-up wall covered with lime, in which it had been placed for safekeeping. Thus, he confused that celebrated edition of the martyr Lucian with the Seventh Hexaplaric edition, and made one out of the two. This fabrication is exploded by the testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome, the former of whom, being contemporary with the martyr Lucian, saw in the very autograph the Seventh edition placed by Origen in the Hexapla more than fifty years earlier. D Moreover, the account of the author of the *Synopsis* is refuted by the very fragments of the Seventh, which, as Eusebius and Jerome testified, was present in only a few books of Scripture; but on the contrary, the edition of Lucian comprised the whole of Scripture; and it was nothing other than a translation of the LXX, corrected in many places by the same holy martyr, which had been produced many years after the Hexapla were compiled. From this, therefore, Brian Walton is to be corrected, who, deceived by the author of the *Synopsis*, opines that the Seventh is the same as the edition of the martyr Lucian. *Prolegom.* IX, num. 20.3.
On the Fifth edition.
Whether the one who arranged the Fifth edition was a Christian, a Jew, or a Samaritan, is not [known] from the ancientsnor can it be gathered from his interpretation in the book of the prophet Habakkuk, where it is placed in its order. Whoever he may have been, he used a much freer method of interpretation than Symmachus, to the point that he sometimes tastes of a paraphrast, as is particularly to be seen in the twelve minor prophets, where more frequent fragments of him are found. Thus, in Hosea vi, 2, concerning the word *n-h-y-h*, which others interpret as "he will cure us" or "he will bind us up," he himself translates it *ὑγιὲς ἀποδείξει*, "he will show us healthy." And in Hosea vii, 14, concerning these Hebrew words *עַל־דָּגָן וְתִירֹוֹשׁ יִתְגּוֹרָרוּ*, the sense of which is "they gathered themselves for corn and wine, they departed from me," he himself translates it *ἀπὸ τρυφῆς καὶ πλησμονῆς σίτου καὶ οἴνου ἀπέστησάν μου*, that is, "they departed from me from the delight and abundance of wheat and wine." Thus, he produces an interpretation that is almost always free and not bound by the letter, yet in such a way that he does not depart from the true mind of Scripture: which was a reason why the Vulgate interpreter in these books of the prophets seems not infrequently to follow him.
IV. On the Sixth edition.
That the Sixth edition was prepared by a Christian man is clear even from this one fragment of his, Habakkuk iii, 13, where that Hebrew: *יָצָא לְיֵשַׁע עַמֶּךָ לְיֵשַׁע אֶת־מְשִׁיחֶֽךָ* is thus interpreted: *Ἐξῆλθες τοῦ σῶσαι τὸν λαόν σου διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου* — "You have gone forth to save your people through your Jesus Christ." The Greek of this verse is recovered from manuscripts; the Latin from Jerome, who adds that the Sixth edition manifests the sacrament most clearly. Now this interpreter, just as the preceding one, delighted in paraphrase, as is noticed in the place already cited, although he brings forth nothing there except the mind of the Hebrew Scripture. Truly, in another place of his, you may notice a much greater liberty of straying. Psalm xxxvi, 35 (in Hebrew verse numbering 36), the Hebrew is thus: *רָאִיתִי רָשָׁע עָרִיץ וּמִתְעָרֶה כְּאֶזְרָח רַעֲנָן*, that is: "I have seen the impious one, a tyrant, spreading himself like a green laurel," or, as Jerome has it, "like a green native [tree]," where the Vulgate says, "I have seen the impious one highly exalted and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon." The Sixth edition is thus: *Εἶδον ἀσεβῆ καὶ ἀναίδη ἀντιποιούμενον ἐν σκληρότητι, καὶ λέγοντα, Εἰμὶ ὡς αὐτοχθὼν περιπατῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ.* That is: "I have seen the impious and shameless one claiming for himself [a place] in hardness, and saying: 'I am as a native walking in justice'." These things certainly not only taste of a paraphrase, but seem to surpass it.
V. On the Seventh edition.
Whether the Seventh edition is that of a Christian or a Jewish interpreter can be judged from the one canticle of Habakkuk; if, however, it is the interpretation of the entire canticle of the Seventh [edition], joined there to the edition of the LXX, which I consider to be more than likely. For in the note of the Barberini codex, where it is described in its entirety, it is noted that that version is neither Aquila’s, nor Symmachus’s, nor Theodotion’s, and it must be inquired whether it pertains to the Fifth or to the Sixth edition. Since, therefore, it is certain and explored from elsewhere, namely from the fragments that survive, that it is of none of those who are mentioned above, it follows without doubt that it is the Seventh, which was placed in the prophet Habakkuk in its order, as is evident from his fragment in chap. ii, 4, and from Jerome’s note on verse 11. But this interpreter of the passage cited above, verse 13, which Jerome complains was turned by Symmachus and Theodotion the Ebionite after that fashion: "You went forth to save your people, to save your Christ," converts it in a thoroughly Jewish manner with these words: *Ἀνεφάνης ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τοῦ λαοῦ σου, ῥύσασθαι τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς σου* — "You appeared for the salvation of your people, to deliver your elect," where the name of Christ, expressed in the Hebrew *מְשִׁיחֶֽךָ*, is turned into "elect": which a Christian man certainly would not have done. From this chapter, also, it is detected that this interpreter translated in a very paraphrastic way, as anyone can see.
A Having looked at these things, it remains to say that those three additional editions were composed in a far freer method of interpreting than the edition of Symmachus, who, however, deflects from the Hebrew letter more than Aquila and Theodotion.
Perhaps there will be someone who protests against what we mentioned above, namely that those three additional editions, the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh, were placed by Origen in the minor prophets, and objects to this: "In the Barberini codex, the passage from Hosea chap. xi, v. 1, is presented in the same order of columns as it was in the Hexapla, where nonetheless neither the Fifth, nor the Sixth, nor the Seventh appear, whence it seems to follow that those editions were not present in the minor prophets." I will reply from the same Barberini codex that it is manifest that those editions were present in the minor prophets along with the others, B since many places are cited there throughout from those last three editions; however, when the copyist in that specimen of the Hexapla placed only four editions—namely Aquila’s, Symmachus’s, that of the LXX, and Theodotion’s—he did it at his own discretion, either because those three last editions agreed with the former, or for some other cause. Certainly, in that specimen, he omitted the Hebrew column, described in Hebrew letters, even though it is likely that it was present in his exemplar along with the others.
VI. On the excellence of the Latin Vulgate edition.
Now that we have discussed the individual ancient editions that had a place in the Hexapla, it remains that we say a few things about our Latin Vulgate, which the learned Jerome compiled by the assistance of all these editions with the greatest labor and accuracy. Furthermore, although he had the Hexapla itself at hand while interpreting, he did not adopt just any readings or interpretations at random; but with the selection and counsel of the most learned men among the Hebrews, he strove to express in Latin those which were better and more accommodative to the true reading of the Hebrew exemplar. C He was accustomed to prefer Aquila and Symmachus, the most excellent of all interpreters, to the others; in the Psalms and the major prophets, however, he is discovered to have used Aquila more frequently than Symmachus; but in the minor prophets he not infrequently employed the Fifth edition. Sometimes also, having sent away the other interpreters, the edition of the LXX, as indeed being according to the Hebrew text, D occurs...
[Beginning of this page] to the Hebrew text, in so far as it was closer, followed the LXX edition; nor did he infrequently produce a new translation, different from the others, when, having consulted the teachers of the Hebrews, he observed that none of those already published corresponded perfectly. In various and doubtful readings of the Hebrew exemplar, which frequently appeared, as has been said above, Hieronymus A always used diligence and skill; he, in order to select the best, approached not only the sequence of the Holy Scriptures, but also those most learned in things Hebrew. Wherefore it is not surprising if the Roman Church has declared the edition issued with such study and such skillful work, as the most excellent of all, to be followed by everyone.
CHAPTER NINTH.
In the individual books of Scripture, as they were in the Hexapla, certain things are noted here.
It will be worth the effort here to run through the individual books of the Holy Scriptures, and to note certain things that remain to be observed both regarding the state and order of the Hexapla themselves, and regarding those things which we have performed in each individual book. B
In Genesis and in Leviticus, and, as it seems, in the other books of the Pentateuch, beyond those six columns by which the Hexapla were constituted, the Fifth edition also, if there is any faith in the fragments that remain, held its own place; that the Sixth was also present has been proven above. Furthermore, there were sometimes present in the margins, as we indeed opine, the readings of the Samaritan interpreter, and also of a certain Hebrew and a Syrian interpreter, about which we spoke at length in chapter 1. But although we have made such an accession of readings from manuscripts and printed books, that those which were collected by Drusius appear very few by comparison; C we would undoubtedly have achieved a far greater amount, had the Basel codex not been damaged throughout almost the whole of Genesis by the injury of time. This defect, however, is abundantly compensated by the many fragments of the ancient interpreters, well excerpted from that very ancient Coislinian codex.
In Exodus, similar diligence had been applied by Origen. Here, just as in Genesis, the readings of the Samaritan, Syrian, and Hebrew are observed. Nothing from the Fifth edition, yet you should not infer from that it was not present in Exodus: for since the manuscript codices exhibit so few from other books of the Pentateuch, it is no wonder if they brought none in Exodus. Furthermore, we offer the readings of the interpreters at least twenty times more abundantly than they were held in Drusius. In the final chapters, where Origen restored to their own order those things which were perversely placed in the edition of the [O'], we present not a few things from that hexaplaric edition thus restored, with asterisks and obeli, from the most ancient Colbertine codex, a specimen of which we gave in the [Palæographia Græca], book 3, chapter 1.
In Leviticus, the same things are observed as in Exodus. The reading of the Fifth edition is found at chapter 11 of Leviticus. Here the Colbertine [codex] provides much more than in Exodus, from the Origenian or hexaplaric edition of the [O']. Moreover, the readings of the ancient interpreters, which we offer in great number, are almost all new, and have not yet been observed.
We say similar things regarding the book of Numbers. Here, however, nothing from the Fifth edition appears. Inserted in some places are seen to be—and indeed by Origen himself, so it is thought—those passages which had been translated in the Samaritan text from Deuteronomy into Numbers. D Similarly, certain things from the edition of the [O'], Origenian [text] according to the faith of the Colbertine codex, are referred back with asterisks and obeli: and many readings of the interpreters, of which very few had been observed by Drusius.
In the book of Deuteronomy, nothing from that Origenian hexaplaric [work] is held. The remaining things, however, are almost the same as those that are seen in the book of Numbers. We bring forth the interpretations of the ancients, almost all of them new, and more than in the other books.
In the book of Joshua, Origen performed the same thing as in the entire Pentateuch. However, he does not seem to have added the Fifth edition there. He restored many mutilated passages in the edition of the [O'] from other interpreters, with asterisks placed beside them, which we have edited—as they were in the Basel codex, without asterisks, of course—and we have added not a few from the Coislinian codex. Drusius, however, had brought very few. Yet the reason why the readings brought by us do not very often agree with those that Masius edited with asterisks, is not difficult to understand. For since Masius, as he himself testifies, used a Syriac codex to restore these, in order to attain the Greek reading with the aid of the Syriac, he must often have engaged in guesswork. Wherefore our readings are far more sincere than those of Masius.
In the book of Judges, far more than in the book of Joshua are found in the hexaplaric edition restored by Origen, which Origen for the most part borrowed from Theodotion. These, however, we now bring to light for the first time, for Drusius had almost nothing. But in the ninth and tenth chapters, certain things of the hexaplaric edition of the [O'] are proffered from our most ancient manuscript folio.
In the book of Ruth, although Origen performed similar things, almost nothing of them remains.
In the books of Samuel and Kings, a customary industry of Origen is detected. There, also, the readings of the Syrians are not rarely brought forth. Note, however, that at the end of the first, it is [recorded] that there was once one book of Samuel, which comprised the two [that exist] today, and that Aquila had not divided the first from the second. Furthermore, the great [contribution] of the ancient interpreters
which we are publishing, now comes to light for the first time; Drusius, indeed, had collected almost nothing.
In the books of Chronicles we set forth a few fragments of the Hexapla, because commentaries on these were very rarely published by the ancients; and in manuscripts, the readings of the ancient interpreters are rarely provided.
In the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, nothing of the Hexapla survives, although I believe that Origen bestowed the same labor upon them as he did on the others. However, in the manuscripts that have come into my hands, there are no marginal notes and no commentaries present.
As for what Origen accomplished in the book of Job, he declares it himself in his Epistle to Africanus; we here append his words: A Excerpt from Job, from these words: "It is written, however, that he himself shall rise again, with those whom the Lord raises," up to the end. These, I say, do not exist among the Hebrews, and therefore they are not to be found in Aquila, B but [they are found] among the LXX and Theodotion, where the meanings are equivalent. We have also found ten thousand other things in Job—both deficiencies and redundancies—in our manuscripts, if they are compared with the Jewish ones. Deficiencies, for instance, when with these words: "Rising early, he offered sacrifices for them according to the number of their souls; and when there is added, 'a young calf for sin for their souls'; and when, 'The angels of God came to stand before God, and the devil came with them,' there is subjoined: 'going around the earth and walking upon it.' Further, after these words, 'The Lord gave, the Lord took away,' among the Hebrews these were not present, 'As it pleased the Lord, so it came to pass'."
Moreover, there are more things in our copies than in the Hebrew ones, when he said to Job, in [the passage] that follows: "How long will you persevere, saying: I will wait a little while still, expecting the hope of my salvation, A until these words, 'that I may rest from my labors and from the pains which now detain me'." For (in the Hebrew) only these words of his wife are written: "But say a word against the Lord, and die." B Again, there are very many [passages] in the midst of the whole book of Job among the Hebrews that are missing in our copies; quite often three or four verses; sometimes, however, fourteen, nineteen, or sixteen. And why need I recount here what we collected with much labor, so that the discrepancy that exists between the Jewish and our own copies should not escape us?
In the book of Job, therefore, besides the customary work of six columns, Origen restored many portions that were mutilated in the edition of the C LXX, using Theodotion—and sometimes other editions—as a source, with asterisks placed to indicate them, and he repaired great gaps, as he himself mentions above. Jerome testifies that seven or eight hundred verses were restored by Origen in this way in places where they were lacking; Jerome translated the book of Job thus restored into Latin, as is found in the first volume of our edition of Jean Martianay. We borrow these supplements from a certain Colbertine codex and from the edition of Jerome. Furthermore, we provide the readings of the ancient interpreters, much fuller and more emended than those which Drusius had published. Here, frequent readings are brought forward with this prior note, "The Hebrew," concerning which matter we treated in the first chapter.
In the book of Psalms, besides the six customary columns, D Origen added three others, which exhibited the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh editions: the readings of all of which we provide in many parts much fuller than Drusius had published.
In Proverbs, Origen published the customary six-column work. Drusius produced many of their readings from the Roman edition, to which we have added some, and emended not a few.
In Ecclesiastes, the author of the Hexapla achieved similar results. There, however, we have added many readings to the Drusian ones.
In the Canticles likewise, besides the Hexapla, at least two columns had been added, namely the Fifth and the Sixth; whether the Seventh edition was there as well is uncertain; that the Fifth and Sixth were there, the surviving portions of them prove. Jerome, however, in his Preface to
the Canticles, mentions only the Fifth edition, and speaks thus: "Origen, though he has surpassed all others in the other books, has in the Canticles of Canticles surpassed even himself. For when ten volumes were completed, which reach almost to twenty thousand verses; first the LXX Interpreters, then Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion, and at the end the Fifth edition, which he writes he found at Actium, etc." Concerning the Sixth edition, which A was nevertheless in the Hexapla for the Canticles, Jerome says not a word; whether Origen neglected that edition in his Commentaries, or whether Jerome omitted it, which is more likely; for as we have often seen, from silence of this kind, nothing can be concluded. In the Canticles, however, besides those of Drusius, we have added very many other readings of the ancient interpreters.
In Isaiah, besides the Hexaplar work, not a few Syriac readings were observed. Here, indeed, we provide the interpretations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion much more extensively than they are found in Drusius.
In Jeremiah, besides that work of six columns, Origen restored much from Theodotion with asterisks, which the LXX Interpreters had deliberately omitted, as Jerome very often says in his Commentary on Jeremiah. There, many things were added with asterisks, and there were many transpositions, as Origen says in his epistle to Africanus: *Πολλὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα καὶ ἐν τῷ Ἱερεμίᾳ κατανοήσαμεν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πολλὴν μετάθεσιν καὶ ἐναλλαγὴν τῆς λέξεως τῶν προφητευομένων εὕρομεν.* That is: *We have also discovered many similar things in Jeremiah, in which we find frequent transpositions and permutations of the prophecies.* We have made a very ample collection of all these with the help of manuscripts: Drusius offers very few.
In the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Origen placed only the edition of Symmachus with the LXX, as he himself testifies in a certain note. But why he did not perform his usual work here, but omitted Aquila and Theodotion, we can only say by conjecture: because he certainly saw that the LXX Interpreters were not failing in their usual manner, but were in agreement with Aquila and Theodotion, he placed very few asterisks; indeed, he did not even place side-by-side those editions by whose authority he was wont to supplement with asterisks what was lacking, or to mark with an obelus what was redundant. Here, however, we give far more readings of Symmachus than Drusius had brought forward. B
In Ezekiel, Origen arranged the Hexapla according to his custom, and furthermore restored very many things, which were lacking in the LXX, from Theodotion, with asterisks placed before them. We have collected so many and such significant things from the manuscripts that, when compared with them, those things which Drusius published appear to be almost nothing.
What Origen achieved in Daniel, Jerome teaches in his Preface to Daniel: "I warn the reader," he says, "that the Churches read Daniel not according to the LXX Interpreters, but according to Theodotion, who was certainly an unbeliever after the advent of Christ: although some call him an Ebionite, who is a Jew of another kind." But Origen, in his edition of the Vulgate, placed asterisks, teaching that what was added was missing; and conversely, he marked certain verses with obeli, designating whatever was redundant. And since all the Churches of Christ, both of the Greeks and of the Latins, and of the Syrians and of the Egyptians, read this edition with asterisks and obeli, let those who are envious be forgiving of my labor, for I have wished that we might have what the Greeks read in the editions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. And if they, in such great riches of doctrine, do not despise the studies of Jewish men, why should Latin poverty despise a Christian man? Even if one objects to his work, certainly the intention must be accepted. C In this place, however, Jerome seems at first glance to contradict himself. For after he had said that the Churches read Daniel not according to the LXX, but according to Theodotion, he immediately adds that all the Churches of Christ, of Greeks and Latins, of Syrians and Egyptians, read the Vulgate edition, namely that of the LXX, which had been augmented and emended by Origen from the edition of Theodotion with asterisks and obeli. The difficulty in this lies in the fact that when he says the Churches read the edition of Theodotion, and afterwards that they read the same Hexaplar edition of the LXX, he seems to indicate that both editions are read in public church assemblies, which surely can hardly be believed: for it is not probable that two editions of the same prophet were read indiscriminately in all the Churches. It is indeed certain that the Greek Church read only the edition of Theodotion, as Jerome says later in Commentary on Daniel, ch. iv, v. 5: "Except for the LXX translators, who for some reason or other passed over all these things, the other three translated the collection." Whence, by the judgment of the masters of the Church, their edition was rejected in this volume, and that of Theodotion is commonly read, which agrees both with the Hebrew and with the other translators. The holy Greek Fathers, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, also always bring forward only the edition of Theodotion: whence it happens that the edition of the LXX translators of Daniel, both that *koine* and the Hexaplar emended by Origen, has utterly perished, except for certain fragments which are observed below in our collection. When, therefore, Jerome says the Hexaplar edition D is read in all the churches of the Greeks as well, you must understand that it was held in the hands of all and read privately, but not in public assemblies, where only the edition of Theodotion was read, at least among the Greeks. Furthermore, Origen has this to say in his epistle to Africanus concerning the difference between the Hebrew copies and the edition of the LXX and Theodotion: "Know, therefore, in regard to these things, what we ought to do, not only concerning those things which are about Susanna, which in the Greek copy are carried through the entire Church of Christ, but which among the Hebrews are not..."
exstant: nor only concerning the other two sections, as you state, which are described at the end of the book, namely concerning Bel and the dragon: which likewise are not written in the Hebrew text of Daniel; but also concerning A ten thousand other things which, according to our humble ability, we have found in many places while comparing our copies with the Hebrew exemplars. For in Daniel himself, where it speaks of the burning furnace, we find the phrase "bound in fetters"; but in our own copies, B beyond those things which are in the Hebrew, there abound not a few verses, the beginning of which, according to certain exemplars which are in the Churches, read thus: "Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, prayed, and praised the Lord," up to that point: "Bless all you that worship the Lord God of gods: praise and confess Him, C for His mercy is for the age, and for the age of ages. And it came to pass when the king heard them praising, he saw them alive." And according to other exemplars: "And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God, and blessing the Lord," up to that point: "Bless all you that worship D the Lord God of gods. Praise and confess Him, for His mercy is for all the ages." But among the Hebrews, this was connected: "And those three men, Sedrach, Misach, Abdenego, fell into the midst of the fire bound; and this also: the king Nabuchodonosor marveled, and rose up in haste, and answered and said to his nobles." For thus Aquila, serving the Hebrew reading, published it; whom the Jews believe to have interpreted the Scripture most studiously: whom those who are ignorant of the Hebrew dialect are most accustomed to use, inasmuch as he is thought to have grasped the sense of all things more than any other. But our exemplars, whose words I have also set forth, had one text according to the Septuagint Interpreters, and another according to Theodotion: and just as in both there was found established that which concerns Susanna, which you call a forgery, so also these, consisting of two hundred verses and more, as can be said by conjecture.
In the twelve prophets, Origen did not only adorn the work of six columns, but also added three other editions, the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh, as is clear from their fragments placed here and there. From all these editions, we set forth almost everything new.
CHAPTER TENTH.
De notis ad Hexapla vel Tetrapla spectantibus.I. De notis cognitis. II. De notis incognitis. III. Probatur, contra Brianum Waltonum, notam ir significare tres interpretes, Aquilam, Symmachum et Theodotionem.
I. De notis cognitis. In very ancient manuscript codices which prefer the readings of the Hexapla, certain notes occur, devised, as it seems, by those who transcribed those readings and interpretations of the ancients in the margins of the Bibles; and this for the sake of brevity, so that they would not be compelled to repeat the same complete words too often. Furthermore, we nowhere find the interpretation of these notes described, but by long handling and exercise we have attained the explanation of almost all of them.
A *Hexapla*. This word is always written thus without abbreviation; sometimes, however, *Hexapl.* is used through all cases, which are for the most part indicated by the preceding article, *ta Hexapl.* (τὰ Ἑξαπλ.).
*Tetrapla*. By this note, very often repeated, all cases are signified. See not a few examples in the book of Job. Sometimes also I think the single letter Δ signifies *Tetrapla*, but the matter is not so fully explored. See what we have said on this subject in the notes to Ezekiel xvi, v. 4 and 30.
*Aquila*. *Symmachus*. * Quinta editio. * Sexta editio. * Septima editio.
*Reliqui interpretes* (the remaining interpreters). Where it is to be noted that this mark is sometimes added when all the other interpreters agree in their version, and differ from the LXX: likewise after the reading of Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion has been brought forward; if the remaining interpreters translate in a similar way to the LXX, then the mark Δ is added; nor is it rare, even when one differs entirely from the others, but the rest exhibit a small discrepancy of words, for then that slight variety of readings is neglected, and the reading of one is brought forward, preceded by the mark Δ or *lo*, which we have experienced more than once: sometimes also when only two agree; or even when a slight difference intervenes between them, one reading is set down for the two, with the mark *hoi loipoi* (οἱ λοιπο). Sometimes also *hoi loipoi* is said when only one interpreter has the brought-forward version, as we have often proved by examples in the course of this work.
*Tres interpretes*, namely Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Most rarely even, where either Aquila or one of the three has an interpretation different from the LXX, and the LXX agree with the other two, then *hoi Tr* can signify the LXX and the two others having the same reading; which last point, however, is not yet established. Brian Walton thinks the mark *hoi Tr* indicates the other three interpreters, not Aquila, Symm., and Theod., but he is not led by any probable reason, as will be proved below.
*Quatuor interpretes*. This note occurs several times in Isaiah, as chapter x, v. 14, where for these Hebrew words, אָתָּה רֹאשׁ, there is read in Curterius, *hoi D*, *autos kephalē* (αὐτὸς κεφαλή), where in the Roman edition of the LXX, *hautē hē archē* (αὕτη ἡ ἀρχή). Here, however, I do not doubt that *hoi D* signifies the four Greek interpreters who were in the Hexapla, namely A., S., Th., Q. The other reading, *hautē hē archē*, was of the *Koine*, or Vulgate edition. For, B as was said in chapter 3, the Hexaplar edition of the LXX was far different from that *Koine*, so that even in manuscripts of the LXX referring to the edition, in the margin the LXX, as if having an altogether different interpretation against the variety of reading, are often added, sometimes alone, but more frequently with other interpreters thus: LXX, or S., LXX, Th., or A., S., LXX, Th., where the letter LXX signifies the Hexaplar edition of the LXX. But that *hoi D* does not signify *Tetrapla*, as Brian Walton suspects in his Appendix, p. 193, the article itself proves. For it is never said *hoi tetraploi*, *hoi hexaploi*, but *ta Tetrapla*, *ta Hexapla*. Therefore, just as *hoi Tr*, *hoi Treis*, that is, Three interpreters, so the mark *hoi D*, *hoi Tessares*, signifies Four interpreters, and indeed, as seems certain, in the way we mentioned above.
C *P*. This letter signifies *pantes*, that is, all the interpreters: concerning which matter there can now be no difficulty; since where the Basilian codex has it, the Coislinianus everywhere cites *pantes* explicitly. Joannes Curterius in his Preface to Procopius thinks it should be read *Pamphilos*, Pamphilus, namely that martyr who occupied himself with Eusebius in correcting and illustrating the Hexapla. And indeed I would not dare to deny that this letter is sometimes intended to indicate Pamphilus, as *Or.* signifies Origen; but no clear example of this matter has yet occurred to me, wherefore the matter remains in doubt.
*diōr ou* or *diōr*, but more often *pan* is read for *margo cod. Basil.*, and sometimes thus *diōr. ou. p. xw*, which are sometimes placed conjunctively, not infrequently they are also separated. Furthermore, we have given their interpretation by conjecture in the note to Jud. 1, 14, so that *diōr* signifies *diōrthōsa* (διώρθωσα), I have amended, in which manner it is read in the margin of the codex of the Jesuit Fathers on Ezekiel ch. xlv, v. 12, so that no difficulty seems to remain regarding this mark, that *ou* signifies *houtōs* (οὕτως), thus. Where the notes *diōr.* are sometimes placed without the appended *ou*, it seems clear to me that *diōr. ou.* signifies *diōrthōsa houtōs* (διώρθωσα οὕτως), I have amended thus; and chapter xi, v. 34, *diōr*, *agapētē* (ἀγαπητή), I have amended, *agapētē*, beloved, because previously *monogenēs* (μονογενής), only-begotten, was read. But the note *P* signifies undoubtedly *pantes*, all interpreters, as is liquid from the above-mentioned: *xw*, that is, D as I absolutely think, *chōris* (χωρίς), separately. So that these notes *diōr ou, P. xw*, whether placed conjunctively or separately, signify *emendavi sic, omnes separatim*, that is, all interpreters viewed separately have it so. I said in the note on Judges ch. 1, v. 14, that the editions placed separately or apart did not signify those which were set in the Hexapla, where perhaps some changes had been introduced, but those which were written in separate books; but the matter having been examined more diligently, I think it more likely that those very ones which were written in the Hexapla are indicated here. For I would hardly believe that the copyists and scholiasts who introduced those marginal notes, besides the Hexapla, also had at hand separate and distinct editions of Aquila,
Symmachus, and Theodotion. They seem to have added the term [χώ], "separately," in order to distinguish those editions of the interpreters from the readings of theirs which had been inserted into the [τῶν Ο'] hexaplar edition with asterisks—which readings were no longer viewed separately, but conjunctively with that edition of the LXX Interpreters: this, however, I now hold as something certain and verified.
To return to the aforementioned notes: at Judges 1, v. 21, where in the text we read [ἐκληρονόμησαν], in the margin of the Basle codex we read [ἐξήραν], and [πάν] is added immediately, that is, "all read thus," [ἐξήραν], namely; and thus [πάν] is often placed alone. And at v. 27, where in the Basle text it reads [ἔσχε], in the margin is found [ἐκληρονόμησε], with the note [πάντ. χω. πάντες χωρίς] appended, by which it is signified that all the interpreters, when viewed separately in their own columns, have [ἐκληρονόμησε]; and the same note [πάντ. χω.] is placed repeatedly in this way. And at chap. 11, v. 9, in the text of the same codex we read [ἐν Θαμναθαρές], where at the margin we find [πάντ. ου. ἐν Θαμναθαρές], which certainly can mean nothing other than that all read thus: [ἐν Θαμναθαρές]. Much harder to explain are other notes in the same chapter, v. 13, where at the phrase [τῷ Baάλ], we read this form: [θ'. τῷ ὁ. τῇ.]
Where the former note without doubt signifies that Theodotion reads [τῷ Baάλ], while the LXX reads [τῇ Baάλ]. But I do not quite understand what the following note, which is explained thus, [θ. χωρὶς. θ'. οὕτως], signifies. This note is, however, repeated in many places: perhaps it signifies the Septuagint separately, and Theodotion similarly. Another note occurs very frequently, namely [Ο. θ. χω], that is, the LXX and Theodotion have it thus separately. And at chap. 14, v. 5, where we read [τῆς Baθλ], in the margin is written: [τῆς ὁ θ ου]. I read the first note thus: [Ο. θ. οὕτως], that is, both editions of the [τῶν Ο'], namely the [Κοινή] and the hexaplar, read [τῆς] thus. The other note, however, [Ο. θ. χωρίς], signifies, if I am not mistaken, the LXX separately, that is, the [Κοινή], and Theodotion in his own column, likewise separately, have it thus. Sometimes these notes are arranged in such a way that they are entirely in need of an Oedipus; as at chap. 14, v. 12, where in the Basle text we read [εἰς], but in the margin we read [ἐπί], and afterwards the notes are added in this position: [θ'. χωρ. Ο. ου σον].
But to conclude, I will say this in a word: the note [δῶ] without doubt seems to signify [διώρθωσα], "I have corrected, I have amended," as is proven by example; [ου οὕτως], that it means this, is hardly to be doubted from the above; [πάν], that is, most certainly [πάντες], as is argued by frequent examples; [χω] does not seem to be able to signify anything other than [χωρίς]. But to explain the usage of all these notes, until something clearer emerges, does not seem to be within human capability.
[τὸ ἔσω]. The usage of this note is conspicuous in the Coislinian codex of excellent character, of the 10th century, where when Aquila or Symmachus or Theodotion agree with the LXX and have the same reading as is read in the text of the [τῶν Ο'], there is written in the margin [Α. τὸ ἔσω, Σ. τὸ ἔσω], that is, "Aquila or Symmachus have the very same thing that is read inside, or in the text." But there is a peculiar way it is noted in 1 Kings 25, 31, where in the text of the [τῶν Ο'], the Coislinian has [βδελυγμός] marked with dots; but in the margin [Α. Θ. τὸ ἔσω], that is, "Aquila and Theodotion have those things which are inside, or are in the text, not marked with dots," namely [βδελυγμός]. And indeed other manuscripts have [Α. Θ. λυγμός], "a hiccup."
[Φ]. [Hesaie] 6, 6, and elsewhere, signifies Origen, as we said in [Palæographia Græcæ] p. 225. Joannes Curterius expressed that sign by the letter [Φ], because he did not understand the note in the Marchalian codex, now of the RR. PP. Jesuits. For there it is depicted as noted just as we have expressed it here.
[ἀνεπίγραφος]. We decided that this note should be added because Nobilius, and Drusius after him, thought that [ἀνεπιον] was intended here, and that it was the name of some interpreter or scholiast, whom they call Anesperus. But it signifies "Anonymous," or literally "Anepigraphus," that is, "without an author's inscription." See Num. chap. 29, v. 16. But so that you may know what a forest of errors this note, thus placed, has produced, I will transcribe a few things from a certain annotation of ours in the Coislinian codex, number 5. In that same codex, which is a [Catena] on Leviticus, Numbers, etc., the unskilled copyist who wrote the codex, seeing that note in his exemplar, very often read [Ἀνεσίου], sometimes [Ἀνέμπου], also [Ἀναπέμπη], elsewhere [Ἀνοσίου], once [Ἀθανασίου], sometimes even correctly [ἀνεπιγράφου], and once also [Συνεσίου]. Furthermore, this note of ours is asserted by the collation of another [Catena] of the same library, where for each of the above-mentioned names we read [ἀνεπιγράφου].
[ΔΥΝ] [διάλειψις], [ΔΥΝ] [ἀνάπαυσις]. Thus it reads in the margin of the Coislinian codex, Levit. 25, 6, which refer to the word [שבת], expressed in the LXX as [Σάββατα], Sabbaths. It can hardly be detected whether one should read [ΔΥΗ] or [ΔΥΝ], but I have no doubt that [ΔΥΝ] should be read, and [δύναται] is intended. So that this note, which refers to the word [שבת], is read thus: [δύναται, διάλειψις, δύναται, ἀνάπαυσις], that is, the word [Σάββατον] signifies [εἶναι], it signifies cessation, and it signifies rest.
II. Concerning unknown notes.
[ᾱ Ῑ ᾱ]. This note is found in Job 17, v. 3, in the Colbertine codex, no. 1952, where for these four verses:
[Τίς ἐστιν οὗτος τῇ χειρί μου συνδεθήτω,] [Ὅτι καρδίαν αὐτῶν ἔκρυψαν ἀπὸ φρονήσεως.] [Διὰ τοῦτο οὐ μὴ ὑψώσῃς αὐτούς.] [Τῇ μερίδι ἀναγγέλλει κακίας]
these annotations are made: [ἐκ θ. οἱ δ'], that is, "these four verses are from Theodotion"; then is added [ᾱ Ῑ ᾱ ☀ c. ☀☀]. But these seem to signify absolutely [μόνος πρὸς πρῶτον], "only to the first," that is, the first verse is taken from Theodotion alone; then the second, third, and
fourth of Symmachus are equally of Theodotion: A a use of such notes of this kind is repeated elsewhere, too. Moreover, these would seem to have hardly any difficulty if it were certain that the use of these notes was always the same; but that is not the case; for in Job xx, 23, in these words, *εἴπως πληρῶσαι γαστέρα*, it is noted in the same codex *θ. μὴ τοῦ εἴπως*, by which it seems to be signified that only Theodotion has *εἴπως*, and that it was thence introduced into the LXX; but that others read *ὅπως*; but what the note signifies, it is not so easy to divine. Another note in Job cap. xxi, v. 21, caused more trouble in these two verses:
*Ὅτι τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ἐν οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ μετ' αὐτοῦ* *Καὶ ἀριθμοὶ μηνῶν αὐτοῦ διηρέθησαν.*
Where it is read in the same codex *λ.ξ. θ'. οἱ ς' οὕτω* the codex of God *μετὰ* from the Hebrew. *Τί γὰρ χρήζει τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ μεθ' ἑαυτοῦ.* Which things we have attempted to explain there as if by divining; but these may suffice for a specimen.
*Οἱ γ'. χῶς.* This note is had in the codex of the RR. PP. Jesuits of the College of Louis the Great, which codex comprises the minor and afterwards the major prophets. Therefore, on this word, *שָׁלוֹם*, Thren. i, 8, which the LXX translate as *εἰς σάλον*, it is thus noted B. *οἱ γ'. χῶς ἀνάστατον.* If that reading *χῶς*, *εἰς ἀμηχανίαν ἄγομαι* stands; but I think *χῶς* is read here for *πως*, and that by this word is signified *χωρίς*, and thus the sense will be that Symmachus, who alone in Lamentations had been placed with the LXX in the Hexapla by Origen, as we said above, has *ἀνάστατον*, and three interpreters separately, and outside the Hexapla, namely Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion, prefer the same reading.
*ὁμῶς εθ.* This or a similar note to itself signifies *ὁμοίως τοῖς ο'*, which, when Joan. Curterius did not understand, he reads *ὁμῶς τε θ'* almost always.
III. It is proved against Brian Walton that the note *οἱ γ'* signifies the three interpreters Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.
Brian Walton in the Appendix to the Anglican Polyglot, p. 123, tries to prove by examples that *οἱ γ'*, which occurs most frequently in the Marchalian codex, now of the RR. PP. Jesuits, does not signify Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; let us not be burdened to report his words:
"The *οἱ γ'*, which occur so often in the margin of the Marchalian codex, do not seem to have been Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, as has seemed to some: and this C first because in Isaiah x, 29, at the word *'Αγγαί*, these all are brought forward separately and distinctly, nay even interpreting diversely. But *θ.* is said to have significantly translated in that place *κατάδυμα*, which *κατάλυμα* is rather to be read, to which is presently appended *ὁμῶς οἱ γ'*. But if the aforementioned interpreters were the same who are *οἱ γ'*, certainly what is appended *ὁμῶς οἱ γ'* could be added no less sagaciously and ineptly than if one were to say that Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos loom over the thread of human life, and furthermore that the three Fates do this same thing; there were therefore others and others, no less than those *οἱ γ'* than they were different from each other. Then cap. xxii, v. 9, and the same use of such notes is repeated elsewhere too. Thus far Brian Walton. But since we have proved by very clear and very many examples that *οἱ γ'* signifies nothing other than Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the learned reader will undoubtedly say that another solution of his difficulties should have been sought by Walton, and that the learned man strove in vain, that the note *οἱ γ'* signifies other interpreters or authors than those mentioned."
But that note *οἱ γ'* occurs not only in the Marchalian codex, but also in other most ancient codices, D especially for the books of Judges, Kings, the Psalms and all the Prophets. From these books, furthermore, we shall borrow examples, which, I think, leave no doubt.
Jud. cap. i, 31, where the Hebrew has *צְחִים*, the Roman edition *Δωμανά*, the Coislinianus, a most ancient codex of about the seventh century, in the margin has *οἱ γ' καὶ τὸ Ἑβραϊκόν, Νααλάλ*. And in the following verse Hebr. *אחלב*, LXX *Δαλάθ*. Coislin. in the margin, *οἱ γ' καὶ τὸ Ἑβραϊκόν, Ἀαλάθ*. Who are these *οἱ γ'* if not Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion? How could these three have read these Hebrew words, unless as they are read above after the note *οἱ γ'*? But why did that scholiast of the Coislin. codex omit those three famous interpreters, whom he often brings forward separately, so as to introduce three other editions, which are never mentioned either separately or together? But what presses more in the same cap., v. 35. At these Hebrew words *בְּהַר חֶרֶס* the Coislinianus notes, *οἱ γ' καὶ τὸ Ἑβραϊκόν, ἐν Αἰλὼν καὶ ἐν Σαλαβείν*; but the very old Basiliensis codex, *οἱ λοιποί, ἐν Αἰλὼν καὶ ἐν Σαλαβείν*. No one can doubt that *οἱ γ'* and *οἱ λοιποί* are the same thing: but *οἱ λοιποί*, or the remaining interpreters, as is clear, are always the same who had a place in the Hexapla. And Jud. cap. xii, v. 1, at the word *שִׁבֹּלֶת*, *οἱ γ' βοφφάν*. But according to Jerome, A. Σ. here have *βοφφάν*, and also Theodotion in the text of the *ο'*, which had been corrected towards Theodotion. Where note Eusebius and Jerome, Aquila and Symmachus only, but Theodotion very rarely mentioning in the book *On Hebrew Places*. But here is an example so clear, that one cannot even mutter against it, cap. xv Jud., v. 9. Hebr. *לְחִי*, LXX *ἐν Λεχί*, but Coislin. in the margin, *οἱ γ' ἐν σιαγόσι*, Basiliensis, *οἱ λοιποί, ἐν σιαγόσι*, Eusebius, A. Σ. *ἐν σιαγόσι*, Jerome, Aquila and Theodotion interpret "jaw"; it is clearer than light itself that here *οἱ λοιποί*, and A., Σ., Θ. are the same thing.
A Another passage of equal clarity is III Kings XVII, 6, where the Royal Codex has: A., Σ., Θ., "bread and meat in the morning," and another codex, the Coislinianus, offers the same reading, with the note *οἱ λʹ* [the Seventy, or "the others"] prefixed. What then are *οἱ λʹ* if not A., Σ., Θ.? And in IV Kings XXII, 20, *οἱ λʹ* [read *οἱ γʹ*], "in peace," what else could A., Σ., Θ. have translated than "in peace"? I note, however, that another reading of Symmachus is cited there, namely, "in Jerusalem," but that causes no trouble, for frequently two readings of Symmachus are brought forward, as we said above, taken, indeed, from his two editions.
Psalm XLIX, 1, Eusebius and the manuscripts have: A., Σ., Θ., "God the Lord," Theodoret has [it so], *οἱ γʹ*, "God the Lord," now therefore for many centuries past the usage has obtained that A., Σ., Θ. should be called *οἱ λʹ* or "the three." B Moreover, most evidently in Psalm XCIII, where the LXX have the title: "A Psalm for David," one codex has, "Uninscribed according to the *γʹ* and the *εʹ* and the *ςʹ*." That is, the psalm lacks an inscription according to the three interpreters, and according to the Fifth and the Sixth. Will anyone deny that *οἱ γʹ* here signifies Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion? And this very same note is found at the beginning of Psalm XCV.
Isaiah ch. I, 4, the Marchalian Codex has: *οἱ γʹ*, "of the wicked," although Curterius may not have transcribed the note of *οἱ γʹ*. But there Jerome [says]: "The others, following the Hebrew, translated *MEREIN* [i.e., *mērē'îm*], 'of the wicked'." Who are those "others," if not A., Σ., Θ., who are also *οἱ γʹ*? And Isaiah VI, 6, cod. Marchal., *οἱ γʹ*, "in his hand"; Jerome, however, [says] Aquila, Sym. and Theodotio, "in his hand"; what is clearer? But that nothing might leave room for doubt, Curterius himself [citing] from the mss. of Isaiah VIII, 21, [says]: "Wherefore also the three, Aquila, and Symm., and Theodotion thus translated," — that is, wherefore the three interpreters Aq., Sym., and Theod. translated thus. Had Walton noticed these, he would never have denied that *οἱ γʹ* or "the three" are A., Σ., Θ. C Equally clear is that passage of Isaiah XI, 15, where Eusebius says: "The three harmoniously translated thus, 'And the Lord shall curse the tongue of the sea of Egypt'." There, however, Jerome [says]: "He shall desolate, therefore, or he shall strike, that is, *ἀναθεματίσει*," which Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus translated, "the tongue of the sea of Egypt." And Isaiah LIV, 16, *בְּאֶשׁ* [in fire], cod. Marchal. *οἱ γʹ*, "in fire"; who are those three if not A., Σ., Θ.? For how could A., Σ., Θ. have translated *בְּאֶשׁ* except "in fire"? The same you may say of ch. LV, 1, where for *יין* [wine] *οἱ γʹ* [have] "wine." And ibid. v. 5, *הִנֵּה* [behold], *οἱ γʹ* "behold." And ch. LVIII, 10, *נַפְשֶׁךָ* [thy soul], *οἱ γʹ*, "your soul"; and LVIII, 4, *תָּרִיבוּ* [you shall strive], *οἱ γʹ*. Who else could be understood in these examples by *οἱ γʹ* than Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion?
However, you would say the same of Ezekiel IV, 13, *לַחְמָם טָמֵא* [their defiled bread], where the Marchalian codex [has]: ☀ *οἱ γʹ*, "their defiled bread"; where it is to be noted that here and in the cited examples the note of *οἱ γʹ* often has an asterisk prefixed, because the readings of the three interpreters with the asterisk [were introduced] into the Hexaplar edition of the *Οʹ* [Seventy] by Origen himself, D which had been carried away, which is most certain, but to what others than Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion could it correspond? And how can it square with the editions of Eusebius, Lucian, and Hesychius, which appeared first many years after Origen? The note *οἱ γʹ*, with the asterisk prefixed, is had also in Ezekiel XI, 15, where it can pertain to none but A., Σ., Θ., as is clear both from the asterisk and from the manner of translating. And Ezekiel XX, 44, *נְאֻם יְהֹוָה* [the utterance of the Lord], cod. Marchal., ☀ *οἱ γʹ*, "says the Lord," and XXIV, 4, *יָה* [O Lord], *οἱ γʹ* "of the Lord," and many similar things we could add. But these will be more than enough.
These things being perceived, let no one say that Brian Walton, however much he might think himself led into *ἀμηχανία* [helplessness] by the foregoing difficulties, acted not wisely enough, when, to extricate himself from them, he affirmed that *οἱ γʹ* did not signify Aquila, Sym., and Theodotion: for it would have been better to say anything else than to deny a most certain fact.
Now let us come to the arguments of Brian Walton. In Isaiah X, 29, regarding the word *אֲגַו*, he says, they are brought forward separately and distinctly (Aquila, Symm., and Theodotion), and indeed interpreting in diverse ways. But *Θʹ* is said to have significantly translated that place as *κατάδυμα* (which is rather to be read *κατάλυμα*), to which is soon appended *ὅμως οἱ γʹ*. But truly, if the mentioned interpreters were the same as *οἱ γʹ*, certainly what is subjoined, *ὅμως οἱ γʹ*, would be added no less trivially and ineptly than if someone were to say that Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos loom over the thread of human life, and furthermore that the three Fates also do this very thing; there were therefore different ones and different others, no less distinct from *οἱ γʹ* than they were from each other.
In order that you may more easily understand the proposed difficulty, you ought to observe that here in the text of the Marchalian codex edited by Curterius it is read, "And he shall come to Ai. Fear shall take Ramah the city of Saul; the daughter shall flee, etc." But in the margin, at the word *Ai*, these notes are read consecutively: Α. ΔΥΛΙΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ Σ. ΑΥΛΙΣΜΟΣ Θ. ΚΑΤΑΛΥΜΑ ΟΜΩΣ Οἱ γʹ. ☀ ΧΡΕΜΕΤΙΣΟΝ ΦΩΝΗΝ ΣΟΥ If here *ὅμως οἱ γʹ* (read *ὁμοίως οἱ γʹ*) is necessarily conjoined with the previously posited interpretations of A., Σ., Θ., in such a way that after the given reading of each, which concerns the Hebrew word *אֲגַו*, there is added to it *ὁμοίως οἱ γʹ*, Walton clings correctly when it is said that the three translated similarly, after the diverse readings of the three have been brought forward. But the solution of the difficulty will be easy if we say that *ὁμοίως οἱ γʹ* refers to one of the following words or clauses, and that this note is badly joined with the preceding, which happens six hundred times. And so I think *ὁμοίως οἱ γʹ* is to be conjoined with the following marginal reading ☀ *χρεμέτισον φωνήν σου*... [a fragment of text]: for thus A., Σ., Θ. are accustomed to translate these words. And so the sense will be: similarly the three interpreters, namely A., Σ., Θ., *χρεμέτισον φωνήν*...
These things are entirely plausible. If, however, you wish to resolve the matter in another way, take care never to say that *oi Γ'* does not signify A., Σ., Θ., for this is not permitted after so many testimonies have been brought forward. Furthermore, we have often shown that *ὅμως* was wrongly read by Curterius instead of *ὁμοίως*. Here clearly *κατάδυμα* is wrongly read instead of *κατάλυμα*, as Walton remarks.
Another of Walton’s arguments is of this kind: then in chap. XLII, v. 9, at the word *ἀνατεῖλαι* with *+*, the margin stands thus: *Oi Γ'., ἀναγγεῖλαι, Θ. βλαστῆσαι, Α. ἀναφθῆναι*; does not this such great and distinct variety of interpretations argue for a variety of authors? Had Walton examined these things more accurately, he would have detected two manifest errors, either of the copyist or of Curterius. The first is that *oi Γ'* is read instead of *οἱ Ο'*, C., that is the LXX and Symmachus, which is an easy change. And the same Curterian edition teaches this, where at these words one reads in the Commentary of Procopius, *ὁ Σύμμαχος εἶπεν, πρὸ τοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαι*, etc. The second error is that in both places *ἀναγγεῖλαι* is read instead of *ἀνατεῖλαι*, for Symmachus would never have rendered the word *צמח* as *ἀναγγεῖλαι*. Therefore, you should read the note thus: *Ο'., Σ., ἀνατεῖλαι, Θ. βλαστῆσαι, Α. ἀναφθῆναι*. For the LXX as well as Symmachus originally had *ἀνατεῖλαι*. B
Walton brings forward a third argument: Finally, he says, in chap. LXVI, v. 8, at the words *εἰ καί* under *+* the margin has it thus: *Ὅμως οἱ Γ', +, ὅμως τε Α., Θ.*, from which it is clear that Aquila at least and Theodotion are no less different from the *τοῖς Γ'* than the *οἱ Ο'* are. (Perhaps by *οἱ Γ'* three editions are denoted, those of Origen or Eusebius, Lucian, and Hesychius.) So far Walton. As far as the note goes, however, I say it should be read thus: *Ὁμοίως οἱ Γ', οἱ Ο', ἢ ὁμοίως τοῖς Δ'., Θ.*, as is proved here and there in the notes on Isaiah: for in the Marchalian codex, where *ὅμως* is read, after the M. a small line is written above which signifies *οἱ*; wherefore one should read *ὁμοίως*, whereas Curterius reads *τε*, *Τ* is only held, with a curved line placed above, which makes the article *τοῖς*, as I have inspected with my own eyes. Having posited this reading, I say the first note *Ὁμοίως οἱ Γ'* either pertains to some word previously placed, or signifies that the three interpreters have *καὶ*, yet so that *οἱ Ο'* are *ὁμοίως τοῖς Δ'., Θ.*, that is, the LXX and Aquila and Theodotion have *+* instead of *εἰ*. But be that as it may, you would suspect a copyist's error in these cases rather than deny a thing clearer than light, namely that *τοὺς Γ'* are Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. C
Certainly, we find that copyists do not infrequently err in such notes, as in the Coislin, that excellent codex, III Reg. xv, 12: *Ο'., Γ'., τὰς τελετάς, ὁμοίως οἱ Γ'*, where that repetition of *τοὺς Γ'* was introduced by a fault; and the Vatican [codex] Psalm XVII, 2, at these words *οἱ ὀφθαλμοί σου* notes it thus: *Α., Σ., Ο'., ὁμοίως οἱ Γ'*, although here it could be correctly explained that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, all three alike hold it, which can be expressed in French thus: *Aquila, Symmaque et Theodotion ont tous trois de même*. We judged it necessary to pursue these things at more length, lest some be led away from the true opinion by the effort of very learned men who have deserved well of the literary republic. D
Chapter XI
I. Why so few copies of the Hexapla were made. II. Various readings of the Hexapla collected in the margins of Bibles. III. Which of the ecclesiastical writers used the books of the Hexapla. IV. When the Hexapla perished.
1. How great was the labor to transcribe the complete Hexapla of Origen, the thing itself cries out by itself, and Jerome testifies, who says in the Preface to the book of Joshua, that the Hexapla required the greatest expense and labor. Indeed, one can easily infer what labor it was for Greek calligraphers: first to depict the Holy Bible in the Hebrew language, which they for the most part were ignorant of; then to write out the Hebrew in Greek letters side-by-side; then later to place four at a minimum, and sometimes six or seven editions of the interpreters, in one view and side-by-side, with such accuracy that one would not exceed the other. Few calligraphers could truly perform this. To this, since in that age, in books of this sort, only the uncial character was used, which occupied much more space, and besides those columns of the Hebrew text and the interpreters, Origen added many things in the margins, namely warnings, interpretations of proper names and others, which required wide margins; it was necessary that a very small part of the biblical text be held on individual pages: all things considered, I would have supposed that the entire Hexapla could have been contained in hardly fifty volumes of large size. And since Origen himself, who first conceived the work of the Hexapla, with Ambrosius, as it is thought, providing the expense, although he always had seven tachygraphers and as many calligraphers at hand, he nevertheless spent many years in adorning them; it is indeed probable that there were very few after Origen who had the means for such things, together with the desire of obtaining them, and the money and calligraphers and parchments according to their wish.
II. Various readings of the Hexapla collected in the margins of Bibles.
Hence it happens that most, deterred from undertaking so arduous a matter, in order that they might obtain at less expense the things which were principal in the Hexapla, collected the readings of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and others, which seemed to be of greater moment, in the margins.
A And since, in the selection, discrepancies of opinion are wont to arise, as one man thinks one thing should be noted and another another, it happens that the readings of the interpreters are variously transcribed in the different Bibles; just as there are also few manuscripts found that represent the same ones: from this, in fact, it came to pass that a much larger number of ancient readings presented themselves in various books. Among these codices, however, two Coislin manuscripts surpass all others: one of which, written in a square uncial character about the sixth or seventh century, contains the Octateuch and the books of Kings, with certain gaps here and there which occurred through the injury of time; the other, of the tenth century, contains the books of Kings, Paralipomenon, Ezra, Esther, Judith, and Maccabees, with a great abundance of marginal interpretations on the books of Kings: but this B one, like all the other manuscripts, has few things in the books of Paralipomenon; in the rest it has nothing. To these is added the Regius of about the thirteenth century, which offers many readings of the ancients in the books of Kings. Also of great use was the codex of the Reverend Fathers of Saint Basil in Rome, of the tenth century, which we call the Basilian, burdened with this marginal apparatus, which contains the Heptateuch, but is truncated in almost all of Genesis. Nor should the other Regius, no. 1871, of the tenth century, be passed over, from the margins of which we have culled much. Among the most outstanding is to be reckoned the codex of the Prophets of the library of the Reverend Fathers, the Jesuits of the College of Louis the Great, whence we have borrowed much for Jeremiah C and Ezekiel: for Isaiah had already been published by Jean Curterius, and in the other prophets there is almost nothing of marginal interpretations. Besides the readings of the ancient interpreters, asterisks and obeli are noted here and there, sometimes in the text, more often in the margins. We could have excerpted more from this codex, had we not been compelled to give rapid work to it: for at the request of our patron, the Most Eminent Cardinal d'Estrées, access to it was granted to us for only four days. Also to be remembered is the Colbert codex on Job, recent indeed, but transcribed from an ancient one, as it is believed, whence we have borrowed many things pertaining to our design. Also not to be passed over is the Barberini codex on the Prophets, the various readings of which Brian Walton published in the Appendix of his Polyglots. Regarding other manuscripts of lesser value, D of which we have obtained a great quantity, we have acted at the beginning of each book. These are the remnants of the Hexaplar interpretations that remain to us in manuscripts. For the Hexapla itself, just as it had been arranged by Origen, has so thoroughly perished that not even a particle of it has been permitted for anyone to see anywhere.
III. Which of the ecclesiastical writers made use of the books of the Hexapla.
Besides the manuscript codices, from which a large part of the interpretations of the ancients comes forth, the Commentaries of ancient writers have offered us a wide harvest, which, for the sake of understanding the sense of the letter, generally made use of the readings of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and other interpreters. Furthermore, if we mention here in few words those who used the Hexapla, it will not be ungrateful to the reader.
Pamphilus the martyr is numbered first for this reason, because before any of the writers who survive used the Hexapla, he is reported to have amended the codices of the Hexapla with Eusebius, in a note of the codex of the Reverend Fathers, the Jesuits, transcribed according to the authority of the Hexapla, which were kept with Apollinarius the cenobite, as is said in that same note.
EUSEBIUS of Pamphilus, in addition to that work of amending the Hexapla which he undertook with Pamphilus, added scholia besides, as is reported in the same note. But to these he brought nearly countless readings of the ancient interpreters, in his Commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah, in the book *On Hebrew Place Names*, in the *Preparation for the Gospel* and the *Demonstration of the Gospel*, and in fragments of Commentaries on other parts of Scripture. Wherefore he was of great assistance to us in editing these.
ATHANASIUS, not using the Hexapla so frequently, nevertheless supplied two readings of Aquila; one in the book entitled *All things have been delivered to me by the Father*; the other in the Commentaries on the Psalms.
CHALCIDIUS, whether he was a Christian or a pagan is uncertain, at about the same time brought forward a location from the Hexapla, as you may see in the beginning of Genesis. Others think him to be far later in age; but to inquire into that is not the purpose of the present work.
ASTERIUS the Sophist, who adorned Commentaries on the Psalms at about the same time, whether he used the Hexapla or not is not yet so clearly seen.
DIDYMUS the Blind, the Alexandrian, brought Hexaplar readings into his Commentaries, but not so frequently.
THEODORUS of Heraclea, an Arian, used the Hexapla here and there, and dealt with them learnedly, as is seen in many places. Quite a few fragments of his Commentaries exist in various Catenae.
EUSEBIUS of Emesa, in the Commentaries whose fragments the Catenae exhibit, used the Hexapla, but rarely, as it seems.
HILARY is found to have used the Hexapla once in his Commentary on the Psalms.
EUSEBIUS of Vercelli translated the Commentaries of Eusebius on the Psalms into Latin, sprinkled with Hexaplar readings.
DIODORUS of Tarsus, being excellently versed in Sacred Scripture, seems to have had a full knowledge of the Hexapla, as is discovered from his fragments that survive in the Catenae.
EPIPHANIUS of Cyprus brought forward the readings of the ancient interpreters more than once, and having borrowed the history of the Hexapla partly from Origen, as it seems, described it at length.
BASIL of Caesarea handled the Hexaplar interpretations little.
GREGORY of Nyssa also, his brother, rarely used the Hexapla.
APOLLINARIUS of Laodicea brought forward the readings of the Hexapla very sparsely in his Commentaries.
AMBROSE of Milan used a small amount of the Hexaplar...
A readings, as is evident, and likewise Augustine and Philastrius.
RUFINUS, who translated a great part of Origen’s works into Latin, seems to have had a full knowledge of the Hexaplar volumes; yet he used them rarely, as is evident from the writings of his that survive.
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM brings forward the readings of the ancient interpreters very frequently, especially in his Commentaries on the Psalms, where he rarely expresses the interpreters by name, but uses the word ἄλλος.
JEROME used the Hexapla more than all the others, perhaps with the sole exception of Eusebius; he often discussed the order of the Hexapla, and said much about the individual interpreters, often bringing forward their interpretations in his Commentaries and other short works. He published a Latin edition of the Old Testament with asterisks and obeli added. Furthermore, he prepared a new Latin interpretation, which is our modern Vulgate, where he used Aquila, Symmachus, and, not once but often, the Sixth edition, when it was available. And in other books he frequently follows Symmachus, and likewise Aquila not infrequently; but in the Psalms, he adheres for the most part to Aquila, less frequently to Symmachus, and sometimes he even expresses the LXX in Latin. We have noted these things here and there in the course of this work.
HESYCHIUS of Salona, who by many is confused with the one from Jerusalem, published a Commentary on Leviticus, which I consider to have been written originally in Latin: for it does not at all smell of an interpretation made from Greek. There, however, he frequently uses the readings of the ancient interpreters Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. That he published his Commentaries not in Greek, but in Latin, is evidenced even by this, that in the Greek Catenae on Leviticus, which exist in many libraries, nothing of Hesychius appears anywhere in Greek.
THEODORE of Mopsuestia, whose fragments of Commentaries exist in Catenae, and whose full Commentaries on the Prophets are preserved in libraries, always follows the LXX, and seems to have made little use of the various interpretations of the Hexapla.
VICTOR of Antioch, in the fragments of his Commentaries which survive in the Catenae, is found to have rarely used the interpreters of the Hexapla.
POLYCHRONIUS, as is argued from his fragments on Canticles, D on Job, on Ezekiel, and on Daniel, which exist in the Catenae, was learned in Hebrew, had the Hexapla in his possession, and used them frequently in his expositions.
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA very rarely brought forward readings from the Hexapla.
THEODORET, in his Commentaries, very often brings forward the readings of the ancient interpreters as they were in the Hexapla, and uses them sagaciously, and contributed great help in the editing of this collection.
JOHN PHILOPONUS, in his Commentary on the Hexaemeron, preserved for us almost the entire first chapter of Genesis according to the interpretations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
PROCOPIUS OF GAZA published Commentaries on the Octateuch, on the books of Kings and Chronicles, and on Isaiah, and very often brought forward the interpretations of the ancients that were in the Hexapla, especially in his Commentary on Isaiah, which we regret has come down to us so mutilated.
ANASTASIUS II of Antioch, not infrequently in his work on the Hexaemeron, brought forward fragments of the ancient interpreters.
ANASTASIUS, metropolitan of Nicaea, in his Commentary on the Psalms in Greek, which is preserved in its entirety in the Coislinian library, rarely employs the readings of the ancient interpreters.
HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM published a Commentary on the Psalms, which today is preserved in Greek in a few libraries, and fragments of which have been published in Catenae; he brought forward the readings of the ancient interpreters infrequently.
OLYMPIODORUS, bishop of Tricca in Thessaly—as is said of a certain Coislinian codex of about the tenth or eleventh century—is distinguished by his Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, Job, and Jeremiah, where he used the Hexapla very frequently, especially in Job.
EUTHYMIUS ZYGABENUS published Commentaries on the Psalms, where he sometimes uses the readings of the Hexaplar editions, borrowed, clearly, from the margins of Bibles and from other commentaries; for I would hardly suppose the Hexapla had reached his time, for he lived in the eleventh century.
IV. When the Hexapla Perished.
It now remains for us to inquire at what time a work produced with such great labor perished entirely. We have certainty that this happened from the rarity of copies, as was said above: for in the beginning, they were satisfied if they described the readings of the ancient interpreters, which they considered better, in the margins of their Bibles. Yet in the lowest centuries, even this marginal annotation of readings ceased; whence it happens that those readings and interpretations are found more often in the most ancient codices, but otherwise in the more recent ones. Since, therefore, the earlier copies of the Hexapla had been consumed by age, the whole work went to ruin through the negligence of those transcribing it. But at what time this occurred is indicated by no testimony of the writers. Indeed, it seems certain that the original copy of Origen’s Tetrapla and Hexapla remained in that famous Caesarean library of the martyr Pamphilus; that library is noted by the Coislinian codex of the Epistles of St. Paul, than which no older one survives, as I indeed judge. For in a note placed at the foot, it is said that this very codex had been collated in Caesarea in the library of St. Pamphilus, against a copy described by the very hand of Pamphilus: Ἀντεβλήθη καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρία (sic) ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρί γεγραμμένου τοῦ αὐτοῦ. In the same library, a copy of Abbot Apollinarius the coenobiarch had been described, who seems to have lived in parts near Caesarea: for his copy, which to the pro-